Senator Mobina Jaffer

Last Friday, I attended a roundtable in Vancouver hosted by Mark Holland M.P., – Liberal Critic for Public Safety and National Security and the Liberal Women’s Caucus, on why we need to save the gun registry. Mr. Holland has been travelling across the country to raise awareness and gain support for the gun registry. Dr. Hedy Fry, M.P., and Joyce Murray, M.P., were also in attendance. 

Mr. Holland, during his cross country tour, found that there was great support among Canadians for keeping the registry. This was echoed by the participants at our Vancouver roundtable who suggested that the gun registry is an important tool that can greatly help to control and prevent crime, especially with regards to violence against women.

Dr. Indira Prahst, Ms. Daisy Kler, Ms. Janet Austin, Ms. Caroline Soong and other representatives of Vancouver based women’s organizations who were at the meeting, suggested that violence against women is still a problem in Canada and guns have had a very direct relationship to said violence. Ms. Kler, exemplified this point by stating that one in three women killed in Canada, is done so by being shot. 

Due to the prevalence of gun related violence against women in Canada, the women’s organizations at the meeting all supported the gun registry and emphasized how it has had a direct affect in keeping women safe. While there are still many instances of women facing gun related violence today, they suggested that the lack of a registry would significantly exacerbate the situation. If anything, they believed the proper course of action would be to improve the current structure of the registry rather than get rid of it. 

Also discussed at the roundtable was the economics behind the gun registry. Many opponents of the registry have suggested that its financial costs are too great. However, Mr. Holland addressed this issue by stating that the cost to keep the registry ($4 million/yr) should not be the main focus of the debate. Rather, he emphasized that the safety of all Canadians should be of primary concern. 

The roundtable with Mr. Holland and my colleagues further emphasized my belief in the need for a gun registry in Canada. I know that gun related violence is a problem in this country and women pay the ultimate price dealt. What we need is not to get rid of the tools that can help us address this social problem, but rather utilize these same tools more fully and forcefully for them to have greater affect. 

I believe a Canada with the gun registry is a much safer place than a Canada without it. As Canadians, let us pull together and support the registry to make our home a safer place.

Save lives. Save the Gun Registry.

From left to right: Dr. Hedy Fry, M.P., Mark Holland, M.P., Joyce Murray, M.P., and myself

Myself and Dr. Indira Prahst

The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade fact-finding mission in India is still in progress. I am learning a lot about India and the tremendous growth that is taking place here. If we Canadians no not nurture and further develop our relationship with Indians, I believe we will have missed a great commercial opportunity to the detriment of our Canadian interests. In fact, I strongly believe that Canada needs India far more than India needs Canada.

 After receiving a very informative briefing I felt very well prepared for our day in Hyderbad. Our day began by visiting the LV Prasad Eye Institute which is named after one of its founders. Shortly after we arrived at the Eye Institute we heard from Dr.Rao and his wife Pratihba who were Americans of Indian decent. They offered us insight into what the objectives of the eye institute were and explained to us that the work they were doing was benefited not only those who resided in India but also those who suffered from impaired vision in other developing countries. After hearing from Dr. Roa and his wife we were then warmly welcomed by Dr. Geeta Vemuganti. She explained to us that the Institute provides a “cafeteria approach to services, from simple care to advanced tertiary care.” After attaining an understanding of what the Institute was all about, we were given the opportunity to explore the facility. Upon entering I knew at once that I was in a very special place. It quickly became evident that this Institute, which is a World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Prevention of Blindness, is a comprehensive eye health facility. The Institute offers comprehensive patient care, sight enhancement, rehabilitation services and high-impact rural eye health programs. It also pursues cutting edge research and offers training in human resources for all levels of ophthalmic personnel.

 In regards to prevention, technicians undergo a year of training and then venture off into the villages and help villagers in many ways. Not only do these technicians provide glasses to those who require corrective lenses, they also identify more serious eye diseases and enable villagers to seek a cure at the Institute. As I understand, 70 percent of primary care work is done by these technicians.When touring the Institute there was one room where non-paying patients were sitting. I was truly struck by the dignity with which these people were treated. Once they were processed they were treated as paying patients throughout the hospital. There were also patient advocates who helped patients through very trying times. This is a concept I am hoping to learn more about for Canadian hospitals.

The other thing that struck me about the Institute was the integral role that women played; from Dr. Geeta Vemuganti to her many female colleagues. There was an empowering feeling of "gender equity and eye health"; 49 percent of outpatients and 53 percent of surgical patients were women. That 46 percent were girls. It was evident to me that there was a great effort to empower women by restoring eyesight.

 As a British Colombian, I was very proud to hear of the great work that Dr. Paul Dubord from the University of British Columbia is doing at the Eye Institute. Dr. Rao was very complimentary of Dr. Dubord's work. The other Canadian partners were the Canadian International Development Agency, Operation Eyesight Universal, Eyesight International, the University of Waterloo, Canadian Executive Service Organization and the University of Ottawa. Dr. Rao urged us Canadians to convince our government to set aside a sum of money and identify a region to help prevent blindness. He gave the example of Australia, which has set aside forty-five million dollars to prevent blindness in Asia. Dr Rao's vision is "blindness can be history". After seeing the work of the Eye Institute, I agree. Blindness can be history. We all have work to do in order to make this a reality.

From the Eye Institute, we traveled to see the work of Infotech Enterprises, which works with many Canadian companies such as Bombardier, with offices in Montreal. Their mission is "Creating Business Impact". It is an engineering company that provides sustainable solutions to address the business needs of the engineering value chain to accelerate an organization's growth. They work with the London Underground and other networks to help them become more efficient.

 We then visited the Indian School of Business. This school is an internationally 12th ranked, research-driven, independent management institute. We had an opportunity to hear from faculty and students. The students were very impressive. They had come from all over the world to the business school. These Indian students chose this business school even though they could have joined any business school, as they wanted to work and build networks in India. They informed us that the opportunities in India for young people were many and they also encouraged us to let Canadian students know of these opportunities.

From the Indian School of Business, we visited the Speaker of the Assembly of Andra Pradesh and other senior government officials. We learned about the progress the state was making and the challenges the people of Andra Pradesh were facing. Later we heard from Dr. Geeta Reddy, the State Minister of Tourism, Culture and Public Relations. She encouraged us to return to Andra Pradesh as a tourist, as there were many sites that we could enjoy. I will someday return to see this state with my family as a tourist.

There are so many thoughts going through my mind about my day in Hyderabad, but the most important thought is that individuals can make a big difference in the world. From building a world class eye institute to cure blindness; to a world class engineering firm to bring efficient solutions; to a world class business school for young graduates to learn to work and network in India.  

One person can make a difference.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is now in India. We spent the first three days (September 5th , 6th and 7^th) in New Delhi. We left New Delhi late in the evening of the 7th and have arrived after midnight in Hyderabad. From New Delhi to Hyderabad, the flight's duration was about two hours. We are starting again at 8.30 am as we only have one day in Hyderabad. I’d like to share with you what I learned in New Delhi.

Firstly, overall, the three messages I heard were as follows:

1. Canadians need to be more assertive in marketing Canadian exports to India
2. If the Canadian government and we as Canadians seriously want to build a commercial partnership with India, then we have to commit to invest resources and build a relationship with Indians for a long period of time. The examples of South Korea and Japan were used as these two countries have achieved significant commercial prosperity by committing to work with Indians over the long term
3. The great faith Indians have in the diaspora community in interpreting Canada to Indians and India to Canadians.

On September 6^th, we started the day by meeting with the Centre for Policy Research.  The Centre is a non-partisan research institute which develops substantive policy options for the improvement of policy making and provides advisory services to governments and other organizations on social and economic development.  This Centre works closely with Canadians, especially with IDRC. In fact, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the President and CEO of the Centre and a distinguished scholar, also serves on the Board of IDRC.We discussed topics of mutual interest from the role India is playing in the development of Afghanistan. India, has consciously decided to play a constructive role in developing Afghanistan; and even when it is attacked it has not reacted with violence. The challenges India faces with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan and China, were discussed extensively. I am now starting to appreciate India’s dilemma regarding how they are to work with their neighbors peacefully, the way that Mahatma Gandhi had envisioned. We learned a lot from our discussions of what challenges India faces. They also gave us some idea as to what role Canada could be playing in this region. This discussion added to our knowledge from what we had learned from our study and readings.

We then went to tour India's Parliament. The National legislature is bicameral. There is the Rajya Sabha (upper house) and Lok Sabha (lower house).  The Rajya Sabha (the upper house) has 245 member-233 elected by weighted votes of the elected members of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of states and union territories and 12 appointed by the president. The Lok Sabha (lower house) has 545 members -543 elected by constituencies (79 seats are reserved for "scheduled castes" and 40 for "scheduled tribes") and two representatives of  Anglo-Indians appointed by the President.

There were a number of explanations about reservations; that is quotas or reserved seats for specific disadvantaged groups, such as the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. This is a bureaucratic name for India's out castes, so called because of the specific castes suffering from the stigma of untouchablity and aboriginal tribes that are listed in the "schedules" which are part of the constitution. We learned that the upper house has passed a bill that would reserve one-third of the seats for women. I understand that this bill will now go to the lower house and there is a good possibility that it will pass and become law in India. India is a very diverse country and it is attempting to have a representative group reflected in its Parliament. Canada  also is a  very diverse group and we in the future will need to look at ways to make our citizens see themselves reflected in their representatives. I believe we can learn some interesting lessons from India.

We were also shown a museum that is part of India's Library of Parliament. This museum reflects India's democracy through the centuries. 

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha (lower house), Meira Kumar, received us very warmly. She is the first Dalit to become speaker. The Dalit or "the oppressed" a term preferred since the 1970s by the new generation of those from India's bottom caste system. They have been known by various terms as "untouchables", "Harijans"(people of God a name given to them by Mahatma Gandhi).  Untouchability that is sadly a stigma placed on the lowest of India's castes. The term very literally means that the person cannot be touched by a higher caste Hindu because of the fear that such contact may pollute the higher caste Hindu. This has been outlawed in the constitution but sadly it is still practiced in many parts of rural India. Now caste discrimination is a punishable offense and prosecutions occasionally occur.

In the afternoon we met with Mr. Basu and his officials.He is the Secretary General for Agriculture.  There was a very lively discussion with him. He explained to us that 60 percent of India's population works on farms and produces 16 percent of its GDP. The remaining 84 percent of GDP needs to be produced by forty percent of the population. Therein lays the gap. He was very frank with us and said that we need to market our agriculture products more aggressively. He remarked that he had said this to us many years ago. We have not followed his advice. There are many benefits to Canola oil and we need to have a marketing strategy and a competitive price, as we are competing with palm oil.

We were also supposed to meet with the foreign minister Krishna. Unfortunately, he was sick. Instead we met with the Secretary of State Perneet Kaur. The Minister was very complimentary of the relationship the Canadian daispora has built with Indians. She went on to speak about how important it was to understand that India has a very vibrant democracy and rapid economic growth leads to challenges. There needs to be continuous negotiation with the people on issues of expropriation and working conditions.

We then heard from Harsh Mander who has been appointed by the Supreme Court of India as a food commissioner. He is presently working on a food bill.  He said to us that every second child in India is malnourished. I will set out the details of his project in a separate blog dedicated to this subject. 

In the evening and the next day we met with Canadian businessmen working in India and Indian businessmen working with Canadian companies. Their messages to us were very clear.

1. If we are serious about Trade with India our government and companies need to stay here for a long time.
2.  Learn the rules of trade of India.
3. India has an independent judiciary.

Most importantly, they said to us they believe both India and Canada can very much benefit from this partnership. I agree with them.    

On the 7th of September, we were well-received by a number of Ministers. Their message to us was that there are many opportunities for both India and Canada to trade. Canadians need to get involved. This would be a win-win situation for both our countries.  We finished around 6.30 and drove directly to the airport to go to Hyderabad.

In the last few days I have acquired a better insight of the challenges India faces and more importantly, the challenges Canadians will face when trading with India. I am leaving New Delhi with the firm belief if we as a country want to continue to prosper in the future, we need to find ways of trading with India. I will share with you my experience of Hyderabad soon.

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is studying the rise of Russia, China and India as in the new global economy these three countries have significant implications for Canada's future prosperity. The Committee members have already visited Russia and China. To complete the study the members are now on a fact-finding mission in India. We will be visiting three cities, New Delhi (the capital of India), Hyderabad, and Mumbai (the financial Centre of India).

For me, there are many emotions I am going through in being part of this Senate trip to India. I am a proud Canadian, wanting to help Canada find different markets to trade in and be less reliant on our neighbor, the United States.  I am also very proud of my Indian heritage and therefore thrilled that my country, Canada, is re-engaging with India.

Since 1974, the Canadian government has not engaged with India. Canada's position on India's nuclear status, shaped by India's nuclear tests in 1974 using Canadian technology and again in 1998, has resulted in cool bilateral relations between the two countries. The relationship was weak before 1974 and after 1974, the bilateral relationship was almost non-existent
In 1973, when Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi spoke in Toronto she complained of Canada and India's weak bilateral economic relationship.

Mr.Douglas Goold, of the Canadian International Council (who is very knowledgeable on the issues affecting India) in his testimony to the Committee stated, "the essence of diplomacy is continuing relationships even when you have differences. We had a 30-year freeze starting in 1974. Instead of moving forward,.. we did very little". I agree.
 
In the 90's, Mr. Chretien made great strides to improve the relationship between India and Canada.

We started the study on the rise of China, India and Russia in the global economy and the implications for Canadian policy in November, 2007. The Committee has made twenty-three recommendations which can be found by visiting the link that I have attached to the end of this entry. These recommendations are on a number of subjects: increasing attention to India, China and Russia in Canadian trade and investment policies and resources; building and maximizing intergovernmental relations; leveraging the Canadian business communities; working with the diaspora communities; promoting an architecture of norms and standards; and on improving Canada's competitiveness. We have made further recommendations concerning Canadian opportunities in such sectors as agriculture, infrastructure, transportation, alternative energy and environmental technologies, education, as well as opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises.  The Committee has asked our government to formulate policy in order to realize the potential benefits for Canadian commercial interests.

For me personally, one of the most important recommendations is No 7.  This is the recommendation on who are we as Canadians. To explain ourselves, and the Committee is asking our government to develop a "Canada Brand" in order to strengthen Canada's commercial profile in China, India and Russia, amidst the strong presence of many other countries who are our competitors.

The recommendation is "the Government should undertake a vigorous marketing campaign in the three countries to promote the Canada Brand and to convey a single message about Canada's advantages and expertise in a variety of areas.” This recommendation will help build on the mostly favorable perception of Canada in the three countries, further showcasing Canada's comparative advantages more aggressively, and also to raise the awareness of Canadian business.  

We are now in New Delhi. Last night we had a very informative briefing from the Canadian High Commissioner, Jim Nickel, and the Canadian officials on India. Today, we have an extensive program which I will share with you in my tweets blog posts.

RESPONDING TO THE RISE OF RUSSIA, INDIA AND CHINA:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fore-e/rep-e/rep07jun10-e.pdf

Note: Recommendations can be found on pages 13-27.

The migrant ship carrying Tamil migrants that arrived in BC last week presents an interesting conundrum, highlighting the difficult issues Canada faces in relation to its immigration policy. The approximately 490 Tamil individuals aboard the migrant ship have been travelling for 4 months in unsafe conditions. Horrifyingly, the Tamil migrants say they are fleeing "mass murder" in Sri Lanka, a country thatrecently ended a 25-year-civil war. Among the migrant ship passengers are 25 women and 44 children.

Yet, the Canadian government is still deciding what to do. Canada's reaction is complicated by the fact that those on board may be connected to the Tamil Tigers terrorist group. The migrant ship – a cargo ship refurbished to cram in 500 people – may present a case of human smuggling in connection with a criminal group. The ship may simply be a "test" – those who sent it could be watching how Canada reacts before sending more migrants forward. Some argue that, if granted refugee status, the Tamils are jumping the queue to migrate to Canada (see CBC report: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/16/tamil-migrant-ship-toews.html)

With this in mind, our government must decide whether or not to grant the Tamil migrants refugee status, while determining whether or not they are connected to a larger criminal group. It must also consider national security concerns that result from the arrival of a ship filled with individuals who have unclear identities.

Even if the Tamil migrants have been smuggled into Canada, they may have chosen to come in this way because they are fleeing persecution. People are smuggled into Canada on a daily basis. What makes this case unique is that these individuals have been brought on a ship and in large numbers. We need to formally assess whether or not the migrants are indeed facing persecution and at the same time find ways to punish the smugglers. The migrants demand our compassion.

-Mobina