Rob Oliphant

[June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation for his response, which I think is fair, honourable and displays a sincerity. I want to thank him very genuinely.

The aid is something that is a concern on both sides of this House and I appreciate that the government is taking steps. I want to push a little further, though, because there are a couple of other things we can do. We can provide more aid. We can keep the monitoring situation going. However, there is also the issue of the loan from the International Monetary Fund.

There is a $1.7 billion loan coming up for negotiation and I would like it if the government began to express some concerns about delivering that money to Sri Lanka until its government has met certain conditions. Some of those conditions can be about humanitarian access to aid, about keeping channels open, and about international co-operation from a number of partners.

So I would like to have the government consider that option as well.

[June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on April 20 of this year, I raised a question of the government's commitment to providing aid to the victims of the conflict in Sri Lanka, which has waged for over two decades.

As everyone in the House knows, violence escalated tremendously this past year. It was not until the third week of May that the government of Sri Lanka claimed victory over the LTTE, which in turn conceded defeat the next day.

This violent civil war has left a path of destruction. In addition to the tens of thousands of people, mostly Tamil civilians, who have been killed, there are reports of as many as 300,000 internally displaced persons living in temporary shelters.

While it is still difficult to get independent accounts, there are credible reports from NGOs of malnutrition, the lack of potable water, untreated injuries and continued violence against civilians, including the rape of women and girls. The war may have ended, but the violence continues.

On February 4, just as the opposition was calling for an emergency debate on the situation, the Minister of International Cooperation announced $3 million in aid. This was significantly less than many of our Commonwealth partners. During the emergency debate, I expressed my disappointment both to the House and to the minister personally. Since then, on February 23, the minister pledged an additional $1.5 million. Then on May 4, after her visit to Sri Lanka, she added an additional $3 million.

I commend the minister for moving the aid in the right direction, but I want to challenge her to keep up the pressure on her colleagues to further our collective commitment to the people of this war-torn country. Canadians need to know that our government has heard the pleas of the people of Sri Lanka and will increase funding to a much more substantial level, not only pledge the money but ensure that it gets to the people who need it the most.

With respect to the amount of money pledged, the government's commitment still represents only about 25¢ per Canadian. Think about this. It is not only embarrassing, but I would suggest it is immoral. We pay our taxes to ensure that those who have much less than we have can share in a fraction of our wealth. Canadians are a generous people and want to hear that their government is reflecting this same generosity.

Canadians of Tamil descent have repeatedly told us the stories of their families and their friends who have been caught in this conflict. They are living this tragedy daily and want to be sure that all Canadians, regardless of our country of origin, our language, our religion, our colour, share in the challenge of feeding and healing that country. The task is quite simple. We need to increase our aid to a much more reasonable level.

However, it is not only the amount of aid that concerns me, it is also about whether the aid is actually getting delivered. I understand the government has chosen four highly reputable agencies to deliver the aid. While I trust these agencies, I have doubts that the Sri Lankan government has a willingness or a capacity to ensure that it is delivered.

Last week, we were all horrified that one of the members of the House, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, was denied entry to Sri Lanka. I was pleased that the government expressed at least some outrage about this affront to all Canadians. The hon. member's expulsion is a stern reminder of the fact that we are dealing with a regime that simply does not understand its obligations and, at the very least, it appears that it has something to hide. Witnesses are critical in a crisis like this. Independent ears and eyes and voices are necessary.

How much more aid can the government give and will it give to that country and how can it ensure that it gets to the people who need it the most?

[Public Transit, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we know about frustration, especially today.

A vulgar attack on the people of Toronto is unacceptable, in public or in private, by a minister of the Crown. We are once again hearing the true feelings that the government has for Toronto. However, Torontonians are thick-skinned. All we want is our fair share, and that fair share will help the rest of Ontario and Canada. Spending on transit in Toronto creates jobs in this country.

When will the minister stop attacking and start working with the people of Toronto?

[Public Transit, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport claims to support urban transit, so Toronto made but one request for infrastructure spending: new streetcars. The minister's response? Profanity. He told Torontonians in a word or two where we could go.

Is this what we can expect from a minister of the Crown? When will he apologize to the mayor, the council and, most important, the people of Toronto?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we may have to take some lessons in learning how to stall on committee work because we do not have the 200 page manual on how to keep committee work from not happening.

Our job is to make committees work, to fix the legislation that the government presents, to try to improve it, to try to make something positive in the government. That is what we are doing in Parliament. That is what we are trying to do and we are going to continue to do it.

We have a haphazard set of pieces of legislation that fly in. We are doing our best to make sense out of them, to try to get some order in them and to understand the agenda of the Conservatives. They do not give us notice. We will do our best to understand it and we will do our best to make Canada a safer, more prosperous and more intelligent country.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we want to take time with the legislation in committee. Stakeholder groups have approached us. They have provided absolutely essential information to us and we want to do the best things for Canada.

The minister in his statement responded to the changing of the channels and I find that quite interesting. The government wants to change the channel quite frequently. We are not trying to change the channel on this. We are taking this seriously. We are attempting to find a way to improve the situation for both victims of crime and potential victims of crime to ensure we have a safe society.

We are not simply being tough on crime for the sake of being tough on crime. This side of the House wants to be smart on crime. We want to listen to experts. We want to find out what are the causes and root determinates of crime and behind crime.

We want to listen to criminologists. We want to listen to the best. We will take their advice. We will listen to the facts. We will not have knee-jerk reactions. We will try to do work with diligence, intelligence, compassion and dignity.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have been elected here to make a positive contribution in this discussion, to attempt to look into the future, and to try to correct the problems which might have happened in any government.

I am not going to defend it. I am not going to try to do that, but I am simply going to say that we are going to be looking at this legislation. We are not going to deny parliamentary procedure and process. We are not going to undervalue parliamentary committees which are doing their work, heartedly.

We are not going to try to turn the channel from the economic crisis which the Conservatives have created from the various crises that they have ignored, from the various irresponsible acts that they have taken. We are not going to turn the channel on that. We are going to steadily do our work as members of Parliament, trying to make the best legislation possible.

We will improve this legislation. We will send it to committee. Again our committee will examine it. We will try to do our best to ensure that the weaknesses in the legislation, which are apparent to us, and we have not denied that there are weaknesses in the legislation, are improved. We will look at the Ontario model. We will follow what the chiefs of police have said and we will do our best to improve it. We will not play games with this legislation.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the government and its members always seem to have the ability to forget that this is now. It is not then. The government has been in place for three years and it had the opportunity, repeatedly, to bring its agenda about.

The Conservatives seem to forget that they are the government and we have respected that they are the government. But they are simply not acting as the government.

I was not here when the previous legislation was enacted. I am not going to defend it, nor do I feel the need to. The electors of my riding have sent me here to try to improve the legislation and to actually make a positive contribution about today and the future, and not to be turning the clock back.

They may want to change the channel--

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this proposed legislation.

I will state at the outset that I am in support of it going to committee for consideration and hopefully improvement. While this legislation has some of the bones that we need to improve the sex offender information registry, it is sadly lacking in some other areas.

The first thing I want to comment on is the process by which the minister and the government brought this piece of legislation into the House today. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I must express my outrage at the fact that the committee is undergoing a statutory review of the legislation. It began that review after a decision was made in February to do so.

It has spent a considerable amount of time listening to witnesses and deliberating. It is in the final stages of creating its report and even as it is being written, the minister presents legislation in the House for consideration. This is an affront to all parliamentarians because it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that due process is always followed.

This is a hefty revision to the act. This has obviously been in the works for several weeks, if not months, and the committee was in the final stages of coming up with important suggestions on how we can change the legislation. Much of it is being done by the government's amendments but much of it is not being done.

The first thing I want to say is that it is unfair to committee members on the government side and on the opposition side to not have taken into account the legislative review that is being undertaken right now.

In that review, the committee has heard that the current sex offender information registry is sadly lacking and that it is not helping police. In fact, police officers have told us on a number of occasions that it has not helped them at this point solve any crime. Not a victim has been helped and no offence has been stopped by the sex offender registry as it is now in place.

A decision has already been reached in committee that this bill needs to be changed. We need to address several things severely lacking in the bill. At the same time, I want to put on the table that this bill is not, as it is being presented today, going to solve all those problems. Hopefully, our work in committee can begin to address that.

I look forward to the motion from the committee that will be brought forward to the House for its consideration on the fact that the government is not paying attention to parliamentary committees and, in effect, not listening to people through their elected representatives. That question aside, I want to bring up some issues that I hope will be addressed in committee that will make this legislation more effective.

I will begin by saying that, absolutely, when offenders are found guilty, they do surrender some of their rights. It is also important to say they do not surrender all of their rights. Even though offenders have committed tremendously horrible crimes, they still deserve to be protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I will be watching very closely to ensure that certain rights are still guaranteed even for the worst offenders among us. We speak up for them even though they make up the most unpopular group in our country. People need to stand up for human rights at all times.

The legislation seems, in my mind, to be lacking in several ways. First, police officers have called for a fuller understanding of what should be in the actual registry. There is technical information, but in the registry we need more information that will help both profiling and understanding for police officers to go after a potential criminal and to solve a crime when time is of the essence.

With many of the crimes that are happening, minutes and hours are at stake between the life and death of a victim. That means we have to give police officers every opportunity to find and apprehend a person who is potentially committing a crime at that moment. They need to be given every opportunity. That means that vehicle information, licence plate numbers and descriptions of vehicles need to be part of this registry.

That is something the committee is already in the stages of recommending. It is already beginning to look at that. There are a number of recommendations from witnesses who say it is critical for police officers to have vehicle information. They need to know what cars, trucks or vans these people are driving so they will not be hindered in their investigations.

It is also important to have information about the modus operandi, the way a previous criminal has actually committed an offence, so that police officers can look at patterns. They can look at how someone has done something in the past to predict whether not someone will do this in the future. If police officers are seeing a certain pattern invoked, they will be able to look at the sex offender registry and draw up the information to help them in their own investigation. This is absolutely critical because we are talking about minutes and hours that could save a person's life. The registry still does not seem to have a fullness in its quality of information that will actually help police officers.

I think what also has to be clear is that, in this process, we still do not have a full national registry that is effective. As the member for Edmonton—Strathcona was pointing out, there is no commitment from the government to put the kinds of resources into the police activity, investigative activity and ongoing activity, that will ensure that police officers have the resources to do that. For instance, in this legislation, there is an automatic taking of DNA samples. This will not be left up to the discretion of any judge. That means that the DNA database, which is also under statutory review, will be further burdened by more work with no promise of resources.

The most critical tool in many of these crimes is having a DNA match that can help the police and then later help in the criminal proceedings to ensure that we actually get a conviction. That DNA is being used more and more, but our DNA database, the registry and the RCMP offices that do that do not have adequate resources to undertake the work that they are currently doing. This will impose more work on them, so there needs to be a commitment from the government that goes hand in hand with this legislation to provide resources to the DNA database.

We have also been discovering from witnesses at committee that the work that has gone on to keep the registry up to date across the country is very uneven. The number of visits that police officers would pay to a house to check whether or not the person is still residing there, whether or not that person's physical appearance has changed and whether or not that person has been involved in a non-sexual crime are the kinds of things that are not being adequately followed up by police officers because they do not have the resources to do it.

Some jurisdictions maintain their annual or more-than-annual visits to ensure that the sex offender registry is up to date. Other jurisdictions have not seen people for months or years. They have lost contact with the people, so the sex offender registry information is no longer helpful. It is simply not going to work. Again, that is part of the resourcing that needs to go hand in hand with this legislation.

The police have also been asking for us to have the facility for geomapping and the ability to pinpoint where criminals are living in a way that allows police to move quickly in a situation. I am aware that the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona was talking about the fact that many of these crimes are actually committed by family members. That is a different set of circumstances. However, for crimes that involve abduction, kidnapping or predatory activities, police officers have to have the ability to ensure that they have every possible tool to get to the crime scene quickly when there is a missing person.

Our children are our most precious resource. We have to do everything we can do to ensure that they have the police in their hands, with the ability to find them, protect them and take care of them. It is where time is of the essence.

I want to close with where I started on this topic: the rights of offenders. I know it is an uncomfortable subject for most people in the House because we have to ensure that even though we are possibly taking discretion away from judges in these cases, we must still protect privacy. I am glad that the legislation seems to imagine that this is still not a publicly accessible registry but for the use of police officers only.

It is incumbent upon police officers to maintain that privacy, secure the information that they are carrying around with them, and take every possible chance to ensure that even those who have committed the most heinous of crimes have their human rights protected. It is uncomfortable for us to talk about it, but we must surely be part of that discussion.

The reason we need to be part of that is not only for their rights, but because we know that offenders tend to reoffend when they are under stress, when they are feeling further victimized. If we want to actually prevent this kind of crime from happening, we have to ensure that we are approaching it with fairness, with a preservation of human rights and civil rights, and that offenders are part of our community as well.

[Infrastructure, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her support of this private member's motion. I, too, speak in favour of it.

I will begin by talking about my experience in northern Canada, having lived in Yukon for six years and experiencing the challenges one has while living in the north with respect to both public infrastructure and social infrastructure and simply servicing smaller communities as well as the larger cities.

This private member's motion opens up that discussion and allows us to begin to have a comprehensive strategy that involves the stakeholders. This motion is about conversation, about dialogue, and it is about including those people most strongly affected by the lack of infrastructure in the actual debate and discussion about their futures.

The hon. member for Edmonton East and I were recently travelling in the far north on a trip to Greenland. It was exciting to actually see the way a different country has developed some infrastructure and to take time to compare the infrastructure in Greenland with the infrastructure in our Canadian far north.

There is a marked difference between what Denmark has done in Greenland and what Canada has managed to accomplish in the far north. We are sadly lacking in public housing, in the various ways that people are housed and cared for, and the transportation links that keep Greenland together.

They are looking forward, on June 21, to additional self-rule, which will essentially be the autonomy of a province. It will be very similar to what we have in Canada, a little more than our territories have, but probably not as much as our provinces have. This motion begins to look at the way we involve other jurisdictions in the discussion about providing for transportation, housing and medical needs and the social infrastructure that complements that.

I would want to challenge my friends in the Bloc Québécois to open up their understanding of this motion. I do not think there is any challenge to provincial jurisdiction by allowing local economies, local communities and local governments to be involved in the discussion. This is exactly what they would be advocating for to ensure that all participants have a fair voice in what is going on in the way public money is spent and the aspirations for individuals and communities.

I want to challenge them to support this motion, to actually engage in our conversations. This improves the jurisdiction of Quebec in discussions around its north and brings us into a partnership discussion with the federal government to ensure that resource dollars are being spent adequately and fairly so that Canadians all across this country are not discriminated against because of geography.

It is important to note that this motion does not define what we mean by north. I think that the previous speaker could also be challenged to say that this motion is actually inclusive and open. It understands the possibility that the north is more about attitude than it is about latitude. It is the way that people live. Each of our provincial jurisdictions can define that in understanding their own provincial north, to understand that dispersed, rural and isolated communities that have a northern atmosphere, a northern understanding and a northern inclination are included in this discussion.

That may change in different parts. It is not simply north of 60. It is about involving people who share a common way of life. It brings our aboriginal communities, our first nations communities, our Inuit communities into this discussion in a fair and equal way, with eye-level discussions to talk about their needs, their aspirations, their hopes and their dreams. This motion commends to the government an open dialogue to say that all people in Canada are of equal importance.

This motion also stretches our imagination as to what the far north is about. We need to understand that Canada's north is not about sovereignty alone. It is about people, not infrastructure. It is about people who live there, who have a traditional way of life or a new way of life and who are learning to cope together with the changes that are happening due to climate change.

We need to be ready and aware and understand what is going on with respect to the changing boundaries of our country because of climate change. Our people need to be ready. We need to understand the economic opportunities as well as the cultural benefits of being in the north.

Right now, no gateways are working to help transportation and the flow of goods through Canada's north. European goods could be transferred to the Far East much faster if we developed trade routes across Canada's north.

If we had deep sea port facilities, and if we had the necessary infrastructure around those facilities, long-term jobs could be created, not simply seasonal jobs, which would complement the traditional way of life.

We can do this in an environmentally sensitive way so that we do not change the way people live unless they choose to make that change, and unless that change is sensitive to the cultural importance and the cultural determinants in the discussion. This would lead to improved education, improved health and improved economic opportunities for the people of Canada's north.

If we can improve the life of the people of the north, then we can improve our sovereignty stake in the north. We are at risk of losing our sense of who we are in the north as other partners in the global community try to claim it.

Canada's north is not like the Antarctic which has many penguins. The north is filled with people who have made the north their destiny. They seek to live and raise their families in the north because of the economic opportunity and to improve their cultural situation. So far, the government has failed to come up with a comprehensive strategy on an infrastructure program to facilitate that.

I am pleased to support this private member's motion because it does not command the involvement of any province. It invites the provinces to participate in the discussion. It invites the involvement of local communities, first nations governments and Inuit governments in the discussion to further the good for all Canadians.

All of Canada will be better if our far north is better. All Canadians will be better if Inuit Canadians and first nations Canadians are included in determining where they want infrastructure money to be spent.

Infrastructure is about improving the quality of life. Dollars spent on improving our environment will save dollars later in health care. Dollars spent on infrastructure improvement for education will save lives, jobs and money later on in lost employment and loss of understanding of human worth. Money spent on alcohol and drug treatment centres will help to improve the quality of life for people later on.

We must open up Canada's north, protect its culture, protect its people, and involve them in the discussion about the strategy.

I am pleased the member has brought forward this motion. It will take some imagination on the part of the government to support it. I am looking forward to the government's support as well as the support of all opposition members.