Navdeep Bains

[Petitions, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following petition to the House. This petition calls for the amendment to the federal Criminal Code so that Canadian Sikhs can be exempt from an organization's liability on workplace safety. Many Canadian Sikhs who make a living as longshoremen have encountered difficulties and even, to some degree, lost jobs because of a requirement that they wear a hard hat on the job site.

I acknowledge that this is a very delicate matter of freedom of religion and at the same time balancing safety. In that spirit, I would like to present this petition signed by 61 affected Canadians.

[Vaisakhi, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to extend my heartfelt greetings to the Sikh community as we join together to celebrate Vaisakhi.

It was on this day in 1699 that Guru Gobind Singh formulized the Sikh faith by confirming the first people to be initiated with amrit and by establishing the Order of the Khalsa. The Khalsa continues to embody the principles and traditions that are laid down by the Sikh gurus through its commitment to the ideals of equality.

In the spirit of equality, I would like to also recognize the 20th anniversary of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this day of celebration, I would also like to mention that I have brought forth a motion in the House of Commons recognizing the importance of religious articles of faith, specifically the 5 Ks, to the Sikh community.

I hope the House will join me in sending best wishes to the Sikh community for good health and much prosperity in the new year.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member put her question in a non-partisan fashion. She shows genuine concern for the issue and I really appreciate that.

I was trying to illustrate the point that very clearly this is a non-partisan issue. The issue has nothing to do with the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc. It has to do with Canadians and those Canadians who lost their lives.

I wanted to demonstrate very clearly what the government has done in the past and what we are presently positioned to do. I have full faith that the government will examine everything. Even looking into an inquiry is still an option that we have and which we will pursue vigorously.

We must examine everything. We must also wait for the appeal process to be fully exhausted at the provincial level in B.C. Then we will make a decision, but we will make a decision that is in the best interests of Canadians.

The member asked whether I agreed with the notion that the government should do something. Absolutely, the government should do something. It is paramount that the government do something to provide closure for the families. I have full faith that the government will act accordingly.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate from the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for York West.

I rise today to address the motion before the House, which reads:

That, in light of the fact that the Air-India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history, and evidence that errors were committed by the investigative agencies involved, this House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air-India bombing of June 23, 1985.

I am speaking today to share some of my personal experiences, to convey the concerns of my constituents and of Canadians from coast to coast and to examine the role of government.

What is my position on this motion? If we carefully examine the motion it clearly indicates that the government has a role to play in providing Canadians and, more important, the families with answers regarding the investigation of the Air-India bombing.

I fully support that the government should examine all possible options. No stone should be left unturned. However, I believe the government needs to examine all the facts, not jump to any harsh conclusion and do what is in the best interests of the families.

Let me start by stating that my thoughts and prayers are with the families. I was eight years old when this tragic event took place and I recall not understanding why anyone would want to kill so many innocent people. After all these years I still have no answer. I recall sitting in the living room watching the evening news with my parents. The news reporters were still trying to determine what the caused the plane to explode. Shortly after, it was brought to my attention that it was a terrorist attack. I remember looking to my parents and asking them how and why this happen. For the first time that I could recall, my parents were speechless.

A few days after the event my mother sat me down and explained to me that there was absolutely nothing that justified that type of behaviour. Ever since that time I have been following the investigation.

I want to put this discussion in a certain context. I think the notion of public safety is paramount in this discussion. The motion highlights that it is a major priority and concern of many Canadians. I believe the safety of citizens in this country is very important, especially for such a flourishing democracy. However government must always strike the balance between public safety and civil liberties. That is the framework and that is what we should keep in mind today.

We should also acknowledge that the government has a role to play to prevent an event like this from ever again taking place.

Those are some of my personal thoughts. I also want to reflect some of the concerns and issues brought forth by Canadians. Over the past few weeks I have received many calls and emails and I have met with many Canadians from across the country regarding this issue.

This is not an Indo-Canadian issue by no stretch of the imagination. This is a Canadian issue. People are concerned about the process and about the role of the RCMP and CSIS. To that effect I think it is very important in the House today that we examine some of the facts.

Let us look at what the government has done. I do not claim to be an expert but I do want to bring forth some of the issues.

The verdict in the Air-India trial was handed down on Wednesday, March 16, 2005. The defendants, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were found not guilty. The B.C. attorney general was responsible for this prosecution and it has 30 days from the decision to appeal.

In 2003, Inderjit Singh Reyat was convicted in relation to this particular case.

In 1989, the federal government settled a civil suit related to this matter.

The security intelligence review committee, SIRC, conducted a review and process and released a summary report in 1991, an annual report that is available to the public.

Investigations were also conducted in Ireland and India. Justice Bhupinder Kirpal Nath was appointed by the government of India to head an inquiry into what happened.

In the last 20 years many things have changed. The government has invested billions of dollars to improve the security of Canadians, including airport security.

After the Air-India bombing, the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence issued a review of airline and airport security. This review resulted in a number of actions by Transport Canada. There was the establishment of a restricted area access clearance program for airport workers, rigorous background checks for airport workers, and the introduction of passenger and baggage reconciliation on international flights.

One must acknowledge that this has been one of the longest and most complex trials in Canadian history. The trial lasted over two years, cost tens of millions of dollars, and over 100 witnesses were heard.

Let us begin to examine some of the financial contributions made by the government.

In 2001 the federal government began to contribute to the cost of the Air-India trial. The assistance of the government in the cost of the Air-India trial was premised on various factors, including: the impact of the high cost of the Air-India trial itself, which would severely strain the legal system; the magnitude of the offence and the public interest and significant international interest in the trial; the complexity and the volume of the evidence presented in the trial; and the national security implications of the particular case.

While the trial involved a criminal prosecution within the provincial jurisdiction, the national and international dimensions of its scope, character and implications called for significant federal assistance. It was the right thing to do. Up until today the Department of Justice has contributed some $30 million for the Air-India trial.

Specifically, the federal contributions to British Columbia have included 100% of the cost of victim family services, 100% of transportation costs, 100% of court reporting costs, and 100% of judiciary support. The federal government also has underwritten 50% of the cost of legal aid, 50% of prosecution costs, 50% of management services, and 50% of communications and media event costs.

It is also the policy of the Government of Canada to work with all the provincial and territorial partners to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system. That is why the federal government has agreed to contribute in this specific case of the Air-India prosecution 100% of the victim family services cost, which by British Columbia estimates will amount to about $2.5 million.

I wanted to highlight the work that has been done, but we must do more. We must continue to pursue justice. It is vital.

There cannot be a Canadian who is not aware of the tragic event that took place on June 23, 1985 when Air-India flight 182 travelling from Montreal to London, England and carrying luggage loaded in Vancouver exploded in the air off the coast of Ireland and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. It was and remains the most serious terrorist incident in Canadian history. All aboard the aircraft perished, 329 persons, the majority of whom were Canadian citizens. It was a horrific tragedy.

I would like to join my voice with others in condemning those who perpetrated this act and extend my sympathy to the families of those who died on Air-India flight 182.

I want it to be clear that I support the principle that the government must continue to explore all avenues and get to the heart of this matter in the most appropriate fashion. I truly believe that the ultimate goal is to work with the families and help bring about closure. I have full faith that the government will act accordingly.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take part in the historic debate on Bill C-38, an issue that, to a certain degree, has polarized our nation.

Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, has evoked many emotions. I understand the sensitivity and complexity of the issue. Therefore, I will base my position in such a fashion that it will be respectful to all the parties involved.

However, let me be crystal clear that I support Bill C-38 based on the premise that it is a charter issue; an issue that protects freedom of religion and also extends civil liberties under the equality provision of the charter.

Let me begin by addressing the role of religion in this debate. We live in a secular society where the state and religious institutions are separated. What makes Canada unique and the envy of the world is that we recognize the importance and the significance of religion that is reflected in our charter and is codified in section 2(a). The Supreme Court has declared unanimously:

The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about my personal experiences with religion, specifically the Sikh faith.

As a proud Canadian born in Toronto and raised in Mississauga—Brampton South, I grew up in an environment where I never fit the status quo. At a young age I decided to keep my hair and recall the moral support provided by my school teachers. I remember playing soccer and feeling mortified because I was the only one with a turban. I thought my turban was going to fall off when I headed the soccer ball, but the coach always went out of her way to make me feel part of the team.

I remember the first time I wore my distar, also known as the turban, to high school and recall the compliments I received from my classmates. I also remember taking amrit in university, and being praised by my professors and the student body for making an outward commitment to practise my faith.

I share these experiences because it tells a story of a Canadian growing up in Canada during a time period when the charter was part of the Constitution. It is this charter that enabled me and so many others to follow our faith, and form an identity that today I can say with a great deal of pride is a strong part of the Canadian mosaic and fabric.

One would ask what the charter has to do with me practising my faith. Let me share one small example. I remember I was in high school and Mr. Dhillon was going through much undue hardship for wearing a turban and wanting to join the RCMP. I recall that Sikhs at that time came together and looked to the charter to protect their identity and, may I add, an identity that did not conform to traditional norms.

I also recall when the courts decided that Mr. Dhillon was allowed to wear his turban as an RCMP officer. At that moment, I was not only proud to be a Sikh but I was proud to be a Canadian, and live in a country where I was treated as an equal member of society, knowing full well that if my beliefs were ever challenged, I would have the charter to protect my rights.

Therefore, based on my experiences and historical decisions by the courts, I have full faith that the charter has demonstrated time and time again the importance of protecting religious freedoms.

The second component of the bill examines the enforcement of subsection 15(1), which indicates that everyone is equal before the law. The issue of equality under the law in Canada has been a constant struggle ever since Confederation. There are many examples of individuals and minority groups that have been regarded as citizens not fully worthy of equality under the law.

For example, women's groups had to fight relentlessly for the right to vote ever since they were excluded from voting at the time of Confederation. The first province to allow women to vote was Manitoba in 1916. It took two more years before women had the same right as men to vote in a federal election. Just imagine a society where women were not viewed as equal under the law. I cannot.

Aboriginal people were also excluded from the right to vote without condition until 1960. Technically they had the right to vote but only if they gave up their treaty rights and Indian status through a process that was defined as the Indian Act.

Today some have suggested the government extend gay and lesbian rights to civil unions. This would give some same sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal but not as equal as the rest of us Canadians.

The courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated:

Marriage is the only road to true equality for same sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same sex relationships fall short of true equality.

We have three options here today: we could conduct a national referendum, we could use the notwithstanding clause, or we can uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberal Party, including myself, has been clear that we will not let the majority decide the right of minorities. We will not take away their rights, but we will extend civil liberties.

The issue today is not of civil marriage. The debate here today is not whether to change the definition of marriage. It is being changed in seven provinces and one territory. The issue is something much greater than that, the charter. I am a byproduct of the charter and live in a country where everyone is treated the same and where individual freedom is the cornerstone of our society.

I am reminded of a former Prime Minister who stated:

The Liberal philosophy places a highest value on the freedom of the individual, and the first consequence of freedom is change. A Liberal can seldom be part of the status quo.

It was the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau who made this statement over 30 years ago. I understand today, in the 21st century, we are confronted with a major consequence of freedom, change. As the former Prime Minister indicated, a Liberal can seldom be part of the status quo. Therefore, I stand here today to fight for freedom and respect change.

In closing, based on the fact that the issue today is to defend the charter, make no mistake about it. I will do everything in my capacity as an elected official to uphold the principles and the values laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Canadian Forces, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in light of today's announcement by the Governor General of the awarding of the Pearson Peace Medal to Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire for his contributions to peace, can the Minister of National Defence update the House on what the Government of Canada is doing to promote peace and stability around the world?

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the government and the Minister of Finance for the budget that was released yesterday. The budget provided a balanced approach, but more importantly it delivered on key promises that were made by the government. The budget made sound investments in health care, our cities, children, protecting our environment, and seniors.

This budget will go a long way in helping the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South, specifically the seniors. I am pleased to see that there will be an increase of $2.7 billion to the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors. On top of that, the $41 billion health care plan signed last September will also benefit the constituents and more importantly, the seniors in my riding.

Aside from seniors, the cities of Brampton and Mississauga will benefit from the $7 billion GST rebate, the gas tax transfer of $5 billion and the green funds. All of these items will help improve the roads, transit systems and infrastructure.

It is safe to say that the government has delivered on its budget. It gives me and my colleagues great pleasure--

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House from the constituents of the riding of Mississauga--Brampton South and other concerned Canadians with respect to parental sponsorship applications.

The petition outlines a few concerns that have been addressed. The first is that processing times of parental applications have increased from approximately five to six months to approximately eighteen to twenty months. Second, the admission quotas for parents have been reduced over the past few years.

I would like to submit this petition as well as give recognition to the 870 individuals who signed the petition on the Internet as well.

[William Hall, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we mark Black History Month I am proud to draw my hon. colleagues' attention to the heroics of William Hall, the first Nova Scotian and the first black person to earn the Victoria Cross, the Commonwealth's highest award for bravery.

Mr. Hall was born in Horton Bluff, Nova Scotia and enlisted in the Royal Navy in 1852. Mr. Hall served aboard the HMS Shannon when it was dispatched to Lucknow, India and came under siege. When all others on board were either killed or wounded, Mr. Hall and a young officer kept loading and firing their 24 pound howitzer until the relief of Lucknow had been secured. Mr. Hall received the Victoria Cross in 1859. A permanent memorial in his honour was erected in Hansport, Nova Scotia in 1947.

In this special Year of the Veteran, we cherish the memory of this outstanding Canadian.

[Skills for Change, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate an outstanding young man from my riding.

Eric Acuna, who works for Newark Paperboard Products, has been selected to receive the 2005 New Pioneers Graduate Award from the Skills for Change organization.

Skills for Change is a non-profit charitable organization that raises public awareness of the work of immigrants and refugees across Canada. It provides them with the employment focused programs that they need.

The Skills for Change organization was given recognition for its work in 2003 when it received the Citation for Citizenship Award from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

The award that Eric will receive honours new Canadians for their hard work, determination and contribution to our communities. The award also celebrates Canada's diversity and the continuing multicultural growth of our country.

In recognition of Eric's work, I would like to once again take this opportunity to congratulate him on receiving this award.