House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of that agreement.
As Alex Neve of Amnesty International said on May 3, “It also appears that it may even be better than the other agreements that other NATO countries have...entered into with the Afghan government”.
It is a very good agreement for the protection of human rights, and we are ensuring that it is respected by the Afghan government.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs may well be proud of himself. We can tell him that we, on this side of the House, are not at all proud of him.
Under the agreement signed on May 3, Canada has full and direct access to prisoners captured by the Canadian Forces and transferred to the Afghans. It seems that has not happened. We would say that the minister is living on another planet. He alleges that this story is Taliban propaganda, but it was a journalist for La Presse who wrote that report.
A journalist was able to go to Kandahar and to visit people who had been tortured. What does this government have to hide? The minister—
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we have absolutely nothing to hide. We are proud of the record of our Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and the Afghans are also proud of the Canadian troops. In a recent independent survey carried out in Afghanistan, 73% of Afghans said that the women are treated better today than they were five years ago. We have improved the situation for human rights. It is still a difficult situation. We have to work together, with the duly elected Afghan government and with the international community. That is what we are doing.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is one of two things: either the Conservative government has not ensured monitoring of the Afghan prisoners—and in that case, it is failing in its duty—or the Conservative government knew exactly what was happening and washed its hands of the matter.
Does the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is so proud of him, realize that their government's failures are exposing not only Canada, but also the soldiers themselves to a risk of prosecution for non-compliance with the Geneva convention?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we respect our international obligations. An agreement was signed with the duly elected Afghan government. I repeat, it is one of the best, most modern, agreements of the NATO countries. That agreement protects human rights. That is why we are in Afghanistan, to enable the Afghans to live in a democratic country—as we do here in Canada—and a secure country, where there is development and where children can go to school. We are doing that and the Canadian Forces are there to bring security to the country, because without safety and security there can be no development.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, for the first 18 months that the NDP raised this issue, two governments were in denial. Finally an agreement was signed. The question before the House today is whether or not this agreement is worth the paper it was printed on, whether or not the government is taking action to ensure that what is on paper is in fact being followed.
This is the question we are asking because we now have headlines in the papers which suggest that Canada is facilitating a process of torture. This is extremely serious. It is also serious under international law. Will a representative of the government, the Prime Minister or someone, stand up and tell us what steps are being taken to make sure--
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to caution the hon. member on taking as the truth incomplete statements such as a few comments from unattributed sources and anonymous individuals about unnamed prisoners, alleging some torture, especially when we are talking about combating the Taliban, whose major business was trampling the human rights of Afghans.
We are there to protect the human rights of Afghans and to support our troops in doing that.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation has been tarnished by headlines such as this one: “You, Canadians, are responsible for torture”. This is serious. The government must take action on this.
My question is serious and very specific. When was the last time government representatives used their visitation right to visit prisoners, detainees, who are being held by the Afghan authorities?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibilities seriously. We expect the Afghan government to do the same. We have an agreement which ensures that can happen.
We are very proud of the work of our troops. When we talk about our reputation, the reputation of Canadians is clear. It is shown in the polls of Afghans who say their lives are better, they enjoy more human rights than they did before, and they want the troops of Canada and NATO to stay there to protect their human rights from the Taliban. That is what we are doing.
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, amidst the latest allegations of torture and abuse, there remains a government desperate to confuse the public about its true intentions for the future of our mission in Afghanistan.
How else to explain the differing accounts of the end date of the combat mission? The Prime Minister says one thing. The Chief of the Defence Staff says another. Who is telling the truth?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, I think General Hillier was very clear on this point. He said that there is no contradiction whatsoever. As the hon. member knows, we have a February 2009 end date. There was discussion in the throne speech of the date of February 2011 with respect to our signature on the Afghanistan Compact.
Those are the facts. They speak for themselves. The general has been very clear. There is no contradiction.
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, the positions of the minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff are not reconcilable.
Canadians expect the government to be honest, truthful and unambiguous. Canadians are clear. They want our combat mission to end in February 2009.
The only question that remains is this one. Who is telling the truth about these future plans, the Prime Minister, who wants to extend our combat mission to 2011, or the Chief of the Defence Staff, who says 2017? Which is it?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
First, Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. The Chief of the Defence Staff never used that date. The member is making up that particular fact.
We have been very clear. Unlike the members opposite, who were part of the government that sent soldiers to Afghanistan not only ill-equipped but without a mandate from Parliament, as there was no vote, we have committed to having a vote in the House of Commons. We have been very clear on our commitment with respect to February 2009. We have been very clear in the throne speech.
What is incredible and unacceptable is that a member opposite who was part of that government would now stand up and advocate to bring those troops home.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, 2007 plus 10 equals 2017.
The disarray between the government and our military with respect to the Afghan mission is astounding. The Prime Minister has told Canadians that our troops are to remain until 2011 in Afghanistan. Last week, the CDS made it clear that it cannot be. It would take at least another 10 years.
Who is in charge? General Hillier or the Prime Minister, who has said before that Canada has a moral obligation to stay until the Afghan army can take over? Is it 2011 or 2017?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the member were to look at the words of General Hillier, he would see that he has been very clear. He gave a very clear indication that there is no separation, that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever with what he is saying. He was referring to the building of a professional army. He was referring to some of the necessity of the longer term.
With respect to the mission, there is a mandate from Parliament by virtue of a vote taken last spring to go to February 2009. There is a reference to the Afghanistan Compact of 2011. The only person trying to cast aspersions on the mission, the only person in the House trying to further confuse the issue, is the member opposite.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, General Hillier was very clear: he said 2017. It is the members opposite who are still creating confusion. The political incompetence on this issue is pathetic.
According to reports, not only was the Prime Minister's office furious about what General Hillier had said, but even the Minister of National Defence was apparently unaware of the visit by the Chief of Defence Staff, which proves that the general does as he pleases.
Either the military is carrying out this mission and the Prime Minister and his spokespeople have no control, or this Conservative government is not telling us the truth and the real end date for the combat mission is 2017. Who is telling Canadians the truth: General Hillier, who is saying 2017, or the Prime Minister, who is saying 2011?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member without borders for his question.
It is clear. The minister, the Prime Minister and the Chief of Defence Staff agree. They said the same thing last week. It is clear.
The member is trying to show that the government is divided. This is not true. It is clear: the mission will end on the same date for all government representatives.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, a journalist went to Afghanistan to ask CIDA authorities some questions. Although she kept insisting, the only answer she received was “I cannot speak to you, call Ottawa”.
Although the government boasts of investing millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, it continues to lack transparency with regard to Canadian aid.
The minister must understand that she is responsible for international aid and not the military. Therefore, could she give us a straight answer?
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's throne speech, and also in budget 2007, the government committed to more aid effectiveness and to accountability and transparency. If the member has a specific question to ask about a specific amount, project or program, I would be happy to answer the question.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the government table, in this House, all the reports it has so that we can know the true amount of the humanitarian aid it is so proud of providing?
Does the government monitor the monies invested or is it only good at distributing cookies to make itself look good?
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, our international assistance to countries is distributed according to criteria. The criteria are very clear. We have a reporting process. We have accountability. We have audits being done both internally and by external parties.
Again, I would say to the member that if she has a specific project or matter she would like to have addressed, I would be pleased to give her the information, as appropriate.
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, in a press conference held today, 18 artist and cultural business groups asked that the Minister of Canadian Heritage use her power to issue policy directions to the CRTC to ensure that, in CRTC decisions, priority is given to the social and cultural reality, as required under the Broadcasting Act.
Will the minister accede to this request from artist and cultural business groups and support a firm and efficient regulatory framework for broadcasting?
Josée Verner ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act pursues cultural and social objectives, not only economic ones. There is no doubt that our government reaffirms the importance of these objectives and that it is the responsibility of the CRTC to make regulations to ensure that these objectives are achieved.
Our government expects the CRTC to make regulations promoting the production and broadcast of Canadian content. That said, yesterday evening, I had the pleasure of speaking with M. Dion-Hébert, and we have agreed to meet to discuss—
