Debates of April 10th, 2006

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can think of only one economist in that category who thinks it is a sensible idea to raise income tax and cut the GST and that economist happens at this moment to be the Prime Minister of Canada. This is not a left-right thing. Members just have to think of my former Simon Fraser colleague, Herbert Grubel, the former finance critic for the Reform Party. He was hardly a raving socialist. He put it very well the other day when he said that cutting the GST may be good politics, but it is terrible economics.

If we look at economists across the spectrum, they all believe that this is the most anti-growth, anti-productivity measure that one could possibly imagine with the one exception of the right hon. gentleman who sits across the aisle, the Prime Minister of Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would again like to thank my constituents of Selkirk—Interlake for putting their trust in me one more time in this fine House and representing their views on an ongoing basis.

I am proud to speak to our new government's Speech from the Throne. As a father of three young daughters, I want to speak to the government's strong commitment to the well-being of children and families, a commitment that we are proud to advance through our proposed new choice in child care plan.

My wife, Kelly, and I have used many forms of child care over the years and participated very actively in our local community child care program. My wife served as director and president of our community child care centre and we have benefited from the professionals who work there.

As a rural farm family we also have relied on other forms of child care, including private care, family and friends, to help us raise our children and ensure a safe and healthy environment for our children to grow up in. So I know as a father how difficult it can sometimes be to fill all our child care needs as a family and as a community.

I represent a very rural riding in Manitoba with many towns spread out over a large area and with many families living on farms and in very remote areas. I knew very quickly that the former government's late conversion and promised child care system would not work for my constituents in Selkirk—Interlake. Many of my constituents live too far from towns and day care centres to benefit from the kind of day care that the Liberal government had promised would not work in Selkirk—Interlake.

Our new plan for child care will support families by helping parents to balance their work and family life. We all recognize that strong families are indispensable to children's good health and social well-being. This applies to families of whatever composition, two parent or single parent families, and whether they are paid in the labour force or raising kids, or are raising kids at homes while they are farming. All parents of young children will benefit from our child care plan because it is universal and designed to fit each family's unique needs and desires.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

This government's approach addresses all the necessary components of a successful child care strategy. We will support parents in their child care choices and we will work with employers and communities to create new child care spaces. Our plan is grounded in this government's understanding that parents know best when it comes to raising their children and creating strong families. We believe this approach is one in keeping with Canadian values.

The choice in child care allowance set out in the Speech from the Throne clearly reflects this understanding. This allowance is about choice and respect for all Canadians. It is based on the principle that government should support parents in their child care choices. It also recognizes that parents know best what their family needs.

As members of the House are well aware, Canadian parents face a diverse work environment. Not everyone is working nine to five, Monday to Friday. Parents work in the evenings, on weekends and at home. For Canadians who work on farms or in the fisheries, what they do is the core of who they are. Every day is spent balancing the demands of family with their work. The Canadian family today needs flexibility and innovative responses from this government to meet their needs.

Our choice in child care allowance also takes into account that nine to five child care facilities may not be a viable option for many families, including the approximately one-third of Canadians who live in small towns and rural communities without ready access to day care facilities.

The allowance recognizes that many Canadian parents continue to find ways to stay at home to care for their preschoolers themselves. In fact, almost half of all young children are cared for by a mother or father at home.

The choice in child care allowance gives these families options that they might not otherwise have. For parents who stay at home, the allowance will mean that they have the extra resources to draw upon when they need occasional or part time child care. For low income families especially, the allowance will make an important contribution to helping parents provide their young children with the kind of care they choose, whether it is centre based or a different type of child care.

In keeping with Canadian values, this non-discriminatory universal initiative treats all families with young children equally, regardless of income, where they live or whether the parents choose to work or stay at home.

Starting in July 2006, $1,200 per year will go directly to parents for each child under the age of six. An estimated 2.1 million preschoolers and their families will benefit from this allowance. To help ensure that Canadian families get the greatest possible benefit from the allowance, it will be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lowest income.

We see the new allowance as a complementary addition to the various income supports that the government already provides to families with children, including stay at home parents and those who are working. These supports include the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the child care expense deduction, extended parental leave and the Canada learning bond.

As I noted earlier, our child care plan will also create new child care spaces. Starting in 2007 we will invest $250 million a year in incentives for employers, non-profit organizations and communities to create new child care spaces. We estimate that these new measures will create 125,000 new child care spaces over the next five years.

We will be talking to businesses, non-profit employers and communities, in addition to the provinces and territories, to ensure we get this initiative right. We know that our key to success is to ensure flexibility of design. Our goal is to meet the needs of all Canadian parents, regardless of whether they live in a city or a rural community, and whatever their hours of work might be, which may not fit the nine to five mould.

This initiative will complement the roles of partners, such as provincial and territorial governments, by helping to create new child care spaces that are so desperately needed.

We also believe that employers will benefit substantially from this initiative by creating child care spaces for employees at their place of work. Many studies have shown that supports, such as workplace child care, can actually decrease workers' absenteeism by reducing employees' anxieties. Parents know their children are close by and being well take care of, giving parents peace of mind. Employers in turn are rewarded with increased productivity in the workplace.

I also want to mention that while the previous government's plan only amounted to about $700 annually per child care space in the province of Manitoba in increased subsidies, our plan will deliver $1,200 per year to all children and spend an additional $250 million a year to create 125,000 new child care spaces. That is $500 more per space being made available by the present government and that is for every child under six years of age, not just the ones currently in child care spaces across Manitoba. Our plan delivers substantially more to all Canadian parents.

To sum up, our plan is one that recognizes the diversity of Canadian families' needs and preferences. It does so by providing a universal benefit that parents can use as they see fit toward the kind of care they choose for their children. Ours is a plan that will create new child care spaces that fit the wide-ranging needs of families across the country, and we will do it in a way that benefits all families in every part of the country.

This is a plan that responds, above all, to the choice in child care that Canadians want. I am confident that we will see the benefits in our children's future development, health and social well-being, and in stronger families that are the sure foundation of our nation.

After 13 years of being told about Liberal grand designs for a national day care program, parents were left with nothing more than promises. On January 23, Canadians voted for a government so committed to child care that it made it one of its top five priorities. Our government is committing over $10 billion to assist parents with their child care needs, more than twice as much money as the previous Liberal program promised but not delivered. This money will help parents, giving them real choices in child care and support investments in the creation of child care spaces.

The Speech from the Throne promised a choice in child care plan because it is the right thing for Canadians families.

As the government, our responsibility is to lend a helping hand to ensure that Canadian families have meaningful choices in child care and to support them in whatever child care choice suits them best. This is also our responsibility as a society. I call upon my hon. colleagues to support the government in this most worthwhile initiative.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there are several items in the Speech from the Throne where common ground can be found but I am disappointed, as I said earlier this afternoon, that the whole issue of productivity was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, which is one of the areas I want the member to address. He only talked about it in one sentence.

Over the past 13 years, when this issue was front and centre, we have seen substantial reductions of debt, employment has been up, productivity has been up, interest rates are down, and whatever international indices one wants to compare it to, Canada has done very well. If we were to compare that to 13 years ago, when that issue was not front and centre, we had a deficit of $43 billion, the interest rate was 13%, unemployment was 11%, debt to GDP ratio was 73% and the country was a disaster.

What assurance can the member give Canadians that we are not on the very same track that we were on 13 years ago when the economy of this country was an absolute total disaster?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just love that our Liberal colleagues across the way seem to have a memory of only 13 years.

When I became involved in farming back in 1982 at the tender age of 17 and took out my first loans, the government of the day was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberals. If I recall, my interest rate at that time was 24%. That government was driving the country into the ground. We had huge deficits in place and the national debt just ballooned under the Trudeau Liberals. We had eight years as a government, during the nineties, to start to turn the page. When paying 20% and inheriting the huge debt and the bad management of the Trudeau Liberals, we never had a chance to really get after the debt. However we were able to start the right initiatives and put in place the right programs that put the country back on the right track.

I love the analogy. We had two people by the names of Michael Wilson and Don Manzankowski who went out and planted a beautiful garden and the Liberals just came along and picked all the flowers. Sure, the country is in good fiscal shape but it is in good fiscal shape because of the initiatives that were started by the government from 1984 to 1993. The first time I was able to vote was in 1984 for the Conservatives, to give the Liberals the boot and bring in some good government. I am glad to be standing here as a Conservative and glad that we will be inheriting an economy that is robust but one that we will continue to keep on the right track.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to affirm my colleague's comments. I have heard the members opposite taking the position that they are responsible for solving the country's financial woes. I believe that position is quite disingenuous. When we look back I think the record will show that the Liberals did that on the backs of Canadians. They eliminated the deficit and were able to start paying down the debt but how did they do that?

First, they did it by charging much more in GST than they ever had to. My understanding is that when the GST was first implemented it was supposed to be revenue neutral. In fact, we know that it never was revenue neutral. It provided billions of additional dollars to our national coffers.

Second, they took in way more money, under employment insurance premiums, than they needed to pay out employment insurance to needy employees who were without work. Where did that money go? It did not go back to the employers or the employees. It went into general coffers and was used to pay down debt and eliminate the deficit.

Finally, they downloaded to municipalities and local government. I was personally involved in local government in those days and I can tell members that our community itself took a hit of about $7 million because of downloading.

Will the member confirm that our government will bring GST tax relief to all Canadians, not just the chosen few?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say yes, we are bringing in a GST tax cut that is going to benefit all Canadians, including the 30% of Canadians who do not pay income tax and would never see the benefit of an income tax cut. The only way they are ever going to see tax relief is through a cut in consumption taxes. That is exactly why we are going ahead with the GST cut. This was a recommendation that actually came from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, and it is one that we are glad to have in our throne speech and will be moving ahead in the next budget.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging what a great privilege it is to be elected as a member of Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain for re-electing me for a second term.

It is indeed time to turn a new leaf. The throne speech was short and to the point. It is an indication of our no-nonsense approach to governing. The government is turning a new leaf because people have chosen change.

It is sometimes difficult to see change when the first few steps are taken, but change is coming. We are turning a new leaf. We will see our country change direction. It is changing direction for the better, whereby ordinary Canadians with ordinary values will once again be recognized.

Canadians pay too much tax. The government will, over time, reduce that tax burden, starting with a reduction in the goods and services tax.

It is time also to tackle crime, to make changes to the Criminal Code to provide tougher sentences for violent crime and repeat offenders, to increase the age of consent, to adopt zero tolerance in response to child pornography, and to place more police officers on the streets. Safe streets, safe communities and strong families will ensure a strong country. The strength of our families is the strength of our nation.

We must earn the trust of our citizens, and we also must earn the respect of our citizens. There is nothing more fundamental than that. The government must also be held to account. One of the first pieces of legislation tending in that direction will be the federal accountability act. This act will set the stage for bringing accountability back to government.

One of the most important investments we can make as a nation is to provide direct financial support to help families who raise young children. During the election campaign at a coffee shop at a small community rink in Storthoaks, Saskatchewan, I asked the young moms at the table how many children they had between them under the age of six. There were eight children under six, which would be a total of $9,600 for those young moms in that small community. They could hardly believe this to be true. This represented a very real and meaningful benefit to those families.

How dare the Liberals say the program is of no effect? I invite them to visit the small rural communities that for the most part have been forgotten by the Liberal governments in Ottawa.

The rural communities in my constituency are starting to shut down due to years of Liberal neglect. The farming community is similarly starting to shut down. Recently, near my home community, an auction took place for an intergenerational farm, with a full line of farm machinery and 41 quarters of farmland all on the auction block. Land now sells for half the price it used to command just a few years ago.

On April 3, several auction sales were held in my constituency within about half an hour's drive of Benson, Saskatchewan. Six farmers held an auction sale on the same day. To see six auction signs one after another in the village of Benson caused me to stop, take note and see what was happening. We do not have to debate it in the House. It is obvious for all to see. In all of my life, I have not seen the likes of it. A sight like that is hard to take and goes right to the core of a person's being. It is evidence of an agricultural economy shutting down.

The number of auction sales this year increased from last year, and last year increased from the year before. Young people have been leaving with no immediate plans of coming back, yet the Governor General stated in the throne speech that “our young people represent not only the promise of a brighter future, but also the vitality of our present”.

Under the Liberal government, the lights have gone out on many Saskatchewan farms and hope has been lost. Our government has a huge job to re-establish hope, but we must start by sowing seeds of hope that will in time translate into a vibrant rural community.

The Speech from the Throne is a good first step. It stated very clearly that the government recognizes the unique challenges faced by those who make their livelihoods from our land in agricultural industries. Our government will take action to secure a future for Canadian agriculture following years of neglect under the watch of the Liberal government.

The speech clearly stated that the government will respond to the short term needs of farmers, create separate and more effective income stabilization and disaster relief programs, and work with producers and partners to achieve long term competitiveness and sustainability.

I urge our environment, agriculture and natural resources ministers to take bold and immediate steps to ensure not only that our farm families are preserved, but that our cities, towns and villages have quality food to eat and clean air to breathe. This means that we must get past the rhetoric, roll up our sleeves and pay the price of personal effort and sacrifice to make it happen.

We are all aware that world food markets are such that supply outstrips demand and commodity prices are lower than the cost of production. No one can operate on that basis for very long. We must take immediate steps to convert many of our acres to biofuel production, which not only will supply our increasing energy demands but will also make us less dependent on world markets.

We must ensure that our farmers participate in the profits generated in the biofuel cycle. This will take new ideas, fresh initiatives and some legislative intervention to make it happen. We must act and we must act now. The face of our world is changing quickly and so must our policies change if we wish to offer the promise of hope to our farmers and to preserve an industry that is the very bedrock of our society and the catalyst that will keep our rural communities alive.

I would like to transfer my attention for a few moments to the portion of the throne speech that touches upon immigration and its effect upon the fabric and strength of our nation.

I want to begin by saying that it is a privilege to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I want to thank the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the right hon. Prime Minister for the opportunity to serve my country, my constituents and indeed all Canadians in this capacity. I look forward to working with all members of the House in promoting and advancing the interests of Canada and the many applicants for entry into Canada under Canada's immigration and refugee program.

Canadian citizenship is highly valued not only in Canada but throughout the world, and it is something we can all cherish and take pride in. At the very outset of the throne speech, the Governor General described Canada as a land “where people from around the world have found a home”. She stated, “Women and men of ideas, conviction and action”, people from all walks of life from around the world, have made Canada the unique and great nation it is today.

This refers not only to the massive contribution immigration has made in the past years, but to the role it will play in the decades ahead. To remain competitive in today's global economy when our demographics are dramatically changing, we need the skills, the ideas and the conviction that newcomers can contribute to their new country and to our future together. Immigration is not just about our past, it is about our future, a future built upon hope and a new dynamic that will express itself in a new and vibrant Canada, a Canada that is building, expanding and creating new opportunities for all peoples, a Canada where all of us can enjoy and share in the benefits of our growth and prosperity.

The speech also refers to Canada as offering “a promise of hope for the oppressed”. There are many in our world who are oppressed and Canada recognizes and accepts its international obligations. This is exemplified by Canada's humanitarian tradition of being a safe haven for those in need of protection.

In its essence, our refugee program is recognized by the United Nations and countries around the world as a model of fairness and compassion, but yet no system is perfect, so improvements can always be made to make it more timely and effective. Our refugee system needs to be one that is readily available to those in need and vigilant enough to guard against those who seek to abuse it. It is a fine balance that we must attempt to obtain.

The Speech from the Throne affirms that our government will seek to improve opportunity for all Canadians, including aboriginal peoples and new immigrants. That is why our government envisions, among other measures, the reduction of the right of permanent residence fee for applicants who wish to make Canada their new home.

The government will work to hasten the recognition of foreign credentials. This will assist us in getting properly trained professionals working in Canada much faster and in jobs that make the best use of their skills and education.

Finally, the throne speech describes Canada not only as “a country where everything is possible, where each of us is free to follow his or her dreams”, but also as a country where everyone “has a duty to help build our country and prepare it for the challenges that lie ahead”.

With the great privilege of Canadian citizenship comes also the responsibility of citizenship, the shared responsibility all of us have, newcomer and long-timer, to contribute the best of what we are and have to a richer and better Canada of which we are all a part, a Canada where we are committed to the well-being of our neighbourhoods, our communities and our country.

The Speech from the Throne recognizes immigration as central to our past and vital to fulfilling the promise of the future. I am very pleased to stand in the House and recognize that this government is determined and committed in its aim to cherish and promote our shared values through Canadian citizenship and by enhancing and improving Canada's immigration and refugee program, not only in substance but also in process.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his enthusiasm for immigration. I would like to ask him three questions.

First, he referred to farmers. The big problem for grains and oilseeds farmers, of course, is the subsidies from the United States and Europe. Why is there no mention in the throne speech of how we are going to be tough and fight at the Doha round and in international trade agreements where that problem can be solved?

My colleague also talked about Canada and the world. Why is it, then, that the only country mentioned in the throne speech, of hundreds in the world, is the United States? It is mentioned several times. Is the end of the Conservative world at the United States and in North America?

My last point is on immigration. I am delighted that the member is so enthusiastic about immigration. He had good words to say about it, but he must be disappointed in what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could get into the throne speech. I would ask him to refer to what is in the throne speech, but I will not, because there is nothing in the body of the throne speech dealing with this issue. The word “immigration” is thrown in as an afterthought in one sentence in the conclusion, along with aboriginal peoples.

Perhaps the member could comment on these three deficiencies in the throne speech.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the grains and oilseeds programs have not been working to the degree they should. The Liberal government had 13 years to address what was happening in the farm community and it failed to do so. Those members talked the flowery talk about all the kinds of things they would do, but they did nothing.

This Conservative government is poised to actually address the situation. When I talk about lights going out in Saskatchewan, that applies to Manitoba, Ontario and other places across Canada. Rural Saskatchewan is starting to fade away. People are moving. Farmers are leaving their land.

Why should farmers have to march on Ottawa with their hands out, asking to survive, asking to get almost their cost of production? They have eaten up their equity during 13 years of Liberal government. For many years farmers have lost hard-earned money and yet Liberal members have the audacity to say we have not done much in the throne speech. We have referred to agriculture specifically. We have set out the priorities and we will actually accomplish them, as opposed to the Liberals who will indicate numbers of promises, many promises, and who will make flowery talk but take little action, year after year. It is the same thing, year after year.

Canada recognizes that it must work in cooperation with other countries around the world, not only the United States, to make this country a better place. I can tell the hon. member that the immigration minister will work hard to achieve many of the goals that need to be achieved. It is not the number of times the word “immigration” is used in a throne speech that makes it good or bad; it is what we actually effectively do when we get into office to make it work better.

If that hon. member had put his government to the test over the 13 years it was in office, he would have found that the immigration system was under a lot of stress because of the inaction on the promises that were made but never carried out, because of the talking that was done without action being taken. It is only the good service of the public servants that has kept the system together, that has made it work as well as it works. It is their hard effort that has kept the system together, not what the previous government has done or said it would do.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate you on your re-election to the position of Speaker. I also congratulate the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who just spoke. We served on the human resources and skills development committee in the last Parliament, an experience which I particularly enjoyed.

The member mentioned farming and agriculture in his comments. I can identify with him. There are some farming areas in my own riding, some communities that are served by the farming community. The member is right that there is great difficulty. I am told that there are two or three farmers a month leaving the farms in my area. It is indeed a crisis. We do not seem to be getting a good handle on what it is exactly we need to be doing to fix it.

I worked with the Liberals for some time to try to resolve the issue, but that really did not come about. I worry about the approach the present government might take. The Easter report which was written a short time ago mentioned that one of the biggest challenges to farming was the corporatization of agriculture, and the commitment of the member's party to the market and the free rein of corporations where commodities and goods and services are concerned.

I also heard a view from the member's colleagues when they were in opposition that vehicles like supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board were a challenge and presented some difficulty. I would like--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am afraid that the time for questions and comments has expired. I will allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to give a very brief response.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this government takes seriously the situation of the farm community. This government will be taking specific steps not only to improve the participation of the farms involved with produce but participation of the farmers of industries that are up the level in the food chain so that they can also participate in some of the extra revenue that can be generated from those types of activities. There is no doubt that we will also be looking at ways and means to make the sale of the product more effective than it now is.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Vancouver North.

I would like to start by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election to the Speaker's chair. Although I am new to this House, your reputation precedes you.

I would also like to thank the voters of Parkdale--High Park for giving me their confidence. I consider it a great honour to represent our community in the House of Commons. I look forward to working with the NDP caucus and across party lines to advance my constituents' interests in this great chamber.

I campaigned on a platform of championing Toronto's issues in Ottawa and I intend to do just that working with the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, who is a constituent.

I was pleased that the new government's first throne speech included mention of the environment, the creation of new child care spaces and the importance of public health care. These are important priorities to the people of Parkdale--High Park and indeed to all Torontonians.

I was also immensely proud to have been witness to the long overdue official apology to the Chinese Canadians whose families were subjected to the humiliation of the Chinese head tax. As Parkdale--High Park is home to many Ukrainian Canadians, we look to this Parliament to address their internment as well.

Other NDP priorities were also touched on in the throne speech, however briefly, such as electoral reform and the prevention of crime. In this caucus we support making every vote count and we recognize the importance of stemming violent crime.

The government re-emphasized its five priorities. While some of them deserve attention and merit, they all fall short and in some cases are plain wrong. The citizens of Toronto have more than five simple priorities and they cannot wait years for them to be addressed.

We have waited too long for a national public system of early learning and child care. After 13 long years of promises from the previous government, we were finally to see the modest beginning of such a system.

I say to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that the children of Toronto, the children of Canada, need child care now. Their families are counting on the choice in child care that can only be achieved when we create spaces that today's working families will be able to choose to take advantage of or not. Investing in early childhood education is a key part of kids getting a good start in life. I will be monitoring this vital issue for parents in my constituency and across Toronto.

Torontonians most of all want a city that is sustainable, fair, equitable and just. In short, they want a city they can be proud of and a country they can be proud of. It should and I believe it can be a great city that is a cultural and social centre, not only an economic engine that benefits the rest of the country through equalization measures, although we in Toronto recognize this importance, but a truly great international city. However, for Toronto the good to be more than a slogan, for it to become really true, we need the help of the federal government.

After years of empty promises, we had hoped to see the needs of cities like Toronto better addressed in the throne speech. Cities need a real plan and real funding for vital services like affordable housing, transit, services for newcomers and crime prevention. I want to work with the Minister of Transport to address these important challenges facing our city. We need to expand on the new deal for cities introduced in the last Parliament. I hope that this current Parliament will see the need to enshrine the funding agreements in legislation and give municipalities like Toronto a real seat at the table. A real deal for our municipalities requires a national housing strategy. We are the only industrialized country without such a plan and it is time to right this wrong.

Affordable housing is key to the health and quality of life for my constituents in Parkdale--High Park as it is for the rest of Toronto. While it may not make the new government's top five priorities, it is at the top of the list for many Torontonians as it is for me.

Also of great concern to the citizens of--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but as she knows, earlier today an order was made that the debate be interrupted at 6:15 p.m. and the question on the amendment, as amended, was deemed to be put and deemed adopted. Accordingly, I must interrupt her and deem the amendment, as amended, adopted so that we can proceed with the next order of business, which unfortunately is not the continuation of this debate. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member particularly in her first speech, but the rules provide for that.

(Amendment, as amended, agreed to)

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 6, 2006, the House in committee of the whole will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 4 under Government Business.

I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B.]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 4, Mr. Milliken in the chair)

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved:

That this Committee take note of Canada's significant commitment in Afghanistan.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in this Parliament, I would like to thank my constituents of Carleton—Mississippi Mills for re-electing me. It is an honour to serve Canadians in the House of Commons.

Today I address the House on Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Recently, the Prime Minister and I visited Afghanistan. It is a difficult terrain, a harsh climate, an unfamiliar culture, and an elusive foe making military operations challenging and at times dangerous. I can say with confidence that the men and women of the Canadian Forces know the challenges, they are overcoming them, and we are proud of them.

The Prime Minister has made our stance in Afghanistan very clear. We will stay the course. We will support our service personnel. We will endeavour in concert with other nations to bring peace and security to Afghanistan.

Today, as Minister of National Defence, I will explain why we are in Afghanistan.

Canada is in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest to protect the security of the nation and the prosperity of Canadians.

Canada is in Afghanistan to protect the safety and prosperity of Canadians.

The danger is not always clear, but it is real and our safety begins far from our borders. Let us just say that our government's strategy is “Canada first”.

Our approach to Afghanistan can be summarized in two words, “Canada first”. The Canada first defence strategy seeks to protect Canada from threats that confront us at home and from abroad. This means going to Afghanistan to counter terrorists harboured there, terrorists that are not bound by borders nor dissuaded by oceans.

The terrible attacks on September 11, 2001 during which 24 Canadians were killed, and the events that occurred in Bali, Madrid and London, exposed our vulnerability to terrorism.

Do we have to wait for terrorists to attack Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or here in Ottawa before recognizing the real threat that is hovering over our safety?

An effective strategy to counter an opponent is to carry the struggle to his own territory. It is unwise to sit and wait for his next move. Since Afghanistan is a source of terrorists who are committed to striking vulnerable targets globally, Canada needs to be there along with our 35 allies.

We are in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan people.

During our visit last month, President Karzai warmly thanked Prime Minister Harper for the Canadian contribution and asked him to thank the Canadian people. The Afghan people appreciate us and Canada is an example of democracy to these people who aspire to it.

As well as being in our national interest, Canada, one of the oldest democracies and one of the richest countries on earth, has a global responsibility as a member of an international community to show leadership in helping overcome the problems of Afghanistan.

Let us not forget we are also in Afghanistan because the Afghans have requested our help and we have the capabilities to provide it.

For both security interests and humanitarianism, the Canadian Forces have been involved in the mission in Afghanistan since 2001. They have done everything from surveillance duties, to burning suspicious vessels in the Gulf, to confronting armed insurgents.

More recently Canada adopted a significant leadership role and enhanced its presence in the south through the deployment of a battle group as well as a provincial reconstruction team and a multinational brigade headquarters. Complementing the Canadian Forces commitment, Foreign Affairs established a Canadian embassy in Kabul in 2003, while CIDA has directed over $650 million to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, our largest recipient of bilateral assistance.

The Prime Minister has expressed his desire for Canada to be a leader in this multinational mission. I can confidently say that national defence, in partnership with other departments, has taken this vision to heart. The Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan in substantial force in a leadership role with a clear, logical, legal authority. Our troops are among the best trained soldiers in the world, with the needed combat skills, peace support experience and the cultural sensitivity to prepare them well for the mission. Our troops are having a positive effect in Afghanistan.

Within the strategic context of restricting terrorism while expanding Afghanistan's capacity to protect and govern itself, Canadians are assisting in the establishment of legitimate and effective security structures, a police force, a military and a judicial system. As well, they are assisting Afghans who have suffered decades of poverty, tyranny and abuse by supporting and facilitating the humanitarian projects that are needed there.

There are clear signs of progress. Destroyed communities and broken lives are recovering thanks to the support from the international community, the Canadian Forces, colleagues from other departments and agencies, including Foreign Affairs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian International Development Agency. These reconstruction efforts help reduce poverty and misery.

Schools, hospitals and roads are being rebuilt. Millions of people can now vote. Women now enjoy more rights and economic opportunities than they ever could have imagined under the Taliban regime. More than 4 million Afghan children, of which a third are girls, are now registered for school. With Canada's help, the Afghan people are on their way to defeating tyranny and taking back their country.

Our diplomatic presence in Kabul, our command of the multinational brigade headquarters and our well respected position in NATO all enable the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to align their efforts with the common international goal of a stable, sovereign Afghan state.

Let me summarize. Our Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest, because we have the responsibility to take a leadership role in world affairs and because Afghans need us and want us to help them. Our troops are well trained, well commanded, well equipped and empowered with robust rules of engagement and legal authority.

Most important, our efforts are proving effective. Together with our allies, our approach is to: stabilize the security situation; concurrently train the Afghans to take over their own security by province and region; maintain long term economic support to assist the economy; and exit as they become increasingly stable.

We have to be prepared to defend what we believe in. We have to be prepared to do what it takes to guarantee the safety of the Canadian public.

I can assure the House that we stood by this commitment in the past and the government will continue to stand by it. We have the finest soldiers in the world who are placing their lives on the line for us. The government will not disappoint them. We will not fail them. The government will stand shoulder to shoulder with our troops.

I believe that I speak for all parliamentarians when I say we are proud of the efforts that our courageous soldiers are making in Afghanistan to help defeat the scourge of international terrorism. We wish them continued success.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his speech, which I might say, in all respect and friendship to the minister as a colleague, I found some traces of an earlier speech that was made in the House on this subject last November around these issues.

I am very pleased that the government agreed to this debate tonight. We, on our side of the House, do not consider this a debate. We believe this is an opportunity to allow the Canadian public to better understand this mission.

I want to start by echoing the minister's words about how we support our troops. We are very proud of them.

There are few people who can appreciate, unless one is actually in Afghanistan to see our troops, challenged as they are, the job they do. As the minister pointed out and as anyone who has been there will know, they are able to fight when they have to fight, but they are there primarily to help the Afghan people. A young officer like Lieutenant now Captain Greene almost lost his life because he went to a village shura and was sitting down with the very people that he was there to help. That is the image of Canadian troops.

It is a different way of going about this mission. We are confident they will do it in a way where, yes, they can fight, but at the same time they will establish links with the Afghan people so the Afghans will know they are there to serve them, and Canadians can do it better than anybody else in the world.

My question to the minister is this. There has been a lot of comment in the press about the fact that this mission is coalition-led, that this is an American mission we are participating in, not a NATO mission. Is it not correct that in June of this year this will become a NATO mission? The Afghan government wished this to be a NATO mission and Canada, by taking the lead in this mission with our Dutch and British colleagues, is enabling the very thing which the critics of the mission ignore; that is a transfer from being a coalition American mission to a NATO mission. In fact, it is the courageous acts of the Canadians that will allow this to become a truly international mission in Afghanistan for the interests of Afghans.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. Our forces concentrated in the Kandahar area under the assumption that they would eventually come under NATO control. At the moment, they are under Operation Enduring Freedom in the south, but that will transit in the next few months to NATO control as was originally planned.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the take note debate held in the House in November, members of Parliament and Canadians were assured that this was a NATO-led mission and that it would be a multinational mission. We know that at this time it is not. We are operating under Operation Enduring Freedom.

Of course we support the women and men in our armed forces and we believe the best way to demonstrate that support is to ask the serious questions that need to be asked about this mission.

Why have the Dutch delayed their deployment to Kandahar? Why are we not operating now, as we were told we would be, under a NATO-led multinational mission in Afghanistan, in Kandahar province?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was in that debate in November and my recollection might be different from the hon. member. I believe at that time the then minister of defence explained the situation. The troops were under Operation Enduring Freedom and going to NATO command. That was my understanding.

Regardless of that, the Dutch are not delaying as such. They are just taking time to assemble their forces. They made a decision in parliament to send their forces, and it takes time to assemble their forces. It is the same with the British. The British in the south have committed 3,300 troops and they will be streaming in there all through the summer. As we all know, the British have no problem working with the Americans, nor do we, nor the Dutch.

I think the member is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois during this evening's debate.

This morning, I had to laugh at a few things broadcast in the media. Imagine a Taliban commander saying that our discussion of the pertinence of a mission to Afghanistan reveals our weakness and our fear. I do not agree with him at all. The Taliban may be in the habit of cutting people's heads off and making executive decisions about how to proceed, but we live in a democracy. Our decision to hold this debate tonight and to discuss in depth the pros and cons of this mission demonstrates one of the strengths of a democracy compared with the unspeakable tyranny of the Taliban. That much must be said.

As members of the opposition, we have a specific role to play. No military mission is perfect. Our role is to suggest ways to improve the mission and ensure that it is being carried out appropriately.

To that end, I have a few questions for the minister. Among other things, I would like him to reassure us that Canadian military personnel will in no way cooperate with the use of weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines, which are against certain treaties signed by Canada.

I would also like to hear what he has to say about prisoners. I am aware of the agreement on the transfer of prisoners. There is currently nothing to prevent the Afghan government from turning prisoners transferred to it over to the Americans. Does the minister agree that we must have a clearer policy on the transfer of prisoners?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments in support of our troops in Afghanistan.

With respect to mines, the Canadian Forces do not have any anti-personnel mines. They are operating in accordance with the treaty that was signed by Canada a number of years ago.

With respect to prisoners, it is possible that the Afghan government could transfer a prisoner to a third party, if I understand it, but the government has to report that to the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, whatever the appropriate organization is. Apparently there are about 1,200 members of the Red Cross or Red Crescent in Afghanistan and they will be tracking prisoners. Afghanis are being captured in Afghanistan and that is their country so it is highly unlikely that they would be transferred to anybody else. If they were, the Red Cross would follow the individuals.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for being here tonight to lead off the debate.

Over the last year, many in the House have had an opportunity to talk to our soldiers in Afghanistan. I have had that opportunity on a couple of occasions. One soldier, who was on the ground and in danger, sent me an email indicating they had a rough day, but he felt what our troops were doing there was “the face of Canada”. That was the term he used. He said that Canada was all about soldiers working with these people to improve their lives.

Does the minister feel that our troops in Afghanistan have not only the equipment but the empowerment, the rules of engagement, or the proper protocols to do the job they are there to do? The provincial reconstruction team has a diverse role to play. Does the minister feel the team is properly equipped to do that?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government accelerated a number of projects for the troops in Afghanistan. Nearly all of those projects have been implemented. There is still a bit of equipment to come. When that equipment arrives, our troops will be the best equipped in that zone, so I thank the previous government for its efforts.

The only criticism I had in the past was the commitment of troops without having the equipment. The equipment is catching up to the troops and they will be very well equipped.

With respect to the other topic concerning empowerment and rules of engagement, I have had a review of the rules of engagement. I think the rules of engagement, which are enunciated basically under the international laws of war, are robust enough for our forces to do what they have to do in Afghanistan.