Omar Alghabra

[Government Contracts, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, spare me those dismissive attitudes. We also know that this law does not only discriminate against Canadians in the private sector, it also forbids civil servants from working on contracts serving their own country.

When will this end? When will the government guarantee that discriminatory U.S. ITAR rules will not affect public servants? When will the Prime Minister get something done for Canadians like me?

[Government Contracts, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) told the House that there were no identifiable ITAR difficulties with regard to the government's C-17 Boeing procurement. At the same time she said:

The Prime Minister and a number of our ministers have indicated our deep concern about this American policy.

Rather than doublespeak, will the government demand that ITAR will in no way apply to this procurement contract?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague just reinforced what I had said in my speech, that at the time a lot of consultation had been done. It was introduced that these two clauses were required, but they were put on probation for five years. At the end of the five years, they would default automatically, or sunset. It was not the other way around.

We are recommending the fulfilment of that legislation, the exact completion of it. Those clauses are not needed and our law enforcement agencies can conduct their duties.

Some hon. members of the Conservative Party would like to be selective in what they want to hear, but many law enforcement agency and judicial experts have called for the sunsetting of these clauses. I call on all my colleagues to join me in voting against the motion.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member was not listening to my entire speech. I stated that at the time, after the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Canadians and lawmakers came together to establish a law, called the Anti-terrorism Act, to ensure the protection of Canadians. As part of that law, these two measures were introduced, but there was a recognition that they were extraordinary in response to the dynamics and the environment at the time. We recognized that they were unusual and powerful. That is why we implemented a five year sunset clause. We put these two clauses on a probation period and the default would be the sunset after five years.

We have had that five years. We have had the trial period. We realize that our law enforcement agencies can conduct their duties and protect Canadians without these tools. To restore the balance and to ensure that we do not risk losing that balance, we are saying we have fulfilled our duties. The two clauses have done their job. The trial period has proven that we do not need them. Let us get back to our original laws and let them sunset.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to debate the motion presented by the Conservatives to extend the sunset clauses of two extraordinary powers: preventative arrests and investigative hearings. These two clauses were part of the Anti-terrorism Act that was implemented by the Liberal government just over five years ago in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The government of the day acted quickly in response to the urgent needs of modernizing our security regimes and laws. During the legislative process, the government of the day consulted with Canadians and examined various options. The challenge was, and continues to be, how to find the right balance between introducing new security tools and yet still maintain the protection of fundamental civil liberties and human rights.

After carefully examining and considering numerous and valuable thoughts and ideas, the government made a bargain with Canadians. The new law would proceed with introducing these two powerful tools, but place them on a probation period. The tools would be given a five year trial period, and if during that period it emerged that their benefit outweighed their risk, lawmakers would then have the opportunity to renew them. Otherwise, the default option was that those clauses would sunset at the end of that period. That compromise was concluded after consulting lawmakers, legal experts, law enforcement agencies and community leaders.

Now that the five year trial period has ended, we parliamentarians have to decide this. Do we honour the original compromise and let those clauses sunset, or do we feel those tools have been proven necessary and choose to change our original plans and vote to extend that period?

The House has a serious choice to make. A House of Commons subcommittee has studied this choice. The findings of that subcommittee recognized the power of those tools and offered 10 recommendations. The recommendations stated that if the government and the House wanted to extend those clauses, they needed to accompany them with some tweaking and adjustment.

The Conservative government chose to ignore the holistic approach the subcommittee chose to adopt. Instead of accompanying this motion with legislation that takes into account the necessary changes, it is asking us to ignore our duties and maintain the status quo.

Over the last five years we have learned so much. We have seen mistakes where innocent people have been caught in the web of confusion and handicapped judicial system like in the case of Mr. Maher Arar. We have seen our courts push back on some security legislation and we have witnessed that our ordinary legal system is capable and has the necessary tools to protect Canadians.

Canadians are proud of our law enforcement agencies. We are confident in our legal system and courts. We are proud in our values and principles. As lawmakers, we must always examine our decisions carefully, responsibly and dispassionately.

Once again, I am proud to demonstrate a clear contrast between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Conservatives at the time of passing the Anti-terrorism Act wanted the Liberal government to implement blunt tools that could risk our civil liberties, while the Liberals were careful to maintain an appropriate balance between providing the right security tools and protecting our fundamental liberties.

Here is another example. Now the Liberals, after finishing the trial period and realizing that these tools did not turn out to be needed, are ready to restore our traditional laws, but the Conservatives want to enshrine these extraordinary tools without even offering any type of adjustment or balance.

Canadians are familiar with the tendencies of the Conservative Party. Whether it is in their approach to dealing with crime, refugees, minorities, or aboriginal people, those members start with the premise that one is guilty until proven innocent. They assume the worst in people and fearmonger so they can justify imposing blunt and harsh instruments or legislation.

I call on all my colleagues in the House to join me in restoring the needed balance in our judicial system. Our legal system is an international symbol of fairness and equality. We must work to strengthen it, not paralyze it. The essential need for checks and balances may at times appear cumbersome, but it is the wise approach. It is the outcome of hundreds of years of social and legal evolution and it is designed to protect the citizens and at the same time provide our law enforcement agencies with the support they need.

Five years have passed. We now know that those two tools have not been used and were not needed. In the meantime, our law enforcement agencies have been able to operate effectively. Therefore, why should we leave those extraordinary measures on our legislative books? Why risk any potential abuse or errors in the future?

Our judicial system is fundamentally built on a balanced dynamic of checks and balances and oversight. This tricky balance must be respected and preserved. I would argue that our existing laws already provide the necessary tools. Now that we have just finished our five year probation period and realize that these two clauses are not needed, we must take a sober second look and fulfill the initial intent of the legislation.

Let us allow these two clauses to sunset and reinforce the traditional role of our judiciary.

[Aerospace Industry, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a new Canadian this country offered me limitless opportunities and gave me immense pride. While I am qualified to be elected to the House by the people of Mississauga—Erindale, because of the deal the government signed to buy Boeing aircraft, I and countless other Canadians cannot work on the maintenance of these aircraft.

Why will the Prime Minister not defend Canadians like me against discriminatory U.S. laws like ITAR?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House for the first time in 2007, allow me to take a moment to wish you and my honourable colleagues a successful and productive year serving Canadians. It appears that 2007 will be another year filled with excitement and political drama.

I also want to extend my wishes particularly to the residents of my riding of Mississauga—Erindale who just over a year ago elected me as their new MP. I thank them for their ongoing support and wish them a peaceful and joyous 2007.

I am pleased to speak to private member's Bill C-280 that is intended to reaffirm some of the clauses of the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and calls for immediate enforcement of an appeal mechanism for failed refugee claimants. I totally agree with the intent of the bill and will be supporting it.

Canada has a long tradition and a compassionate history of receiving refugees from around the world, refugees who are escaping unfair persecution and severe injustices, and are seeking a new and peaceful life. Canadians recognize that welcoming legitimate refugees is not a feel good exercise, but a right and moral thing to do as a country which believes in the principles of equality, fairness, opportunity and justice. Also, a privileged country like ours has obligations under international treaties to contribute to providing relief in the global refugee crisis.

Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has made a conscious decision to take every refugee claimant very seriously. Claimant applications are first reviewed by a quasi-judicial refugee board where each case is examined based on its own merit and circumstances.

Currently, if a refugee application is rejected, the applicant is entitled to apply for a federal judicial review. A pre-removal risk assessment is also conducted to ensure that circumstances that led to the negative decision have not changed. However, under the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act there are clauses that allow for the creation of an appeal process that would enable failed claimants to have their applications reviewed and have a negative decision re-examined.

Bill C-280 is intended to reaffirm the need for the installation of such a process and urges the government to implement it immediately. The decision to accept or reject a refugee application is extremely serious. It must examine the reality and the merit of the application in an objective and thoughtful way. The consequences of such procedures could have a life or death implication and we as a country have accepted our responsibility in affording fairness and justice to all applicants. By proceeding with this appeal mechanism we can assure that our responsibility as a government and as a country has been fulfilled in a just and verifiable way to the people who seek our help.

It is worth noting here that the Conservative Party has been exhibiting very little compassion and understanding to the real humanitarian issues of immigrants and refugees. We just witnessed that today where it is reluctant to implement a clause that already is on our legislative books.

While the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act can benefit from a comprehensive review and modernization, the Conservatives are busy flexing their muscles at vulnerable undocumented workers. While the Citizenship Act is in need of fundamental re-examination, and it appears that thousands of Canadians are at risk of losing their citizenship because of old flaws, the Conservatives are busy reviewing the issue of dual citizenship, wanting to make Canadians feel guilty if they hold dual citizenship.

Not surprisingly, just like we see them behave on most files, the Conservatives appear to be at odds with what is needed and what Canadians expect of them. In their pursuit of holding onto power, the Conservatives and the Prime Minister have been humbled and have had to appear that they have changed their mind on many issues. Canadians will not be fooled. They want to see real action with substantive measures.

Canadian voters are much more sophisticated than the Conservatives give them credit for and we will be closely monitoring how the minority Conservative government proceeds with immigration and citizenship reforms. Canadians expect genuine and sincere efforts to improve our systems for the benefit of all Canadians.

Let me pause here to remind the Conservatives that we, the opposition parties, have the responsibility to evaluate and analyze how they govern, while it is their responsibility to govern according to what Canadians expect of them. We have been witnessing recently in the news that someone must frequently remind the Conservatives of their role and remind the Prime Minister that he is the leader of a country, not just the Conservative Party, and as such must govern responsibly for all Canadians.

I must take this opportunity, while debating the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to express the urgent need for evaluating the security certificate process contained in that legislation. Many have been arguing that this process contains inherent, unjust and unfair procedures that can easily destroy lives without the necessary checks and balances. The Supreme Court is currently examining this tool and many Canadians are disheartened by the Conservatives attitude which is unwilling to compromise and accept the need for reform.

There are currently three security certificate detainees at the Kingston facility who are expressing their despair with a hunger strike. Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub and Hassan Almrei have been on a hunger strike for about 60 days. Various human rights organizations have written to the Minister of Public Safety urging him to ensure that medical aid is provided to these detainees and that he take immediate action to resolve this hunger strike. I urge the government to heed their call and demonstrate a real commitment to genuine reforms. As the case of Maher Arar has taught us, stubborn security procedures that do not receive appropriate checks and balances do not make us any safer and could in fact endanger the lives of Canadians.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-280 with the hopes of sending it to committee where it can be carefully examined. Some may argue that it is in need of some minor adjustments such as ensuring that the department has prepared the capacity and resources needed to establish an efficient and effective appeal mechanism. These changes are mechanical or technical in nature and can be adjusted for in committee.

This bill is not asking us to introduce anything new or change our procedures drastically. It is only reaffirming what is already on our legislative books. There are probably many reasons why these clauses have not yet been applied, but it is hard to deny the intent and the objectives of this bill. Stakeholders and human rights advocates have been calling for the need to strengthen and reform our refugee application examination process. This step will further enhance the transparency and credibility of our system.

I call upon my colleagues across all party lines to vote in favour of sending this bill to committee. In a country where we pride ourselves on championing justice and equality, we must not turn our back on implementing a process that would ensure the application of justice. Not only do we want to pursue the application of justice, but we must also be seen as doing everything we can in that pursuit.

[Maher Arar Inquiry, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we will support any attempt by the minister to change his profession to that of a comedian because Canadians deserve a minister who will deal with this issue seriously. Canadians expect us to ask these questions. The Conservatives may not like them, but they have a responsibility to answer them.

Canadians are uneasy given the historical attitude of the Conservatives toward Mr. Arar. We want clear answers. What was the private information given to the Prime Minister about Arar and who gave it to him?

[Maher Arar Inquiry, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister asked members of the House to come forward with all they know about the Arar affair. Let us see, on June 23, 2004, the Prime Minister said that there had been mixed messages, “not just in the House of Commons, but to us privately, even, by--I'm probably not at liberty to say much here--authorities in this country, that had suggested the deportation of Mr. Arar was appropriate. And then we found out later that may be not the case”.

What did the Prime Minister know on June 23, 2004 that he was not at liberty to disclose?

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary contradicts himself. On the one hand, he says we have short term caps. In the same breath, he says that they will be announced two months from now.

My statement is still accurate. The government has no targets for the short term. They have not shown us their targets for the short term. They are only putting targets for 2050, which is disappointing.

If the member is so proud of the clean air act, why is he sending it to a committee before second reading? If he wants to continue to defend the bill, he can continue to demonstrate how transparent and weak the legislation is. However, the Prime Minister has abandoned his Minister of the Environment and his Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment by sending the bill to a committee before second reading, reflecting the fact that he has no confidence in the existing bill as it stands.