Randeep Sarai

[Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, April 11th, 2019]

[Member spoke in Punjabi]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, this month, millions of Sikhs around the world will gather to celebrate Vaisakhi, the day the Khalsa was initiated.

It was on this day 100 years ago that thousands of men, women and children gathered in a park meters away from the Golden Temple to celebrate Vaisakhi, when the colonial Colonel Dyer marched in with a regiment of soldiers, blocked all entranceways, and opened fire. He did this over and over again.

Hundreds were killed by bullets, while others died jumping into a well or while trying to scale the walls surrounding the park. This became the tipping point for the Indian independence movement.

Families never saw justice for this atrocity. Colonel Dyer was merely forced to retire and was barely disciplined.

I rise today, 100 years later, to honour the victims of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Our thoughts and prayers are forever with them, and we will never forget this tragedy.

[Petitions, April 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition, which has accumulated over 700 signatures. The signatories call on the government to recognize the work of renowned author and social justice activist Arundhati Roy by granting her honorary Canadian citizenship.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if the member felt that the Criminal Code had been violated or that any law had been breached, then the former attorney general had a duty to go before the RCMP and make that complaint herself. That was her duty. She was morally obligated to do so, and she has never done so. Even when she was asked, she said that none of that had been crossed. That was her job. If the former justice minister and attorney general thought that a law had been breached, then it was her job, her prerogative, to make sure that was enforced.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what document or Hansard the member opposite has been reading, but the word “corruption” never came up once in the three-and-a-half-hour testimony of the former attorney general or anyone else. In fact, that has never been stated or even been alleged at all.

If the member opposite needs some assistance, I would be more than happy to read over the Hansard or any other transcript of the former attorney general or anyone else who has testified to see if the term “corruption” was ever used. Please do not put words in her mouth.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the former justice minister clearly stated there was no breach of the law. She clearly stated the Prime Minister never told her to with a “no, no, no.”

Let me remind you that this is what the director for public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, said just a week ago when she was asked if any undue pressure had ever come to her: “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Davenport.

I have the utmost respect for the former attorney general and member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville, my colleague. I think this issue is about a difference of opinion and a difference in what one sees as appropriate.

I will begin with one of the most pointed questions the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked the member for Vancouver Granville. Did the Prime Minister or others in the PMO break the law? The answer was unequivocally “no” by the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville.

What is pressure? We are elected as parliamentarians, and some of us are privileged and tasked with also being part of cabinet. Dealing with pressure is subjective and not objective. As MPs, we are constantly pressured by constituents, stakeholders and departments. Our job is to take all things into account. Our job is to discuss them and sometimes repeat these actions again and again. We do things in balance. We take into account all the facts and then make the tough decisions.

Many members of Parliament will face tough challenges when a permanent resident is facing deportation, but has children born and raised in this country. They have to make the choice of letting these kids be orphaned, be without parents or be forced to go to a country where they have no home or of intervening. These are tough choices and with those choices, we will have their parents, grandparents, neighbours, family members, soccer coaches and employers pleading with us. What constitutes pressure? We as parliamentarians have to decide at the time that even though the act was bad, the person served his or her time and probably should be deported, what about those children? We have to balance that. Those are tough decisions as parliamentarians we make.

This is no different for prosecutors and judges who take all the facts into consideration when they prosecute, when they judge and when they sentence. They take consequences already borne, they take consequences that may happen as a result of a sentence and they take mitigating factors.

Canadians want a transparent government and this government has shown that it will always be transparent, even when it is difficult, even when it may not be flattering for us.

Those members said that the justice committee would not invite the former justice minister, but the justice committee did. They said that the Prime Minister would not waive solicitor-client privilege. The Prime Minister waived solicitor-client. They said that the Prime Minister would not remove or waive cabinet confidentiality. The Prime Minister waived cabinet confidentiality. They said that there would not be enough time in committee for the former attorney general to speak or give her the time. The chair gave so much time and gave more rounds than I have ever seen on any committee. In fact, at the end, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville finally had to say that she thought committee members had asked all their questions and were being repetitive.

Then the members asked for the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerry Butts, to appear, and he is appearing.

Above all this, it shows a Prime Minister who is fearless, transparent, open, balanced and takes the lives of all Canadians into account.

I will remind Canadians what the Harper Conservatives did when committees requested people to appear, “men and women who did not sign up to be tried by a committee, to be humiliated and intimidated by members of Parliament.” Former Minister Paradis refused to appear about illegal lobbying by former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer. When Harper PMO director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, was asked to come before committee, the then Conservative Harper minister, John Baird, said, “The days when you call staffers into committee to beat up staff who can't defend themselves are over.“ The Conservative House leader confirmed that he insisted on political staffers not to appear.

Therefore, we will not let them decide if we are transparent. We will let Canadians decide which government is transparent and which is not.

Let me talk about my dad. My dad was an immigrant. He is a sawmill worker. He started in the chain and worked his way up to being a lumber grader. He worked for a very large multinational B.C.-based company called MacMillan Bloedel, which was very similar to SNC-Lavalin. It was an iconic B.C. company employing thousands of employees, tens of thousands at its peak. He had a good job. He worked as a lumber grader before retiring.

If the executives of that company had breached laws and bribed and violated criminal codes, I would expect them to be prosecuted. I would want jail time, if necessary—period, full stop. Then if I found out that the entire company might be barred from working in Canada for 10 years, which would de facto shut it down and would even potentially have an impact on my father's pension or job, depending on the time, I would be terrified. Would I be able to go to university? Would my father be able to pay the mortgage? What would I do?

Those would be the thoughts coming to my mind.

I would also be hoping—in fact, praying to God—that my prime minister would be looking into this situation. I would want to know that the government was making sure my father's job and pension were secure.

I would also not want criminal acts to occur, and I would not want those responsible to be allowed to go on. I would want them removed, fined and put behind bars. However, I would also put pressure on my elected officials. I would put a lot of pressure through letter campaigns, email campaigns. I would have meetings with elected officials, the mayor and councillors of the town the mill was in. If I found out any MP was available, I would go to them. I would go to the prime minister if I could.

However, if I found out that the government would not listen, did not care or did not like pressure, I would be livid and disheartened. In fact, in the early 2000s, South Asian youth were being killed every week by gang violence. They were predominantly in south Vancouver, half of which is in the member for Vancouver Granville's riding. I pleaded to my community leaders, senior police inspectors, sergeants and elected officials and asked them how we could stop this violence.

We went to the solicitor general of British Columbia, who was Rich Coleman at the time, and we lobbied him. We annoyed him. We called him to meetings and we used the press. We did everything we could, because young kids' lives were at stake. Initially he said that his hands were tied and that the law would take its course, but the community persisted. It took more than 11 meetings and it took more than four months, but eventually the solicitor general agreed. He constituted the British Columbia Integrated Gang Task Force, which arrested and convicted dozens of people and made a major dent in the violence in south Vancouver among South Asian youth, but one thing I will tell the House is that the solicitor general never said that he felt too much pressure.

Currently, this problem has increased in my riding of Surrey Centre. Do members want to hear about pressure? We had 5,000 people gather in a public square. We held 80-plus meetings with mayors, councillors, principals and ministers. I went to the public safety minister numerous times to tell him how imperative it was. He answered every time, and in fact announced $326 million to fight gun and gang violence, with $7.5 million for Surrey under the national crime prevention strategy. One thing he never said was that I put too much pressure.

To the NDP members, those are 10,000 union jobs. Those are people who work in British Columbia, Quebec and around the world, with over 1,000 in Ontario. There are even more pensioners. If they knew their leader, Jagmeet Singh, would never go to the Attorney General and go up to bat for them, I wonder how they would feel.

The justice committee is doing its great work, as is the Ethics Commissioner. Canadian citizens and constituents of my riding will decide whether this government is transparent, and there is no need for a public inquiry.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have always ensured that my voice is heard and I have never been afraid to use my voice in the House or elsewhere.

Solicitor-client privilege is very treasured in our judicial system, and it is the responsibility of the Attorney General of this country to defend the interests of this country.

These matters are still before the courts and prosecution decisions still need to be made. With regard to giving away privileged information, I have never seen anyone in any court decision ever give away strategies or discussions to the opposing side prior to prosecution. It does not work that way, as I think the member opposite knows.

As to trust, we have two investigations. If we do not have trust in the highest ethics commissioner in this country and trust in our judicial committees, then in whom do we have trust? Only after those investigations conclude will we see whether this solicitor-client privilege should be waived. If the conclusion is that there will need to be a further investigation, that would occur after the two reports have been tabled.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence and the government has confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner has the duty, has the role, has the powers and has the responsibility to investigate these questions. As to the committee, the Privy Council chief, Mr. Wernick, is also part of that investigation and is an independent bureaucrat who is not a political operative.

Therefore, all the appropriate bodies and people who are involved have been and will be investigated in this matter. We have full trust and confidence in the Ethics Commissioner to come out with an investigation and a report that will be satisfactory to Canadians and to the constituents in my riding.

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest admiration for my colleague the MP for Vancouver Granville, who is an instrumental member of the Pacific caucus and who has been and continues to be a strong advocate for her riding.

I also have the utmost appreciation for former principal secretary Gerald Butts, who has always served this country with integrity and advocated for positive politics. I hope he will continue, and I expect him to continue, to serve Canadians in whatever endeavour he takes on.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to some of the matters raised by the member opposite's motion. There are already two processes under way that are investigating the allegations raised by the motion. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be holding hearings on this issue and the Ethics Commissioner will be conducting an investigation. I am confident that these two processes will be completed in a fair and thorough manner and will provide Canadians with the answers and the information they seek.

There is every reason to believe at this time that these two groups, one composed of Canadians' elected representatives from both other parties and one representing a non-partisan perspective, are up to the task of considering the questions that Canadians are asking. That said, it would be helpful to discuss the roles, responsibilities and powers of each of these two processes.

Let me speak about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

With the exception of standing joint committees and certain standing committees, the Standing Orders set out a general mandate for all standing committees. They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the departments assigned to them by the House. More specifically, they can review and report on: the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them; the program and policy objectives of those departments and the effectiveness of their implementation; the immediate medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof; and an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees, such as bills, estimates, order in council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters that the House wishes to have studied. In each case the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the power to review and report on the policies, programs and expenditure plans of the Department of Justice, which has the mandate to support the dual roles of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the chief law officer of the Crown.

The committee also has the power to study the policies, programs and legislation of the following entities: the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Courts Administration Service, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

In particular, the committee may review proposed amendments to federal legislation relating to certain aspects of the Criminal Code, family law, human rights law and the administration of justice, notably with respect to the following statutes: the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act, Divorce Act, Civil Marriage Act, Canadian Human Rights Act, Judges Act, Courts Administration Service Act, and the Supreme Court Act.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights may also undertake studies on subjects related to its mandate, either as referred to it by the House of Commons or on its own initiative. For example, it recently conducted a study on juror mental health and prior to that it conducted a study on human trafficking in Canada.

In the course of a study, the committee holds public meetings, considers evidence from witnesses and reviews written submissions and other authoritative documents. In the case of its human trafficking study, the committee also travelled across Canada to hold private sessions with witnesses who were uncomfortable testifying in a public forum. This enabled it to hear from witnesses that it otherwise might not have been able to hear from but whose testimony was crucial to the study.

At the conclusion of a study, the committee usually reports its findings and makes recommendations. The committee may request a government response within 120 days.

As to the Ethics Commissioner, under the Conflict of Interest Act, a member of the Senate or House of Commons who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public office holder, which includes the Prime Minister, has contravened the act may, in writing, request that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner examine the matter.

In conducting this investigation, the commissioner has the power to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence orally and/or in writing, under oath or affirmation and produce any documents and things that the commissioner considers necessary. For the purpose of enforcing these powers, the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record in civil cases.

The subject of the complaint also has an opportunity to make submissions to the commissioner. The commissioner's investigation is required to be conducted in private. The commissioner is required to provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts in question as well as the commissioner's analysis and conclusion in relation to the request made by a parliamentarian. The report is to be provided to the person who made the request, to the public office holder who is the subject of the request and to the public. The commissioner may not include in the report any information that he or she is required to keep confidential, unless the information is essential for the purposes of establishing the grounds for any conclusion in a report.

As I have explained, these two processes are already under way. Both will investigate the allegations raised by the motion moved by the member opposite, and I am confident that these two processes will be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the answers and information they seek. There is every reason to believe that these two groups are up to the task of considering the questions that are being asked.

[Indigenous Languages Act, February 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, after being elected in 2015, one of the first things we saw was a great interaction and dialogue commence between the indigenous people of this country and this government. It was a genuine, sincere dialogue, where both parties sat and shared, as if they were one family, to figure things out. It was deep-rooted, not just a patchwork or Band-Aid solution, and sought to create solutions for the next century and heal wounds that had been inflicted for a long time. I felt that sincerity, and it was not just on our side. I heard that from the indigenous leadership, especially from British Columbia, who felt that they were being listened to. They felt that this was a government that spoke with action and not just words.

The feedback I have had has not been from just the leadership but has also come from my riding of Surrey Centre, which is home to one of the largest urban indigenous populations. People genuinely came and said that they were so happy to hear that we actually listened and actually care.