House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.

Topics

Tackling Violent Crime Act
Statements By Members

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, when the 39th Parliament comes to an end, the member for Wild Rose will retire, sadly, bringing to an end an incredible political career.

The member for Wild Rose has devoted his career to making our streets and communities safer. The age of protection component of Bill C-2 is tribute to his many years of hard work on the justice file.

This brings us to day 74 of Senate obstruction on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act. Last week, while our government stepped up the pressure on the unelected, unaccountable Liberal Senate, Liberal senators struck back with stunning defences for their inaction.

Let us consider the comments of Liberal Senator Carstairs, who apparently believes that passing the new age of protection component of the act may force 14-year-old and 15-year-old prostitutes underground, preventing them from getting testing for HIV and STDs.

She should want to stop this sexual exploitation. Bill C-2 does that.

I stand here today and join my government in demanding that the Senate stop obstructing Bill C-2 and in thanking the member for Wild Rose for his tireless efforts.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

February 11th, 2008 / 2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, for a year we have said that the government should notify NATO that the timeline of February 2009 must be respected and that NATO should secure a replacement for our troops in Kandahar.

It is only now that the government is seriously engaging NATO, and NATO seems surprised and unprepared for this sudden request from Canada.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that Canada, NATO and Afghanistan would be in a much better position today if he had acted responsibly a year ago?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Liberal leader that no one at NATO was surprised. It has been very engaged with questions of Afghanistan, as are we following on the Manley report.

We are putting a question to Parliament that the House of Commons is going to have to decide. The question is a very simple one: do members support the military mission in Afghanistan or do they wish to see the troops withdrawn?

We know that the NDP has a clear position. It wants the troops withdrawn. We know that the Manley panel and this government have a clear position. We support our troops.

The time is coming for all parties to pronounce on that question.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. The government did not take the February 2009 deadline seriously. How could we expect NATO to take it seriously and prepare for it?

Will the government admit that it is making the same mistake with its motion and that by announcing a simple change to 2011, and not setting a firm deadline, provided we get another 1,000 troops, that what it is proposing to Canadians is nothing less than getting bogged down in a never-ending mission?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the motion is clear. It talks about the end of 2011. The question all parties of the House must answer is simple: do they support the combat mission or do they believe the troops must be withdrawn? The NDP position is clear. It wants the troops to be withdrawn.

We support the troops. All the parties will have to vote on this motion.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, that is not the wording of the motion. He should read his own motion.

For two years, the Prime Minister and his ministers have used inflammatory language, accusing anybody who questions the mission of being unpatriotic, but recently the government has said that this mission needs to change. Otherwise it must be stopped.

Can the government tell us what has changed to make it change its mind, because we certainly would not suggest that its patriotism has changed?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the government looked very seriously at the question of Afghanistan and asked a former Liberal deputy prime minister, John Manley, and a bipartisan panel to engage on the issue and examine with experts the best way forward.

I think the deputy leader of the Liberal Party set the right tone when he said this:

This is the most important thing Canada's done in 50 years. We are anxious to work with the government to find a respectable, honourable compromise that serves the national interest.

I believe the Manley panel has set out the parameters for exactly such a way forward. We hope that all parties will look at this very seriously.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government tabled its flawed motion on Afghanistan, but the motion begs a host of questions.

The most important of these is this: when the government speaks of extending Canada's combat role to 2011, is this a withdrawal date or a renewal date? Which is it: a limited mission or an endless war?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, again we are quite clear. The motion speaks to a date at the end of 2011 and, over the time up to that date, an effort to train and transition responsibility to the Afghan National Army for security in its own country. Obviously our objective is to achieve that. We are not going to tie the hands of a future Parliament. It will be able to review that, but we believe that is an achievable question.

What we have to decide in this Parliament now is what we do until 2011: do members support the mission in Afghanistan or do they want the troops pulled out now? That is the question we will be deciding.

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government's motion on Afghanistan does not raise just one question. It raises three.

What is to say that 1,000 soldiers will be enough? When will combat end and training begin, as the government suggests? The third question is more important: when will the mission end? In 2011, will troops be withdrawn or will the never-ending war be renewed?

Afghanistan
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the person who said this:

We don't know what success looks like in Afghanistan, but we sure know what failure looks like: the Taliban take over, civil war restarts, the girls who are going to school don't go to school, the women who get health care as they deliver their children don't get health care, [and] we slide back. Victory is not clear, but losing this is pretty clear to me, and I don't think we want to lose.

The person who said that is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. I hope he will provide leadership to his party on that question.

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to his press secretary, Premier Jean Charest took advantage of his recent meeting with the Prime Minister to remind him that his aid package for the manufacturing and forestry industries is simply not enough. Not only does the Premier of Quebec find the Prime Minister's aid package inadequate, but the Premier of Ontario, the unions, the industries, workers in the regions and the Bloc Québécois do as well.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to reason and improve his aid package in order to help the workers and regions affected by the crisis?

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Pontiac
Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the leader of the Bloc, knows full well that the government has taken action and has already begun putting measures in place to support Canada's economy. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Finance introduced the economic statement here in this House and managed to get it passed. It contained measures to help businesses in Quebec deal with more complicated situations.

In addition, I would remind my hon. friend that he voted for the measure last week.

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, we agreed with putting an end to the despicable blackmail that consisted in tying the aid to the next budget, but that was not our only condition. The government has a $10.6 billion surplus in relation to the current budget. The economic situation is cause for concern, especially given what is happening in the United States. We agree that some money needs to go to pay down the debt. Three billion dollars would be enough. But putting the full $10.6 billion on the debt would mean ignoring the needs of workers and the regions.

Could the government not grant another $3.5 billion, not in the next budget, but out of the current surplus, to help—

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.