Thomas Mulcair

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to get an answer is to ask questions. At least the person who just spoke, and who boasts about being from Quebec but speaks only in English when he rises, will have his answer right away.

The New Democratic Party opposes the creation of this body and supports the Bloc Québécois motion for reasons that I will explain in the language of Shakespeare, for the benefit of my colleague. I am going to read him a brief excerpt from the Financial Post last October:

The Council of Ministers of Securities Regulation (representing all provinces and territories, except Ontario)--

I think our finance minister has a little trouble understanding that he is no longer an Ontario minister. He is too busy with his choo-choos. The quote continues:

--wants the public to know the facts regarding Canada's securities regulatory system.

Canada's securities regulatory system has recently been the subject of intense negative rhetoric--

Like that which we have just heard from the Liberals.

The quote continues:

--from those who advocate creating a single securities regulator. Led by [the] federal Finance Minister...critics contend that our current system, with regulatory authority falling to the 13 provinces and territories, is cumbersome, ineffective and costly. After the acquittal of the former vice-chairman of Bre-X, [the minister] criticized Canada's securities regulators and described securities enforcement as “an embarrassment internationally to Canada”. He has also suggested that a single regulator is necessary in order to pursue free trade in securities with the United States and other G7 countries. Unfortunately, most of this criticism is based on myths, not facts.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the case.

Yes indeed, there has to be cooperation and the work has to be done in unison by the provinces, in the same way that the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants is always refining what are considered to be generally accepted accounting principles. There are no problems in that regard. But this is not something that can be imposed from the top down. Everyone has to work together toward that ultimate goal.

What we have before us is an absolutely classic example of federalism as it was practised in the era of the Liberal Party of Canada. So imagine our surprise to see that the Minister of Finance is winning the battle with his Prime Minister, the very Prime Minister who prides himself on being someone who has understood that Quebec, in particular, is a nation within Canada. He is telling us to forget that. His answers are getting increasingly strident and increasingly caustic. He says that the federal government alone should be the one on top when it comes to these things.

I might suggest that we should look at the facts when it comes to the supreme power and jurisdiction of the federal government to regulate white-collar crime. It is indeed true that in Canada, economic crime is given a fair bit of latitude, compared to what happens south of the border.

If we want to see how it works when the rules are properly enforced, we need only look at what happened with the case in which judgment was recently given concerning the Norbourg company and Vincent Lacroix. Vincent Lacroix was sentenced to 12 years in prison by the Quebec courts under the provincial regulations. How many prosecutions came out of the sponsorship scandal and the superb work done by the RCMP? Zero, not one, nada. That is the real result of what goes on here in Ottawa.

We saw it again with the ethics committee, regarding the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. We learned that while the Liberals were paying out $2.1 million of taxpayers’ money to Brian Mulroney to settle his action, the investigators had not even interviewed Mr. Schreiber. When that was disclosed for the first time in committee, the RCMP sent a spokesperson to say, “That is not true, we interviewed him.” Yes, but they interviewed him after the settlement. That is very clearly the question that was asked.

Open up professor Johnston's report on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and what does it say? Contrary to what we were told, the RCMP did interview him. Then there are the marginal notes, which list all of the dates, and once again, it looks like that happened after the settlement. How can it be that Mr. Pellossi, for example, was never interviewed? Why is it that most of the time, the federal government's so-called excellent work on economic crime fails to show results?

If Conrad Black had been tried and had been the subject of an investigation here in Canada, he would be sitting in a nice restaurant in Toronto, smoking a cigar, instead of sitting in the big house. That is the reality of what we have seen up to now.

The provinces definitely do not need a lecture from their big brother, the federal government. What a speech we heard from the Liberals earlier. What an incredibly haughty attitude toward the provinces. Sometimes in this House, the masks come off and we can see people for who they really are. This afternoon, when we vote on this issue and the Liberal members stand up one after the other to vote with the Conservatives, they will prove that the Gerard Kennedys of this world, those who deny that Quebec is a nation within Canada, hold sway in their caucus. They are trying to justify how Justin Trudeau can still be an official Liberal Party candidate even though he too argues against recognizing Quebec as a nation. This is not complicated: they do not believe it.

They refuse to look at the evidence. They do not care about the facts. Their only goal in life is to prove that Ottawa knows best, even in matters of shared jurisdiction, like the regulation of financial markets and securities.

The Bloc Québécois motion, the opposition motion, states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately abandon the idea of creating a common securities regulator, since securities regulations fall under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and because this initiative is unanimously condemned in Quebec.

The last phrase—unanimously condemned in Quebec—is absolutely true; but that is not all. Who is Greg Selinger, the author of the quote I read earlier from the National Post? He is the chair of the Council of Ministers of Securities Regulation and also the minister of finance for Manitoba, your province, Mr. Speaker. He and the Bloc Québécois are saying exactly the same thing, that there is nothing to prevent us from working together.

I would like to congratulate another colleague from Winnipeg, also a man of vision. He studied this matter knowing that white-collar crime is an everyday concern of Canadians. People see what goes on and wonder why we cannot implement standards and why we are not more successful.

We will not solve anything by having Ottawa pass a single set of regulations that will be made in Toronto. This is another bad sign for Montreal, which has already suffered enough—thank you very much—from the flight of capital, organization and service structures to Toronto. It is wrong to let people think that, henceforth, Ottawa will be in charge. It is as though we were unable to agree on the objectives, which are to have a passport system. Mr. Selinger spoke about this in the article I referred to. For those of you who are interested, you can find the article online in the October 26, 2007 edition of the National Post.

There is nothing preventing us from reaching an agreement on the guidelines. They should stop believing that, by pushing for centralization, as the Liberals always did and, to my surprise and disappointment, as the Conservatives are doing today, we will obtain better results. That is the issue. They feel they have to get results. Let us stop messing around about the methods, claiming that, by centralizing and dictating from the top down, the federal government will achieve better results. We have proof that the provinces that put in the necessary resources can obtain results without compromising the initial agreement.

There is a paradox, here, that I want to explore a little. People on that side of the aisle want Quebec to leave Canada. That is not what we want. We believe—and the NDP’s Sherbrooke declaration proves—that we can adapt on a case by case basis and by resorting when appropriate to asymmetrical federalism, which takes these different approaches into account. When it comes to the environment, some provinces and especially certain territories have very limited resources in an area of shared jurisdiction. The environment is actually a bit like securities: it is shared between the federal government and the provinces. Some provinces simply want to leave all the investigations up to the federal government because they lack the resources. That suits them, and they sign agreements to that effect. Good for them, it is fine with us. Just as we do not want to be told how to do things, we do not want to tell the other provinces what would be best, what the best practices are and how best to achieve results.

Whether in regard to the environment, the regulation of corporations, or the regulation of securities, we should go out and find the best practices. We should see what our neighbour is doing best. We should reach agreements and set up a passport system that allows for the free flow of services. That is much to be desired in today’s world. In the area of professions, for example, we want people’s credentials recognized when they come from another country or another jurisdiction. All the better if people who provide services can circulate freely. We do not have a problem with that. The free flow of services is at least as important in a country as the free flow of goods. Bring it on.

There are some conditions though. In Quebec, for example, there has always been a language requirement for professions going back to the 1960s, long before bills 101 and 22, and that could be the case here. We would also want to ensure that services are provided in accordance with ground rules with which everyone is familiar. It is interesting that the federal government has never tried to impose the generally accepted accounting principles on the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

It is the profession that has always done it. Why is it that they can accept decentralized deregulation when it comes to professions? It is because the results are there. When it comes to the provinces, though, they want to go back 30 years. They want to start playing the big brother who tells the others that there are incompetent so he will take over. Incredible. Where does that come from?

A little while ago, I heard a long-serving Liberal member impart the same old lesson we have been hearing for years. The Liberals are incapable of change, incapable of realizing that it was this kind of behaviour that gave rise to the Bloc Québécois in reaction to intransigent federalism. I was astonished. If we are incapable of realizing that the Canada of the 21^st century must be different if it is going to continue to progress and evolve in the interests of its citizens—because that is what this is all about—we really will have a problem.

We are adding our voices to those of our Bloc Québécois colleagues on this specific issue because they are right. Paradoxically, they are the ones who are asking that the fundamental agreement, the Confederation agreement as it is set out, be respected. It is quite a paradox.

When it suits them, the Conservatives proclaim that the Québécois constitute a nation within Canada. As for the Liberals, they never believed that but they voted in favour of it, on the eve of their convention to select a new leader who, I can guarantee, never believed it. The vision of Gerard Kennedy, of Bob Rae and of the Leader of the Opposition is winning the day. We have an example of that today.

We in the New Democratic Party have studied this question for a long time. One of my colleagues has worked very hard on it. In all of her analysis, she has always assigned a very important place to understanding the need for a system of self-regulation that gives absolute priority to the public interest.

Some people listening to us outside Quebec are perhaps not familiar with the Norbourg affair. This case is still before the courts but I want to talk about some decisions that have already been rendered in the lower court. It is rather fascinating.

We stand up, one after another, members of all the parties —the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc— to talk about the people’s interests. In the Norbourg affair, even though I just said with great satisfaction that the person involved was sentenced to 12 years in prison, the investors have still not been compensated. No one has yet found out where or how the money was hidden. As a result, small investors have lost their life savings. Whether it was $20,000, $10,000 or $50,000, they entrusted their money to people in whom they had confidence. The expression “to con” is based on “confidence.” These people where cheated and they lost their savings. The system is now applying the punishment but we must have structured regulations in place to ensure prevention, and not only the cure. That is the desired goal; that is the result.

They cannot make us believe, either in the NDP or the Bloc, that adding more weight to the system with a new federal structure will make it easier to obtain those results. That is false. We do not believe it. It is only the Liberals and Conservatives who believe in those fairy tales. For our part, we believe instead in a way of working together to obtain a result that will be accepted from one place to another. For that, there is no problem.

I was the Quebec minister of the environment for three years. That is an area of shared jurisdiction and issues can be settled effectively if we work with the provinces. We had a structure similar to what Mr. Selinger described in his article. We met together. However, from time to time, someone like the current Leader of the Opposition having delusions of importance came to play the role of the federal big brother. He came to stick his nose in and to tell us how to do things. He wanted to impose a reference framework designed in Ottawa. I worked strenuously against that approach when I was the Quebec minister of the environment.

Now, that I am a member of Parliament and a proud Quebec member of the NDP in this House, I shall expend that same energy to battle those same tendencies, which are cropping up again among the Conservatives over the way.

We do have a problem at the moment with the government and in particular its Minister of Finance, who appears to be sorry not to still be in provincial politics. He is constantly squabbling with the government of the province he represents here in the federal parliament in Ottawa. Not a week goes by without press coverage of that rivalry and wrangling. He is gives even giving lectures on provincial fiscal policy. My point is clear.

The federal Minister of Finance, not content merely with the great centralizing role we already know he plays, is now going so far as to start dictating in full detail the taxation policy the province ought to be using. If I may offer the federal finance minister a piece of friendly advice: let him live out his dream by going back to provincial politics. He is better suited to it and he will enjoy wrangling with the provincial people. The problem is that, at the moment, he is here at the federal level. The views he is trying to impose on everyone here are very small, narrow and limited.

In closing, let me state that the NDP will continue to push for a vision that will ensure protection for Canadians and respect for professionals. That is the result we want. The professional system in Quebec is unique in North America. It involves not just discipline, the curative aspect, but also prevention and inspection.

Any practice, be it lawyers, architects or one of the other forty or so professions that are regulated at the present time, is inspected by an inspection committee mandated by that professional corporation. This is a system that produces excellent results. Rather than wait for the train to go off the tracks, there is a bit of preventive maintenance to stop that derailment from happening.

The other provinces might find something worth learning in this approach that is specific to Quebec. By exchanging views on best practices we will succeed in creating a system that will produce the result everyone wants, so that people with savings, investors and those who have gone without in order to put a little aside to invest for their old age can see those savings protected. Is that not the point of the exercise? The aim is not to impose strong arm tactics preferred by the feds.

For all these reasons, and expecting some questions on this, I wish to state that the New Democratic Party will always work to protect the consumer, but it will do so not by centralizing or imposing, but rather by working collaboratively to ensure that this result is achieved.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, of all the things I have heard since the beginning of what was until a few minutes ago a rather interesting debate, that is the most pathetic nonsense that I have heard in this House on Afghanistan since the start of the debate. It is embarrassing to know that this man is actually a minister of the Crown. That type of demonization of the adversary is a classic when trying to defend an otherwise indefensible war.

What we are saying, and we are very proud to say it, is that Canada has played over its history and especially in the past 50 years an honourable role in the world for creating conditions for peace. It was only thanks to French television, TF1, that we saw Canadian troops involved in search and destroy missions. That is what the Conservatives have us involved in. We want us out and we do want to protect the civilian population.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, where do I begin after an intervention of that kind. I actually do understand a few things from last week better myself.

When I hear the member say that we do not support our men and women in uniform, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact we all support, respect and admire each and every member of the Canadian armed forces.

Where we differ with the Conservative government is with the mission. We have no quarrel with the individuals serving. We have nothing but admiration and respect for them. We have a profound and great difference of opinion with the government on how they should be performing their jobs and where.

So do not try to put words in our mouth about respecting people in uniform. It is just not true. It also shows the paucity of the arguments of the Conservatives. They have nothing to say. I just listened to the comments and it is amazing. It is true sometimes when there is bullying that we do have to push back.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have become accustomed to the heckling. I just do not listen to it any more.

Despite the fact that we do not agree, we in the NDP at least have a clear position and Canadians can judge.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in English having heard the member's French.

If we look at the paragraph that I was referring to earlier, the paragraph that explains the extension of the mission, it says that the withdrawal will start in July 2011 but it will be completed by the end of December 2011. So, from February 2009, that means all of 2009, it means all of 2010, and believe it or not, December is the last month of 2011, so that means all of 2011. In case the member has as much trouble with his math as with his French, it is important for him to understand that it is another three years.

The other thing that I can tell the member, despite the number of years that he tells us he spent flying around Europe, is that NATO is not a peacekeeping organization. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created to wage war, to be the first line of defence against the former Soviet Union. It is the United Nations, and that is why the New Democratic Party of Canada is in favour of handing this mission over to the United Nations--

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, despite the subject, it gives me great pleasure to rise here this evening. This is a matter of great importance for both Canada and Afghanistan. As we heard earlier, people have been asking questions that suggest they have already made up their minds. Nevertheless, this evening, I hope that I will be able to clarify the New Democratic Party's reasons for its position on this issue, which is simply that the combat mission in southern Afghanistan must end, and a comprehensive peace process must be undertaken.

To begin, I would like to clarify one thing that is very important to many people in Quebec. I did not think that I would have to do this because things were becoming clear, but today, for reasons of their own, some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues deliberately chose to further confuse the situation with respect to individuals' votes.

I will use evidence from the record to explain the differences between how the Bloc Québécois has voted and how the New Democratic Party has voted over the past few years.

Let us begin with April 24, 2007. For those who are interested, that was when a vote was held here in the House. Without exception, all members of the Bloc Québécois who were here in the House voted in favour of a motion to extend the mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. In September 2006, the New Democratic Party resolved to put an end to the combat mission in southern Afghanistan, so obviously, we could not support a motion to extend the mission until 2009. However, the Bloc Québécois did support extending the mission in southern Afghanistan at least until February 2009.

I said “at least until” because, as reported in the newspaper, Le Soleil, on May 24, 2007, the Bloc Québécois national defence critic said that the Bloc was prepared to agree to extending the mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009.

Those who wish to do so may look this up on line. The motion I am talking about, which was debated here, was put forward on April 19, 2007, but the House voted on it on Tuesday, April 24. All of the Bloc Québécois members are listed there. Beginning with their leader, all of the Bloc members voted for war. It could not possibly be any clearer. There is no ambiguity at all on this issue.

Then, a few days later, on April 30, 2007, there was a vote on an NDP motion. All of the Bloc members present voted with the Conservatives to reject an NDP motion to immediately inform the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, that we planned on withdrawing from the mission in Afghanistan. We could even look back at the various speeches made in the House. I would like to quote the Bloc Québécois defence critic. During the debate on this topic, he said: “Obviously, I must say to my NDP friends—at least we are friends [speaker's emphasis]—that we cannot support their motion today.”

There are two things here. When there is a motion to continue the war, the Bloc votes—as a group—in favour. When there is an NDP motion to withdraw the troops, the Bloc votes against the motion.

As unbelievable as this may be, I gave this bit of background tonight—even if that was not my plan when I prepared my speech—because Bloc members tried to put a spin on these two historic votes, which are duly noted in the official record of Parliament and are easily accessible online for anyone who is interested. I could not believe that Bloc members said that Canada was going to be in Afghanistan until 2011 because in 2007 we had not supported the motion to continue the war until 2009 only.

As though that would have changed anything. We were against the war. That is a principle. In September 2006, the very first NDP event that I attended after leaving the Government of Quebec was a major meeting in Quebec City at which the NDP adopted this controversial but clear position.

I know the Bloc members do not like things that are clear. They prefer to try to beat around the bush and cultivate an image that can be read more than one way. But the truth, the simple truth, is that when faced with the possibility of an end to the mission, as we proposed, and the withdrawal of our troops, they said no. When faced with a motion to continue the war, they said yes.

As I said earlier, they are now trying to say that if only we had voted to end the war in February 2009, it would not be continuing today. How naive. As if the Conservatives, who are determined to continue this war, would be influenced today by a vote held in 2007 that would have established February 2009 as the end date for the mission. That is absurd.

The only way to deal with this is with clear positions. Although I completely disagree with the position of the Conservative government, at least that position is clear. One can be for or against it, but it exists.

The position of the NDP is also, dare I say, quite clear. We are against the war in Afghanistan. We are for a comprehensive peace process. We believe that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created to wage war. It cannot be involved in peacekeeping missions. That is not within its mandate.

After the tragic events of September 11, the Americans established Operation Enduring Freedom, which resulted in the attack on Afghanistan. Canada was involved in this operation from the start of that attack, or early in 2003, even while we were saying no to Iraq. The decision to commit our troops to the military mission in southern Afghanistan was almost a consolation prize that we gave the Americans to make up for our daring refusal to go to war in Iraq. That was five years ago.

We are about to agree to an additional three years. In the end, we will have spent more time in Afghanistan than we did in Europe during World War II. We were there from the beginning, in September 1, 1939, until the end of the war on May 8, 1945, and until August 1945, with respect to the war in the Pacific. Canada was there the entire time. The Afghanistan war will last even longer. And with what results? According to all the experts—from those in Sandhurst, England, to those in the United States—this war cannot be won under current conditions.

I heard some MPs earlier discussing with my colleague whether or not we can compare our current involvement to that of the Soviets. However, I will take it upon myself to inform them that ever since the former Soviet Union invaded in December 1979, this poor country—and I do mean poor because it is one of the poorest countries in the world—has been almost continually in the throes of war. And we are about to contribute to more violence and more conflict but not to increased security, no matter what the opinion of those who have already spoken this evening. It is wrong to claim that there is greater security as a result of our intervention in Afghanistan.

There are always those who will say such things during a war. We will not start saying that we do not believe it is a good cause. Naturally, we have succeeded in convincing ourselves that, since we are good people, our presence in Afghanistan must be a noble cause. But that is not the case. Our presence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with our own strategic interests and everything to do with what the former Conservative Minister of Defence had the honesty to say: that it was retribution for the attack against the Americans on September 11, 2001.

The problem with that is that 19 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, not Afghans. People will say that there were al-Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and even that bin Laden was hiding up in the mountains and so on. Is that any reason for Canada to maintain a military presence there without making an ongoing effort to achieve peace based on a comprehensive structure?

To date, 79 young Canadians have returned home from Afghanistan in coffins. How many others will suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome? How many ticking time bombs are we creating?

This is a heavy price to pay for our involvement in a mission that was originally an attempt by NATO to support the government in place. With the Bonn process, that original mission evolved into an attempt to involve not only NATO, but a number of other countries in an international security and reaction force, but the people behind the Bonn process acted like children who cover their eyes and think that everything has disappeared. They did not include the Taliban in the Bonn process.

I hear the jeering of the government members, who say that you cannot negotiate with people who behave in this way in a conflict and who use terror and schemes like this.

But the fact is that because of its history and the pride it takes in working for peace, Canada has succeeded on a number of occasions when people thought it was impossible. John de Chastelain, in Northern Ireland, is the latest example. I am in no way excusing the tactics used by the IRA in Northern Ireland, but the fact is that they engaged in terrorist acts and the government said in no uncertain terms that it would never negotiate with terrorists. Success came only when there was agreement in Northern Ireland to bring everyone together at the same table.

What a sight it was to see former IRA leaders, now elected members of the parliament of Northern Ireland, seated at the same table as Reverend Ian Paisley. No one would have thought it possible 20 years ago. And yet, this parliament works. In a place where there was war, negotiators succeeded in dealing with all the parties involved and securing peace. On the strength of its experience and credibility in keeping and monitoring peace, Canada was able to impose a system where the IRA would withdraw its weapons. And it worked.

Some of my colleagues sincerely believe that if Canada were not in Afghanistan today, the situation would revert to what used to be with respect to schools and so on. I heard them say so earlier. The NDP is not saying that it does not want to continue working there. We are just pointing out a simple fact: NATO was created for the purpose of war. We cannot place ourselves in a conflict of interest. We are promoting peace by means of war. That is what we are doing when we say that, and it does not work. It is a paradox.

The motions before us are also paradoxical, and it is worth spending a little time examining them. Those who wish to check the House of Commons' on-line documents for today will find the motion currently before us and the New Democratic Party's amendment. Why simplify things when they can be so complicated? The motion goes on for four pages, but the NDP's amendment is just three paragraphs long.

In the motion, there are many historical references to our activities in Afghanistan. The Conservative government is having a bit of fun at the Liberals' expense to prove that even though the Liberals like speaking out against war, they supported these measures at every stage of the game. This brief reminder of what went on is a good idea.

Even though what I said earlier is true, namely that the Conservatives have a clear position with which people disagree and the NDP has a clear position with which people may or may not agree, the Liberals, as usual, are being wishy-washy. They will say anything. They might be all for the war on a Tuesday morning and against it on Thursday afternoon. We will train the Afghan troops and if war breaks out, we will be there. You should read all four pages. I invite people to go on line and read them. It is quite something. It is tortuous. They talk about changes and carrying on until 2011 and that they will try to ensure that there are conditions. The conditions are generally taken from the Manley report.

That is another paradox. In supporting the Manley report, the Conservatives have always said they are opposed to the NDP and others who dare speak up for peace. There are just two paths. There are not 36 different options: either we continue the war or we work toward peace. The NDP prefers to use Canada's experience, expertise and credibility to work toward peace. However, we will let the Conservatives explain their desire to pursue war.

The NDP is saying this has not worked and, under such conditions, Canada should withdraw. The Conservatives are saying that is shameful. They talk about schools and people. They say that our position on withdrawing in light of the conditions is irresponsible. That is what we have heard from a number of people who have spoken this evening.

And yet, what do we find verbatim in the Conservative government motion supported by the wishy-washy Liberal party? It says:

That, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

That is where the Conservatives get tough: they impose a condition. They want to continue the war for another three years. How many more young Canadians will come home in coffins and how many more will be physically wounded or psychologically scarred? The Conservatives impose conditions to show how tough they are. The motion continues:

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

There is a slight difference between the French and English versions. The English version says “(operational no later than February 2009)”. The difference could prove to be a problem one day, since the English version is peremptory. It describes an obligation of result. If we do not have the 1,000 troops, we will withdraw.

The same people who are saying that the NDP is irresponsible for talking about withdrawing our troops, considering the current conditions, are setting a condition requiring 1,000 more troops, without which we will withdraw. This is the Conservatives' second paradox. They have the gall to say that it is irresponsible to talk about the possibility of withdrawing our troops in February 2009. But the motion expressly states that we will withdraw our troops in February 2009 if the condition of 1,000 additional troops is not met. Coincidentally, they are soon going to Bucharest, Romania, and will likely be successful in obtaining 1,000 troops. If they do not get the troops, they will be forced to withdraw our troops according to the terms of their own motion.

The second condition also refers to February 2009. It talks about the use of medium helicopter lift capacity and unmanned aerial vehicles for aerial surveillance.

From paradox to paradox, the mission is failing. When we see that we are spending ten times more on the military component than on rebuilding, the government's arguments or attempts to convince us that this is a peace or rebuilding mission are revealed for what they are. It is immediately clear that this is not the case.

This is a combat mission. The treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan is another big problem. I will likely have a chance to talk more about this when I respond to questions.

[The Environment, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' record on greenhouse gas production, including development of the oil sands, is catastrophic. This is what the Prime Minister said, “Kyoto is basically a socialist plot to suck money out of wealthy countries”.

The Conservatives are always talking about respecting law and order. Do they realize that failing to comply with our international obligations may have disastrous consequences for future generations and for Canada's reputation today?

[Foreign Affairs, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to speak to this important motion, which, as my colleague just explained, concerns two relatively different topics that have a common element, and that is Canada's role in the world where we are needed most.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion before the House. As members know, the NDP has been extremely concerned about the supreme humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. We have also voiced our grave concerns about the situation in Iran, the flagrant abuse of human rights, the crackdown on people's freedoms and, most disturbingly, the Iranian president's continuous, repeat, bizarre and inflamed outbursts against Israel, against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel.

The lack of a resolution to the case of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian citizen killed at the hands of Iranian authorities, is also of great concern, as are the growing fears over that country's possible attempt to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Sudan and Iran, as I mentioned, pose two very different challenges to the international community and to Canada. I hope to set out some of the positions of the NDP on this issue.

With regard to the supreme humanitarian crisis in Darfur, we believe Canada must take immediate action. It is not enough simply to point at the inaction of other countries. By the latest UN estimates, over 450,000 people have been killed due to the violence and disease in Darfur, probably more. Millions, as we know, have been displaced. Rape, destruction and ethnic cleansing have been carried out with total impunity.

I will briefly describe the NDP's action plan for Darfur. It is a three step plan that calls on the Canadian government to use that most precious resource, which is our proud reputation as a peacekeeper in the world. We suggest therefore that Canada support resolution 1769 by committing personnel and resources. We know what kind of challenge is involved. It is a huge area and the needs are great, but we have to start.

We also have to invest in the long term development of the civil society and the peace process in Darfur, something in which Canada has a great deal of experience and can be put to good use here.

We also believe we have to divest all Canadian investment from the Sudan.

New Democrats believe Canada must take a leadership role in Darfur. Resolutions do not protect vulnerable citizens. Peacekeepers can.

Canada must provide personnel and resources to support the UN's vitally important mission. We have a clear chapter 7 mandate to protect civilians. We have the consent of the government of Sudan. We have four years of violence and destruction behind us.

Canada talks about global leadership and the responsibility to protect, and that is what the government is doing. This mission will be a crucial test of both. We need to demonstrate our commitment with troops on the ground.

Members will hear some suggest that Canada's military is already overstretched because of our engagement in Afghanistan. That is precisely part of the problem. Indeed, by putting all our eggs in one basket in the Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan, we are not leaving enough for an extremely important mission like Darfur.

This is one of the main reasons that the New Democrats have called for an end to Canada's engagement in the current counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan. We think it is a wrong-headed mission. It will not produce the hoped for result. We also think this is a supreme humanitarian crisis that deserves all our attention.

We have reached out to the Liberals to join us in our effort to end the war in Afghanistan. We recognize they have a fundamental choice before them. They have to choose between war and peace. We think Canada should continue to use its reputation to build a comprehensive peace process. Being involved in search and destroy missions in southern Afghanistan, is not going to bring that result. One does not build schools with uranium-depleted shells from a howitzer.

I take this opportunity to once again to invite my Liberal colleagues to think about that and to choose the path to peace that we are proposing.

We also envision our troops contributing to an independent foreign policy committed to the values of all Canadians. Canadians have always been proud of our contributions to the UN peacekeeping force. We have fallen far off the list of the top 10 contributors to peacekeeping. Believe it or not, we are now at number 50, and it is time to change.

The United Nations resolution is a first, absolutely crucial step toward bringing stability to the Darfur region of Sudan. Canada must show international leadership by providing troops for this mission. Nonetheless, this mission is but a minor aspect of a comprehensive strategy that must be implemented if we truly want to achieve peace.

There cannot be a military solution to the Darfur crisis. The underlining problems are political. Therefore, Canada must demonstrate its commitment by working towards a political solution.

Financial and intellectual assistance in the development of a political solution is the second part of the NDP's action for Darfur. That means a major financial and diplomatic commitment to support the successful implementation of the existing CPA, which is the comprehensive peace agreement between the north and the south, as well as reigniting the failed Darfur peace talks to strengthen and broaden the Darfur peace agreement.

Peace cannot be achieved without the development of a vibrant civil society and its meaningful engagement in the comprehensive peace process. A lot of valuable work is being done by people on the ground in Darfur on this front and Canada should be supporting these efforts. We should be there front and centre.

For instance, I had a meeting with a constituent recently. We talked about the situation there. That citizen was extremely concerned about the fact that Canada was failing in Darfur and realized, like we do in the NDP, that we had been putting all of our efforts into Afghanistan in a failed mission.

I can also tell members that people like Stephen Lewis, with a proud history in the NDP, has always reminded us, in reference to Africa's struggle against HIV-AIDS, “all roads lead from women to social change”. I am encouraged by the leadership that women are providing in Darfur to bring peace to their community, but as we all know and understand, in this crisis situation they cannot do it alone.

The third part of the NDP's action plan is to cut off any financial contribution that Canadian corporations may be making directly or indirectly to the atrocities in Darfur. Many Canadians have taken personal steps to ensure that their money is invested in ethical businesses. However, in our well-informed world, knowing what we know about Darfur, business as usual is disgraceful. It is downright wrong.

New Democrats fully expect Canadian companies operating throughout the world to hold themselves to the highest standards of corporate social responsibility. One need only think about Canadian mining companies around the world. The Canadian government cannot speak out for human rights in places like Darfur and then allow Canadian companies to undermine these efforts by cooperating and legitimizing the regimes responsible for violating human rights in the first place.

To that end, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has adopted an NDP motion to undertake a study of Canadian companies whose business is directly or indirectly contributing to the crisis in Darfur.

On Iran, it should be borne in mind that the NDP has been very clear in its criticism of the Islamic Republic regime. The NDP continues to condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his inflamed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel declarations.

The NDP calls on Canada to lead a united global effort aimed at convincing Iran to immediately halt its imprisonment, torture and execution of minors and other citizens for their religious and ideological beliefs, notably members of the Baha'i faith. We have seen to where that can lead. We saw, for example, a man being deported to Malaysia by the Conservative government refusing to provide him the ability to stay here as a refugee. That deportation sees him going back to a country that, according to Amnesty International, is going to put him in jail for 20 years, not for anything he has done but who he is. This is the type of breach of human rights that we are talking about here: torture, execution of minors and other citizens for what they believe.

The members of the Baha'i faith, a beautiful faith based on understanding and peace, is in particular harm's way in Iran and we condemn the current regime in Iran for that.

We also urge the government to call for the immediate release of Mansour Osanlou, President of the Syndicate of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company who has been in prison almost continuously since December 2005, as well as Iranian prisoners of conscience.

The NDP wants the government to work with international community to convince Iran to negotiate in good faith and to participate in open and constructive dialogue to put a definitive end to any thought of pursuing nuclear material enrichment in Iran. It will lead to grave destabilization in the region, which has already known more grief than it needs, but this can only make things worse.

The NDP continues to demand justice in the murder and torture, as I mentioned, of Zahra Kazemi. It is an unbelievable situation.

While we are extremely concerned about the possibility of Iran developing an arsenal based on nuclear weapons, we also warn against any unilateral action that could further inflame the region. We want to ensure that everything is tried and we do not head for war unless there is no other option.

Canada must make it perfectly clear to our allies that mistakes on the Iraq war should not be repeated with Iran and a peaceful solution achieved through diplomatic means is possible and, indeed, the best way forward.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not need to pull off a CSI-style investigation.

Associated Press received a Canadian diplomatic cable that was classified secret. He should start by reviewing the call logs in his own office and tell this House who the Associated Press spoke to when it called that office. That is simple.

What is not so simple is for the Prime Minister to do the right thing. Will the Prime Minister fire Ian Brodie because he cannot be trusted by Canadians?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Ian Brodie, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, is behind the NAFTA affair.

The questions are simple. Who was the anonymous source who fed CTV the story involving Senator Obama? Who was the source of the diplomatic memo illegally leaked to the Associated Press?

Can the Prime Minister assure us that these people will be relieved of their duties? They are not worthy of holding positions of public trust.