Debates of June 14th, 2011

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion in the press particularly, and I go back to the time of the first resolution before this House on March 21. The suggestion was that there was no debate or discussion and that this was something people just did haphazardly. However, the member will know that in the weekend preceding that particular resolution for the House, there was much discussion between the parties that were involved regarding that resolution. One focus of the discussion was to have the resolution changed to say that not just military, but all aspects of UN Resolution 1973 are supported, endorsed and urged upon the government to pursue.

I wonder if he would comment on what has happened since then. My perception is that the focus has been almost entirely and solely on the military aspects of the resolution. Would he comment on that and why we are bringing forth the amendments we are making today?

Paul Dewar Ottawa Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, it is important to remind people that when we initially passed the motion in the House in March, it was amended. That was to ensure that we did follow UN Resolution 1973, but also that we would not have ground troops and that we would ensure there was a timeline. The reason we are here today debating the motion is we wanted to make sure there was a timeline.

Those amendments matter because they ensured Canadians and us as parliamentarians, that it was not a blank cheque. I agree with my colleague from St. John's East that there needs to be more focus on the diplomatic side on the humanitarian support. That is why we put our amendments to this motion forward.

It is welcoming news that the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood today and recognized the fact that there needs to be more diplomatic and humanitarian support. We look forward to hearing more from the government on that.

Paul Dewar Ottawa Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, we absolutely believe that recognizing the council would be an important element toward making progress in Libya.

We need to be clear that regional groups must be within the ambit of the United Nations. When regional representatives of the Arab League and the African Union pushed for the UN to adopt a resolution, we fully supported that.

However, for clarification, we do not support unilateral actions by NATO to involve itself without the support of the UN.

We absolutely think it would be a progressive action to recognize the council so that there is someone to work with on the ground.

Mark Eyking Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning with the member for Toronto Centre.

First, I thank the hon. member for appointing me as the CIDA critic in the Liberal shadow cabinet. I also thank the people of Sydney—Victoria for once again placing their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa.

Helping people around the world in need has always been a passion of mine even before I entered politics. Since entering politics, the last 11 years I have had a lot of input on the foreign affairs committee and I have travelled to many countries to see the benefits of the help by Canadians.

As the Liberal critic for CIDA, I am honoured to stand in this House today to talk about our country's role in Libya post-Gadhafi.

I will begin by commending the brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces for the amazing job they are doing in Libya and around the world on behalf of all Canadians.

What will we see in Libya after the Gadhafi regime is gone? We will see reports of injustice toward Libyan women, men and children. We will hear more reports of mistreatment under a regime that must be dealt with. Funds will be needed for infrastructure but, most important, Libya will be without a democratic and judicial system, a basic right that we all cherish in this country.

When the G8 met at the summit last month in Deauville, the Prime Minister said that he did not intend to contribute any more funding to new democracies in Egypt, Tunisia or any other country that is now facing rebellions, such as we have seen in Libya and Syria, even though he strongly supports the democratic movements in these regions.

Democracy will not flourish without funds and proper guidance. The absence of social and government cohesion will be a tremendous obstacle in any possible transition to democracy. In fact, a post-Gadhafi Libya must first embark on a process of basic state formation, particularly the construction of a national identity and public administration, and, of course, the return of law and order before this democracy can take root.

The government seems to be in need of a bit of a history lesson. Some historians say that World War II may not have happened in Europe if the allies had assisted Germany in the reconstruction and instilling proper institutions. Instead, the victors after World War I were mostly interested in obtaining more land. The allies learned from this mistake and after World War II they set forth with a major reconstruction effort in western Europe. This was known as the Marshall Plan which was enacted in 1947 as a way to help rebuild Europe. This was also set up to discourage Communism from entering the region.

Canada also played another big role in the development of Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We see that many of the east bloc countries have instilled our democratic institutions and our Charter of Rights in their constitutions.

Another example in Europe is the role we have played in the former Yugoslavia. We now see that justice is still moving forward in the court system .

At present, Europe is a thriving democratic region and, over the last century, Canada played a big role in making that happen.

Another example is after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. Iraqis were faced with turmoil and civil war. This House and many Canadians may not know but, under the Paul Martin Liberal government, Canada pledged over $300 million over seven years for reconstruction. The largest share of Canada's contribution of $115 million was disbursed through the international reconstruction fund for Iraq and was managed by the World Bank and the United Nations.

Canada's support focused on the development of stable, self-governing and prosperous Iraq, with a representative and a democratic government respectful of human rights and promoting equality between women and men. The Canadian assistance in the areas of social and economic development also helped meet human needs, such as food, water and medical care.

Another more recent example of the work we are doing is in Afghanistan where we are helping it move forward as the conflicts diminish. Why are we not taking lessons learned in Afghanistan to other missions such as Libya?

Afghanistan is Canada's largest ever bilateral aid recipient. We are rebuilding schools, helping to build a governance structure and we are training the military and the police. We also have programs to support maternal and child health. We are doing it in Afghanistan and we must continue to do it in other countries.

Another personal experience I have witnessed with the reconstruction of another country post a notorious regime was in Panama. In 1980, Panama, under Noriega, was a police state with no democracy. The largest revenue was from the drug trade. After the fall of Noriega, the Panama Canal was handed over to the people by the U.S. and a new constitution was formed, but the economy also had to be restructured. I was asked to help with the reconstruction of its agriculture industry. I witnessed a transformation in Panama, which is now one of the most democratic and thriving countries in Central America.

Those are all examples that the House must realize have made countries vibrant and democratic.

Where is the government's post-Gadhafi strategy? The government has been notorious for its lack of detail. Why has it not put forward a more detailed plan regarding the future of a post-Gadhafi Libya or what if any role will Canada play in it? There is a known presence of extremist forces in certain areas of Libya, including some links to al-Qaeda. There is a very real fear that the extremists will gain a footing in a power vacuum that will undeniably occur once Gadhafi is finally ousted.

We know the situation we are facing in Libya. I have spoken of the great contributions Canada has made to help foster democracy. The reality is that the government has changed the way Canada operates on the world stage. By only offering to take military action and letting other multilateral international organizations do the restructuring is not acceptable.

The Prime Minister in a recent speech talked about playing a bigger leadership role on the international scene, but what we have seen is completely the opposite. It was with great interest yesterday when we heard in the House the member for Toronto—Danforth criticize companies for working in Libya. The companies the hon. member criticized will be instrumental in rebuilding Libya.

We need to work with Libya to help with reconstruction. There will be a benefit for our companies as we get the oil industry back and get everything to work well in that area. We saw the situation in Egypt where there was insufficient international support after the regime change left Egypt in a vulnerable state.

We cannot let this happen in the Middle East. We especially cannot let it happen in Libya. I ask the House to vote for the subamendment by the member for Toronto Centre.

Deepak Obhrai Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my friend for winning his election and returning as the CIDA critic. I worked with him when he was the parliamentary secretary for international trade.

I am a little confused. In his speech he talked about post-Gadhafi. At the current time, he is talking about the UN resolution and saving civilian lives. However, that will not happen until Mr. Gadhafi is gone.

The member has already jumped ahead to a post-Gadhafi situation. He stated that we should learn lessons from Afghanistan and other situations. Of course we should. We helped it build its democracy but we are working with governments that have been elected by the people. They are working to build their government. The government there has legitimacy.

In Libya, however, at the current time its government is under investigation by the International Criminal Court. Therefore, how can he say that we have learned from Afghanistan and that we should move into Libya right away?

Mark Eyking Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite is satisfied that I was re-elected, but I am sure a lot of other Conservatives are not. However, I am glad to be working with the member opposite again on the foreign affairs file, but we have to look at the future. What are we going to be doing in that country?

Right now we are concentrating on military action and that has to be dealt with. We have to get Gadhafi out of there, but we have to look at the future.

As was mentioned earlier in the House, are the funds there? Are we just going to rely on the multilateral groups to go forward with this, or are we going to put funds to help in the reconstruction? Companies in Canada will want to know if money will be available to make that happen as they go forward.

We need to look forward. I know the Conservatives go day by day, but we have to look month by month, and I hope the hon. member will recognize that.

Paul Dewar Ottawa Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I, too, want to welcome him back to the House and congratulate him on his appointment as critic. However, I would like to clarify something for he and his party.

It was very clear that the question from my leader yesterday was about the fact that Canada was part of the equation in terms of supporting Mr. Gadhafi and that we had Canadian companies involved, in some cases, in building prisons. God knows what would happen to those prisons under the Gadhafi regime. The point is, from this day forward, should we not be seized with that to understand and learn that we do not want to do business with regimes that oppress their people like the Gadhafi regime?

This is not about the spoils of war. This is not about ensuring Canadian companies get in there and get a deal. It should be about human rights and democratic development.

I would love to know what the member thinks about that.

Mark Eyking Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, the reality is this. We can look at China and many other countries around the world where Canada plays a big role in reconstruction and infrastructure. Lavalin is doing work in Libya to help with clean drinking water, irrigation and issues that would bring prosperity up and help the people in the region. It is not there supporting a regime. It is not supplying weapons to the regime. It is there to help with infrastructure for a country that needs it.

I know the NDP looks at this one way, but we have to see the big picture. We have to look at how reconstruction happens. There must be reconstruction and institutions in place to help the country move forward.

Some may say that we should not be in China because a communist party is running the country. However, we have to be there and our country can do the job. Not only that, but when other countries do that reconstruction, they also introduce democracy to the people in the area working for them on these projects.

The NDP has to think outside the box and see the benefits of Canadian companies working in these countries.

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to spend some time in this debate. I want to express my appreciation to the member from Sydney—Victoria for sharing his time. When we become a Gideon's army, we have to share more, and we are happy to do so.

The member from Ottawa Centre and the minister have outlined some of the history of the conflict. I simply want to say a couple of things in addition to the comments that have been made by my friend from Sydney—Victoria.

First, we should not make the mistake of believing that military intervention on its own represents a diplomatic and comprehensive solution to the challenges that we face in the world. It is very important for Canadians to have the understanding that while Canada deeply appreciates and respects the work that our military is doing in Afghanistan and in Libya, as it has done in many other conflicts, the resolution of these conflicts requires more than simply a military effort. This is the first principle that we need to observe.

There are many times when it becomes a little easy to think that if we send planes over and drop some bombs, we are doing our bit for the mission. However, I was pleased to hear the minister today reflect on the fact that Canada's role needed to expand well beyond that.

Also, for my colleague from Ottawa Centre, we are fully supportive of the amendments he has proposed. I hope very much that those amendments will be satisfactory to the government.

We need to understand what is happening. We live in an unstable world where democracy does not exist for everyone and where human rights are not respected. In certain areas of the world, people live in terribly difficult economic conditions and an unstable political climate where repressive governments do not respect human rights. That is the world we live in.

As the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria said, we could rhyme off examples of significant progress that has been made. We have seen much positive change in Eastern Europe and Latin America over the past 50 years. There are still major challenges in Africa, the Middle East and China in particular. China is not currently a democracy, but it is a country of more than one billion people.

The question becomes, what is this standard? How do we deal with the fact that the world is not fully democratic, that the world is not one that fully respects human rights? Do we simply take the case of national sovereignty and say that we can never intervene in the affairs of another country, or do we understand, which I think we have to do, that the entire evolution of international law has taken us to this point where we have to say that what goes on inside a country is just as important as what happens between countries. The question is not so much any more what are the rights of the state, vis-a-vis other states. The question much more is whether the rights of citizens in countries, who are being mistreated by their government, are important.

This afternoon, and I am sure the minister will be there, we will be commemorating the Holocaust. We will be reflecting on the fact that the world turned away from those who were being viciously discriminated against in Germany. We waited for a long time and then the interventions came in Poland. Then the interventions came in Russia and then in all of eastern Europe, and six million people were killed because they were Jews.

After the second world war, we began to realize that we had to develop some sense of the rights of the world community and the rights that people had as a result of the injustices that were being faced.

That is the way we have to understand what is happening in Libya. People ask me, “Why Libya? Why not Syria?” How do we explain this intervention and not that one? The answers are not always simple and, in fact, the answers are not always clear, but we are, slowly but surely as a world, taking the human footsteps toward the point where we can say that we will not allow people to be brutalized by their own government, that we will not simply sit back and do nothing and that we will intervene. Yes, that intervention may have a military component and people will be killed as a result of that intervention, and none of us should take joy in the fact that it is a consequence of what happened.

However, we also understand, from everything we have learned in human history, the consequences of appeasement, of not facing up to dictators, of letting people get away with impunity with killing their own people.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I move:

That the amendment be further amended by inserting after the words “political transition”, the following:

That the Government of Canada engage with the Libyan National Council (LNC) based in Benghazi as a legitimate political entity and representative of the Libyan people; that it provide the LNC with advice and assistance in governance, including women's rights;

And further by inserting after the words “alleged crimes”, the following:

That it ensure that Canadian citizens, landed immigrants, or visitors to Canada are not subject to any threats or intimidation by representatives of the Gadhafi regime.

I would add that I fully support the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party. We had additional language, but we did not want to be redundant in simply putting forward the same perspective. I hope these proposals will have the support of the government. They are entirely consistent with the comments which the minister made today, and I hope they will be accepted.

The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Paul Dewar Ottawa Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Liberal Party for his intervention and I would like to congratulate him on his return to the House, formally, and of course on his position.

There were a number of things he said in his speech that are important to note around the whole trajectory of what it means to ensure that the rights of civilians are protected. I want to underline the point that he made because there has been a lot of debate around why Libya and why not Syria.

I would ask my colleague, in terms of Syria, if he would please comment on how it is consistent to ensure that we have a diplomatic solution to support the people of Libya at a time when we are still having to deal with Syria. Some would say that there should not be a continuation of our support in Libya because there is a need for support in Syria.

I would simply ask him to comment on that and perhaps on what we could do in the case of the situation in Syria that has--

The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie

I must give the hon. member for Toronto Centre equal time to respond.

Bob Rae Toronto Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I wish I had a magic answer.

I remember asking questions slightly higher up in the food chain over there about Sri Lanka as to why we were not intervening in Sri Lanka. I remember many government ministers saying, “What do you want us to do? Send in troops?”

The Secretary-General of the UN has now commissioned a panel to look into the possibility of war crimes in Sri Lanka.

In the case of Syria, it is a deep and genuine tragedy that is taking place. Thousands of people have been killed. Yet, the world community has not been able to rouse itself to deal effectively with the crisis. We have carried out some sanctions, we have carried out some efforts to restrict the activities of the al-Assad government, but we have not been able to find an effective solution.

There are many countries at the UN, two in particular on the Security Council, that do not want an intervention because they do not want the eyes of the world to be focusing on them, and they both have vetoes. They have taken a very, I regard, reactionary position with respect to the obligations of the community to intervene when there are such clear examples of abuse of a population.

I think we have to--