House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hours.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there has been consultation between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent that this motion be deemed carried on division.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, for centuries the concept of abiding by the rule of law has been fundamental to the development of civilized and responsible societies. This concept has broadened to include interstate conduct as enshrined in the principles of international law. It is a basic pillar upon which the foundation of responsible state behaviour is undertaken. It is for this reason that the circumstances surrounding the imprisonment of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are so distressing.
International and domestic law clearly demonstrate that Omar Khadr ought to be dealt with in a manner which is completely different from what he has experienced since his detention commenced in July 2002. Omar Khadr was taken into custody by American forces in Afghanistan when he was just 15 years of age. Clearly, by any reasonable definition, he should have been recognized as a child soldier.
The extrajudicial nature of the tribunal set up under the United States Military Commissions Act, passed by the United States Congress, demonstrably violates the most basic tenets of due process under law and the concept of fair treatment before the law.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear on the issue of child soldiers. This convention was signed by the United States, Canada and Afghanistan, although not ratified by the United States. The optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been signed and ratified by all three states. Essentially there is recognition in these conventions and protocols, as well as in domestic law, that states are obligated to protect child soldiers, and rather than imprison them or treat them inhumanely, these states are responsible to assist in their rehabilitation and recovery.
Recently, a document produced in 2003 by United States military doctors specifically addressed the issue of child soldiers and the notion of enemy combatants. These doctors recommended against detaining anyone under 18 years of age at the Guantanamo Bay facility. They wrote of “minimizing psychological, emotional and physical harm”. This document was prepared at a time when Omar Khadr was undergoing interrogation at Guantanamo Bay and was in fact being treated very much as an adult would be managed.
While the United States government has maintained that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to its “lawful or unlawful enemy combatants” in detention, the United States supreme court declared that notwithstanding this determination, article 3 of the conventions does indeed apply. Article 3 has several provisions, including addressing “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court...”
It is quite apparent to all parties, including the United States government, that the military commission the U.S. has created does not represent a regularly constituted court. Many groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have expressed their concern about the treatment of Omar Khadr, and with good cause.
Indeed, our own Supreme Court in a unanimous decision has now ruled that the Government of Canada must release all documents in Canada's possession relating to Omar Khadr in order to support his right to a fair trial. In its ruling, it specifically made mention of the United States supreme court decision declaring as unconstitutional the validity of the process now being used in that country.
The issue at present is not so much whether Omar Khadr has liability for his alleged actions, but that any disposition of his case should be undertaken before a regular court of law with standard judicial protection and rules of procedure, including recognition of his youth--
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as we know well by now, Omar Khadr was captured by U.S. forces in July 2002 following hostilities in which he allegedly killed a U.S. medic with a grenade. He is also alleged to have been laying improvised explosive devices, IEDs, on roads known to be used by coalition forces. I note that Mr. Khadr was captured during hostilities in Afghanistan, a country where Canadian troops are risking their lives every day.
I also note that Mr. Khadr was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in October 2002. I was not present in Parliament at the time, nor was the Conservative Party in government. Perhaps the member's colleagues in the Liberal Party could provide some insight into the developments at that time.
We must recognize that Mr. Khadr faces serious charges as a result of these actions. We must also acknowledge that he is alleged to have been an active member of al-Qaeda.
As a result of his alleged activities in Afghanistan, he is charged before a U.S. military commission with murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying.
The Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibilities for the safety and security of its citizens abroad. When Canadian citizens find themselves in difficult situations in a foreign country, it is the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ensure that they are treated fairly and that they are afforded due process under the applicable local laws.
However, the judicial process for a Canadian who is arrested outside of Canada is governed by the laws and regulations of another country and not by Canadian law. If a Canadian citizen breaks the laws of another country, he or she is subject to the judicial system of that country. In this regard, the choice of systems put in place to try detainees in Guantanamo Bay is a matter for the relevant U.S. authorities to decide.
In light of the fact that Mr. Khadr was a minor at the time of his alleged offences, we have continuously demanded that the U.S. government take his age into account in all aspects of his detention, treatment, prosecution and potential sentencing, in particular, demanding that he not be subject to the death penalty.
Due to these efforts, the Canadian government has received unequivocal assurances from U.S. authorities that Mr. Khadr will not be subject to the death penalty.
The government has received assurances that Mr. Khadr is being treated humanely and has repeatedly inquired into his well-being when allegations were made of mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have carried out regular welfare visits with Mr. Khadr and will continue to do so. Their interventions have resulted, for example, in Mr. Khadr's move from a maximum security facility to a communal minimum security facility within Guantanamo Bay, in approved medical treatment, as well as in phone calls with his family.
In addition to the ongoing process before a U.S. military commission, Mr. Khadr's case is subject to multiple and complex litigation both in Canada and the U.S. As such, it would not be appropriate to speculate on the potential outcome of cases currently before the court. I will note that former minister Graham said these very things previously.
That being said, Canada strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out in compliance with international law, including established standards of human rights and due process.
We will continue to monitor this matter as it develops.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, organizations like Amnesty International state that if individuals such as Omar Khadr are to face prosecution, they should at least be charged with recognizable offences and tried before an independent and impartial tribunal such as the U.S. federal court. Like them, I also urge that such be the case, along with respect for the age of the defendant at the time of the alleged offence.
The reality is that the process dealing with Omar Khadr has been extrajudicial from the beginning. The rules of international law offer set procedures to follow for the treatment of prisoners of war and in particular, child soldiers.
The Canadian government has an obligation to insist on proper treatment for Omar Khadr. It is already now required by our own Supreme Court to release all documents in its possession.
Hilary Homes of Amnesty International stated before our human rights committee “Canada has been a champion of these rights far too long to create an exception out of one of its own citizens”. Does the government disagree with this statement and, if not, what is it doing that is tangible to release Omar Khadr?
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the necessity of being charged with recognizable offences. Murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying; I would call those recognizable offences.
The fact of the matter is Omar Khadr faces serious charges. The Government of Canada has sought and received assurances that Mr. Khadr is being treated humanely. Departmental officials have carried out several welfare visits with Mr. Khadr and will continue to do so.
Any questions regarding whether Canada plans to ask for the release of Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay are premature and speculative, as the legal process and appeals are still under way.
Independent
Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I must go back to a question I asked on April 1 about the crisis in Tibet and the Dalai Lama's call for dialogue, which should be unanimously encouraged by the international community in order to be heard by China.
In my opinion, the Conservative government should have exerted real pressure to encourage meaningful and immediate talks between the Chinese and Tibetan authorities.
The Conservative government regularly presents us with a vision that I would describe as piecemeal, if not simplistic, a weak vision of Canada's role in international relations and especially in the area of human rights.
The human rights situation in Tibet and the crisis the whole world witnessed this spring are examples of the direction this government has taken on this issue—or I should say the lack of direction and leadership.
When it came to inviting the Dalai Lama and receiving him with all due honours, the government was there, but when it came time to encourage the parties to discuss a resolution to the crisis in Tibet, in order to put an end to the violence, the government did not choose a convincing diplomatic approach.
Welcoming the Dalai Lama is one thing; defending human rights in the most effective way possible is another. In Quebec, we are all too familiar with the fact that this government knows how to make symbolic gestures. More often than not, these gestures are intended to turn attention away from the government's failure to take action.
In the case of Tibet, Canada's responsibility was to respectfully and persistently urge China to resolve its differences through negotiations. Canada's insipid and timid appeal for restraint and dialogue certainly did not push the Chinese government to reflect or to take action.
Nevertheless, the issue of negotiating was and continues to be important. It is important for Tibetans and also for the people of Darfur and for Africa, where China plays a crucial role, as we know.
The Conservative government has a responsibility to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians are heard as they join with many other nations who do not accept the massacres, the wrongful arrests or the violations of fundamental human rights.
Does the new Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to engage in serious dialogue with China in this regard? What is his government's view of the issues raised?
Successive governments in Ottawa continue to boast about the fact that Canada is a G-7 or G-8 member and that, historically, it has enjoyed a good reputation internationally.
This Conservative government is no exception to that rule even though it embarrassed Quebeckers and Canadians in Bali over Kyoto, at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization over the world food crisis, and at the UN by voting against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
When will this government stop its moralizing and truly begin to demand the respect for human rights, with all that entails—whether for aboriginals, Afghans, Iranians, Guantanamo detainees, people of Darfur or Tibetans—on behalf of all Quebeckers and Canadians who want a more just world, a world where the respect for human rights is truly a priority for the Government of Canada.
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, human rights have always been among the foremost priorities of this government. As we have made clear, this government is committed to our values of freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law, and this is what we have done.
China is no exception. We have concerns about China's human rights and we have made these concerns known. As we have always done, we will continue to work with China toward improvements.
This government has been very active on human rights issues facing Tibetans. We have advocated on their behalf both publicly and privately in conversations with the Chinese government.
The unrest in and around Tibet in March and April of this year was very serious. Peaceful protests and freedom of expression are constitutionally protected rights in Canada. They are also internationally recognized universal human rights.
China's response to the protests, including use of force and detentions, was troubling. Throughout the unrest, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued three statements expressing Canada's grave concerns. The Prime Minister also issued a statement. Canada made a joint statement with Australia at the United Nations Human Rights Council. We therefore expressed our concerns clearly and publicly on several occasions.
Canada has also made its concerns well known to the Chinese government. In Ottawa, Canadian officials made representations to the Chinese ambassador. In Beijing, Canadian embassy officials called on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A Canadian embassy official joined a diplomatic visit to Lhasa and expressed concerns directly to local officials.
Our priority remains the peaceful resolution of differences between China and the Dalai Lama through dialogue. In fact, Canada has pushed for this for a long time, including during the recent unrest, but also since initial talks between the two sides began in 2002. When the Chinese government eventually agreed to engage in contacts with the Dalai Lama's representatives on April 25, the Minister of Foreign Affairs immediately issued a statement welcoming the talks, which took place on May 4.
At this point, we are encouraging both sides to engage in sustained, substantive dialogue in which real progress toward the resolution of differences can be achieved. We are also continuing to press for three key things.
The first is that China permit unrestricted access by media, diplomats and the United Nations to the entire affected area. This means affected regions beyond Lhasa and Tibet. Transparency is essential to verify what actually happened as details remain unclear, particularly given that areas affected by the unrest were also recently affected by the devastating May 12 earthquake. Accurate information and reporting are key to ensuring that human rights are being protected and to help lay the groundwork for a peaceful resolution.
Second, China should release all those detained for protesting peacefully. They should not face repercussions for exercising their basic human rights.
Finally, China must improve its treatment of Tibetans. Their rights to freedom of movement, expression, association and spiritual belief must be respected. China must also protect their right to protest peacefully.
This summer, China hosts the Olympics. Human rights improvements before, during and after the Olympics would send positive signals to the international community. We hope that the opportunities to send such a message will not be lost.
Independent
Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, we need more than conversations and public statements made by diplomats. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence just said, to ensure that opportunities will not be lost, can he tell the House what the government is prepared to do about human rights?
For example, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell us if Chinese authorities were told, respectfully and non-threateningly, that if certain improvements do not happen, we might consider sanctions and ways to exert due pressure? This is a very serious subject, and I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence knows that. This is about something fundamental to society. This is about individual rights, human rights.
So, instead of rhetoric—
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. We do take it seriously, just as she does. That is why Canada has been exerting pressure on the Chinese government and on Chinese officials at all levels in Ottawa and in Beijing. We have been working with Tibetan officials and the Dalai Lama to bring those two sides together.
It is ultimately up to the Chinese people and the Tibetan people to work this out and come to a logical, peaceful resolution based on basic human rights. Canada continues to push for that.
We do not always push for things out in public. Sometimes things are happening behind the scenes. That is the way international diplomacy works.
Canada is taking a strong stand on this. We are working with all sides on the issue and we will do our very best to help them reach a peaceful resolution.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, on April 14 I raised the issue of the 1,000 extra troops that were needed with regard to our mission in Afghanistan.
First of all, I want to salute all our troops in Afghanistan, particularly Captain Mark Davidson of Richmond Hill, whom I met when I was there recently, and I want to say that they are all making a difference for Afghan society.
On April 14 I raised the issue of the 1,000 extra troops. As the House knows, the CDS had indicated at the foreign affairs committee that we needed that and knew that two years ago. The government announced it only after the Manley report in January of this year. Obviously we are concerned about transparency and accountability in terms of the government not coming forward and being honest with Canadians.
On March 13 of this year, with the support of my party, the House passed a motion on the continuation of the mission. However, the mission would change. It would not simply be military. It also would be about the training of the Afghan national police and the Afghan national army.
My question has been answered in part by the fact that I know about the additional troops now. I know about the French and the Americans. What we do not know about are the helicopters and the medium lift. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence about that. What is the current status, besides the Polish lending a few helicopters? Where are we on that?
I also want to know from the government when it is going to announce that our mission in Kandahar will end in 2011. That is what I want to know from the government. When is it going to notify NATO that our mission in fact will end in 2011?
Again, the track record of the government has not been particularly good in notifying NATO, as we know. This is important. We know that the emphasis now needs to be on development and diplomacy, particularly in the FATA region of Pakistan.
The parliamentary secretary and I were in Afghanistan a few weeks ago, as I mentioned, and we saw the provincial reconstruction teams. We saw that things are happening. However, in terms of an Afghan solution, ultimately this is an Afghan situation. We need to train the police and the army in order for them to take the brunt of their own security. We certainly expressed that to President Karzai at the time and to the defence minister.
I am asking the parliamentary secretary to give us an update, essentially on the helicopter situation, on the medium lift and the drones, and also to indicate when the government is going to notify NATO that we will be leaving Kandahar. That notification was part of the resolution of March 13.
Again, our troops are doing an outstanding job, but it is a NATO mission. We have a lot of caveats. We have the Bulgarians who basically can only man the watchtowers. They cannot fight. We have the Germans, who do not go out at night.
Canadians are taking the brunt of this fighting, along with the British and the Americans. We need to put more diplomatic pressure on not only Afghanistan's neighbours, but also on our NATO allies, to ensure that they are in fact stepping up to the plate. Without that, we are going to continue to see the unfortunate loss of life that we have seen.
Every Canadian is affected by the death of another Canadian who is on the front line over there doing his or her best, not only for Afghanistan, but indeed for this country.
The issue is not about the troops. It is about when the government is going to notify NATO and where we are on the medium lift, which all of us in the House agree is badly needed. Our troops are the best equipped on the ground and certainly I discovered that in April 2006 when I was there. I know the parliamentary secretary would agree.
That was really the thrust of this question back in April. Obviously we want to have those benchmarks. Certainly the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan will be looking at those benchmarks as well.
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, Canada is in Afghanistan as part of the UN-sanctioned mission, as was mentioned, at the request of the democratically elected Afghan government and in company with our NATO allies.
Members of the House approved the current military commitment to the mission in Afghanistan and again voted their strong support in favour of its extension to 2011. We are in constant consultation with our allies in NATO and outside NATO on that issue.
NATO and its allies, including Canada, are constantly assessing the needs and requirements of the ISAF mission. We are all working toward the same goal, enduring stability and security in Afghanistan.
Canada is committed to achieving development and reconstruction results in Afghanistan and we have been doing that from the start. However, because security and developments are irrevocably linked, this could only happen with the support of our men and women in uniform who continue to work alongside the Afghanistan National Security Forces to build a stable security environment.
As the record shows, we have consistently requested additional troops and I can tell members that we are very pleased with recent developments on this front. The Dutch government has agreed to extend its military commitment in the south of Afghanistan by two years. It should also be noted that in 2007, the UK also expanded its commitment to ISAF and a number of NATO allies, including Australia, Denmark and France enhanced their ISAF presence.
Most recently, over 2,000 U.S. marines were deployed to the south of Afghanistan, and are expected to be in place until November 2008. In addition, the U.S. announced at the Bucharest summit that it would commit an additional 1,000 troops to southern Afghanistan for the longer term.
These commitments represent an important contribution to our ongoing security and training efforts in the south of Afghanistan. Clearly the commitments made by our allies at the NATO summit in Bucharest are good news for Canada and good news for NATO. More important though, the additional troops are good news for the people of Afghanistan who are working hard to rebuild their lives.
An additional battle group in Kandahar will expand NATO's presence and allow Canadian troops to consolidate and expand stability and security in the province, which will further allow our development and governance efforts to take root.
Having a second battle group working alongside our troops post-2009 meets the conditions set forth by both the Manley panel report and the motion carried in the House, and is fully consistent with what NATO has been calling for in Kandahar province.
In the absence of a second battle group in Kandahar, our military has conducted their operations within available resources in light of the realities on the ground. The Canadian Forces, along with our Afghan and NATO allies, have conducted and will continue to conduct a focused and strategic campaign at Kandahar to secure key districts.
Of course, this is a complex and challenging operation, but when we consider the progress that has been made in a short period of time, our success is quite remarkable.
The Canadian Forces have supported the disarmament and demobilization of 63,000 former combatants. In doing so, we have helped collect and secure 85,000 light weapons and 16,000 heavy weapons. Over 650 Afghan National Police have received training through the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team.
Canada has helped to build 11 Afghan National Police checkpoints and six substations, allowing the Afghan police to establish presence and conduct operations in and around Kandahar city.
Consider that in less than five years, the Canadian Forces have helped train over 35,000 new Afghan soldiers and our mentoring efforts continue to provide excellent results. We are now seeing competent Afghan National Army battalions deployed in Kandahar province. In addition, we are seeing better recruitment and retention of new Afghan soldiers, which is a very good sign that our efforts are working.
It should be highlighted that Canadian Forces, with the assistance of our allies and the Afghanistan National Security Forces, have kept key districts in Kandahar province secure. Without a doubt, these accomplishments are contributing to positive change in Afghanistan.
The helicopters and UAVs are on the way. We are working consistently with our NATO allies every day, both in the field in Afghanistan and back in places like Brussels, to ensure everybody is on the same page and everybody knows the progress we are making and the fact that we are going to get the job done.