Steven Blaney

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her question.

I really have no experience in international relations, but I think it must surely be quite similar to personal relations. It is often said that we discover our true friends when the going gets tough.

Afghanistan needs to count on its friend Canada. In this context, I think that we must work together and support the current effort, which is part of the process. We are in the midst of reconstruction efforts. We must continue along this path.

In this regard, I fully support the position of our Prime Minister.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I feel that it has been clearly demonstrated this evening that the Afghan mission entails greater risks than those usually encountered by peacekeeping forces, and it is important to face them in order to maintain security efforts enabling the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

This evening's discussions have clearly demonstrated that the government was headed in that direction and that efforts would continue to ensure tangible results in the end.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is my duty to speak this evening to support our important mission in Afghanistan.

By the way, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

I support this mission for two reasons that have been given this evening. The first reason is that the mission is to make Afghanistan a safer place and to fight the terrorism there. The second reason, which has been well explained this evening, is that it supports the reconstruction effort of a country that has gone through decades of war and conflict.

We have been asked this evening whether the Conservative government has shown leadership. In the early days after being elected, our Prime Minister went to Afghanistan. He stayed there and met with the troops. He went straight to the source. He also met the leaders. He clearly showed the type of leadership we should expect from the head of the nation.

It is important to point out that 36 countries are currently involved at the United Nations. We are there at the request of the Afghan people. The United Nations has endorsed this mission.

We have the privilege of living in a free and open society that allows us to hold debates like this one this evening and demonstrations like the one that was held tonight outside these halls. It is not a right but a privilege that we owe to our ancestors who fought to give us these rights and freedoms. Too often, in the comforts of our modern lives, we forget that these people went to battle to make sure we could have these rights and freedoms.

It is in our national interest to ensure that a free and prosperous Afghanistan is nurtured through this difficult part in its history. Canada is helping Afghanistan to become a stable, democratic and self-sustaining state so that it will not serve as a haven for terrorists who threaten global and Canadian security.

Afghanistan currently represents our most important overseas military deployment. There are over 2,000 soldiers from various military bases, including bases in Quebec like Valcartier.

Our mission in Afghanistan involves not only peacekeeping but also the rebuilding of the social fabric of this state; there are two parts to the mission we are working on there. We are helping the impoverished, the poor and the destitute to a better quality of life with programs that rebuild the national solidarity structure.

This evening, the Minister of International Cooperation gave examples of microeconomics and small practical projects. For instance, a dressmaker received a loan to buy sewing machines, so that now she and her children can make and market clothing.

We are in Afghanistan to support a mission recognized by the United Nations and at the request of the Afghan government. We hope Afghanistan will become a stable, democratic country we can rely on for support. Our national security depends on it.

Canada has also promised to help the Afghan people. We intend to keep that promise. We must do more than just give our word. We have to be ready to stand up for our convictions and do what is needed to safeguard Afghans' security and, by the same token, our own.

This mission is part of the proud tradition of Canadian missions to protect rights and freedoms to the best of our ability.

While our soldiers are putting their lives on the line in the streets and mountains of Kandahar, they need to know that they have the unwavering support of our decision-makers and the members of this House, who made an informed decision. I am certain that the hon. members will agree that the men and women of our armed forces deserve our support and our respect.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks and congratulate her on being elected to Parliament again and having the trust of her constituents.

It was said that the Conservative government's first throne speech neglected to mention several things. But it is Canadians and Quebeckers who were truly neglected for the past 13 years. Previous throne speeches did not focus on priorities. They were shopping lists that tried to please everybody. They were litanies of promises that were not kept.

It is easy to seduce voters. It is not so easy to keep and honour our constituents' trust.

The throne speech, which proposes measures for Canadians, is geared to Canadians' needs. It includes the reduction in the GST, the child care allowance, improved access to health care and measures designed to change the attitude toward the provinces.

This throne speech also shows that the government can be flexible. Take, for example, the amendment that addresses older workers. In my own riding, there are shipyard workers who were also neglected for the past 13 years. I hope they will have a support program and that, thanks to the Conservative government, they can have sustainable jobs. No support program can do that. As we say in Quebec, we are in business when private industry can create jobs.

Lastly, I would like to come back to something that previous speakers said: Quebec is a vital part of Canada. Not only Mr. Harper said it, but the leader of the NDP did as well. I think that my Bloc Québécois colleagues were there. I hope that we can work together to get things done in this House in the interest of Canadians.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for what he had to say about culture.

Our new road map does talk about culture. I would like to remind my colleague that we have a culture of accountability here in Ottawa. In my view, the highest priority of this Speech from the Throne was to re-establish confidence in our members of Parliament and elected officials and the confidence of people in their government.

This culture of accountability can be seen particularly in the fact that the throne speech was not a laundry list of priorities that head off in all directions but never reach any of their goals. I would like to reassure my colleague. Culture is important for Canadian and Quebec society. We know how much the great federal institutions have done to support and sustain French, English and Quebec culture.

Let us take, for example, the role played by the CBC. Again last night, there were some broadcasts that had very high ratings, which reached large audiences and helped specifically to advance culture.

In his address, my colleague covered a lot of points. But I did not hear any specific recommendations or suggestions regarding measures that could be included in a budget to support culture and continue doing so through federal institutions.

If he has some specific suggestions, therefore, I would encourage him to let us know. I would also like to know if, when a budget is introduced by our government in the course of our work in the House and there are measures to support culture, will my colleague be in favour of them?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking on the environment. It is a topic we will return to in the weeks to come, for it represents a national concern and an important issue for our future.

My colleague referred to black Friday. In response to that, I would like to point out the 13 black years under the Liberal government, in terms of environmental performance. I have before me an excerpt from a magazine published by Équiterre that states, “the increase in greenhouse gases in Canada now appears completely out of control, surpassing the 1990 levels by 24%”.

I understand my colleague's wish to speak on the environment. During the 13 years under the Liberal government, greenhouse gas emissions increased exponentially. What was the result? Environmental specialists suggested that precious time had been lost due to proposals for relatively costly and rather inefficient measures that produced no tangible, concrete results on a global scale.

The Speech from the Throne proposes measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. Of course, the throne speech does not contain 50 pages of such environmental measures, but it proposes concrete action, nonetheless. The time for discussion about the environment has passed and we must now take action.

My colleague spoke at length about the environment. Why does he have so much to say now when we have seen nothing concrete in this regard for the past 13 years?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleague that, as I said last week, any slight improvement in the economy under the Liberal government is attributable to the Conservative government's introduction of the GST and free trade, which the previous government opposed.

I would also like to defend the Minister of National Defence's reputation. He is a competent man. Unlike his Liberal counterparts of the past 13 years, he has no intention of leaving the merchant and military fleets in their current advanced state of deterioration.

Why did the previous government leave the military fleet in such a state? We cannot even provide adequate transportation for our troops to accomplish humanitarian missions or missions like the one we have undertaken in Afghanistan.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

I want the hon. member to know that the proposed measure is for all parents, regardless of income or child-rearing choices. As we know, some parents choose the child care system. Other mothers and fathers choose to stay at home with their children.

I am proud of the fact that we are not injecting this money into cumbersome and expensive systems, providing it instead to parents, who will ensure that it is managed efficiently and reallocated where necessary to programs available to them.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have had to call upon every ounce of my university training in engineering to follow the hon.member's math.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wishes. This is indeed the first time I rise in this kind of debate. First, regarding shipyards, I would remind him that the shipyard in Lévis flourished under a Conservative government. And our Prime Minister's ships are not sailing under a foreign flag.

That said, I am pleased that a Conservative government also introduced free trade and the goods and services tax that benefited the previous government. But instead of putting the money back in the taxpayers' pockets, it developed expensive programs.

We plan to change that approach in Ottawa and to manage taxpayers' money with integrity and efficiency.