Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2009

Afghanistan

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, when a problem arises at the political level, we take action on it. We have taken action on allegations, only allegations, of abuse. Over two and a half years ago we corrected a flawed arrangement that the previous government had had with the Afghan authorities. We have improved on that. We have worked with the Afghan authorities ever since. Every time there has been an allegation of abuse, it has been investigated. There have been a number of investigations, all of which found no inappropriate actions by members of the Canadian Forces.

They are doing the job for us. I wish the opposition would realize that.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.

The government misled Canadians about what it knew about the torture of Afghan detainees. When it got caught, it cost the previous minister his job. Now it is playing the game again.

Let me try once more. Who in the government received Richard Colvin's reports, what was in those reports, and when did the minister first hear about them? Who, what and when?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have never denied having concerns about allegations of abuse. We all do. That is why every time it has come to the attention of this government, we have acted upon it. Every time it has come to the attention of the authorities in Afghanistan, they have acted upon it.

Despite the caterwauling from across the way, our folks have acted appropriately at every stage of the way. The Canadian Forces are doing a spectacular job for us, for those members, for our members and for Canadians, and they will continue to do that.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our troops are doing a great job in Afghanistan. That is not the issue. The question we are raising concerns the work of the Conservative minister.

I would like to ask a question of the minister responsible for Afghanistan, the Minister of International Trade. We know that members of Joint Task Force Afghanistan received Mr. Colvin's reports.

Was the minister aware of this at the time?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I did not see the reports.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could explain to us how several public servants who were members of the Afghan task force received the Colvin reports over a period of several months before the government ever appeared to have recognized their very existence.

Could the minister explain what exactly the cabinet task force is doing in such a way that it would not be aware of such fundamental information? That is the question.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, any reports that are sent to authorities are looked at by the appropriate authority to deal with that issue. There are thousands of reports that come into all departments every day. Any report that has merit to it is investigated. In the case of any allegations of abuse by Afghans against Afghans, they are investigated. We have mentored the Afghans for years. Two and a half years ago we corrected deficiencies that were left by the previous government.

We have invested time, treasure and blood in this issue and we have borne tremendous results from that.

Status of Women

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal leader released his election platform through the pink book and revealed yet again the Liberals' real tax and spend agenda.

The Liberal leader continues to make irresponsible and uncosted spending promises that Canadians cannot afford, promises that do very little to actually help Canadian women who work hard, pay their taxes and help create jobs.

Could the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tell the House how our Conservative government's approach is so much better for Canadians than that of the Liberal leader?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is confirmed now by the Liberal leader that he is sticking to his irresponsible EI proposal for a 45-day work year that would cost Canadians $4 billion a year. He also wants to impose a national day care program that the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has costed over $6 billion a year. That is $10 billion a year on top of everything else we are facing right now.

Instead of increasing taxes on hard-working Canadian families we are working to make sure that they get the chance to keep more of their own money to spend on what they need.

Afghanistan

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, for over a year from June 2006 diplomat Richard Colvin reported concerns about torture of prisoners while the Canadian Forces continued to transfer prisoners to Afghan authorities. Included in these reports were firsthand accounts from victims.

The government's latest defence is that they received thousands of reports on torture. Is it the government's position that the more reports it received, the less attention it paid to the issue of torture?

Even chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier refused to transfer prisoners in the fall of 2007 because of inadequate safeguards.

How can the government claim to have fixed it?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will recall, decisions to transfer are based on decisions by authorities on the ground. In the fall of 2007 we had received some apparently credible reports. That is why we took action. We made those changes two and a half years ago to correct the flaws in the previous agreement. Transfers were in fact stopped until we had worked with the Afghan authorities.

There was one instance of Afghan authorities taking their own corrective action. We applauded that. We have been working with them ever since. The transfers resumed when it was deemed appropriate to do so.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have one of Mr. Colvin's reports from June 2007 where he stated that detainees have been burned, “whipped with cables and shocked with electricity” while in Afghan custody in Kandahar. Colvin continued, “He showed us a number of scars on his legs, which he said were caused by the beating”.

Canadians need to be assured that the torture has since stopped. Can the government guarantee that all provisions of the current prisoner transfer agreement are now being followed by Afghan government officials, and will it table the reports that are required by this agreement?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have been repeating, we have been working with the Afghans on that incident particularly. That particular incident was handled by the Afghan authorities themselves. They brought corrective disciplinary action with our guidance.

In the meantime, we spent $21 million to help pay the salaries of police and correctional workers and fund the human rights support unit, $7 million for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, $5.5 million to improve conditions of Afghan detention centres, and $99 million toward training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan national army.

We have had 175 visits since that time. I would say there is pretty good oversight.

Labour

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Isabelle Landry, who is 20 weeks pregnant, is a truck driver. She had hoped to have her doctor sign a preventive withdrawal certificate. However, she learned that she was not eligible for preventive withdrawal under the CSST because she makes deliveries outside Quebec. Unlike her other colleagues under Quebec's jurisdiction, she is not eligible for preventive withdrawal at 90% of her income.

Does the minister plan on correcting this injustice to ensure that female workers in Quebec are subject to the same conditions?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we will meet with Ms. Landry today to assure her that we are aware of her concerns. However, as I have already said, if, at any time, a woman feels that her health or the health of her unborn child is in danger because of health issues, including the H1N1 virus, she has the legal right to refuse to work, and she will continue to be paid until a decision has been made.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was done, and no suggestions were made.

A number of women in Quebec who work under the Canada Labour Code are covered against all occupational injuries and diseases under the CSST. All it would take is a simple administrative agreement to allow pregnant women working under the Canada Labour Code to be eligible for preventive withdrawal.

Why deprive Isabelle Landry and hundreds of other female workers in Quebec from being eligible for preventive withdrawal at 90% of their income?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, my office and I are meeting with Madam Landry today to ensure that we understand her concerns.

My priority is to ensure that she knows her rights under the Canada Labour Code, and she does. If she feels at any point that her job is unsafe or her pregnancy or unborn child are unsafe due to any health risk, including the H1N1 virus, she has the right to refuse to work and she will continue to be paid.

Health

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on H1N1 we are getting to crunch time. Flu season is about to hit. The world's best experts say we need to be vaccinated. Yet after months of messages of all sorts, only about one-third of Canadians say they intend to get their shot. This is an immense problem. We only have a couple of weeks to reach people, to change minds.

How is the government going to achieve what it has not achieved in many months? What is the government's communications plan?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been taking H1N1 very seriously from day one.

Communication is part of the whole strategy. From the very beginning and for the last six and a half months, we have been communicating with Canadians providing information on H1N1 as we knew it.

We now have television ads, posters and radio advertisements. We have weekly updates with the health committee. I have met with the Chief Public Health Officer on a weekly basis, updating Canadians. I have also met with the provincial and territorial health ministers and first nations communities.

Yesterday we approved the vaccine for Canadians for the provinces and territories.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at this moment only about one-third of Canadians intend to get their shot.

All of us know at least one person, a pregnant mother, a child under three, an aboriginal young adult, someone at greatest risk. For many it will be the first time in their lives they have before them a decision that can transform their life.

This is not about attack ads or signs claiming credit. This may be the most important communications exercise in our history.

We must rise to this need. Where is the right communications plan?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I said earlier, last week I announced the preparedness for H1N1 booklet. This will be available in every post office across the country. Since then, at fightflu.com, we have had over 60,000 hits on this site alone.

The Chief Public Health Officer of this country has also stated that adjuvanted and unadjuvanted are safe vaccines for all Canadians.

Industry

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government introduced anti-spam legislation, Bill C-27, and now it is at risk of being weakened.

Both the Liberals and the Bloc have left consumers wondering as they cave to the corporate lobby and move motions that are against the public interest.

Now the government has an amendment on the table that would allow serious violations of individual privacy, as private companies would get access to Canadians' personal computers.

Why does the minister believe personal privacy is not an issue and that computers can be invaded by others? Why is he softening on spam? Will the minister stand up for Internet users or sell them out to the spammers and the fraudsters?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment the hon. member is referring to is off the table.

The hon. member, the NDP caucus and the Conservative caucus have been collaborating very well on the anti-spam legislation, despite the efforts of the Liberals and the Bloc to cave in to corporate interests.

We see this legislation as consumer legislation to protect the consumer against some of the ne'er do wells involved in the Internet. I appreciate the backing of the hon. member's party as we continue to make sure this legislation comes through and is successful for Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the amendment will be removed on Monday.

I hope the minister will also take my advice on the recent decision of the CRTC yesterday on Internet traffic management practices. It is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada. The principle of net neutrality must be a cornerstone of the innovation agenda, not a tombstone.

South of the border the FCC is taking clear steps toward ensuring net neutrality. The CRTC decision will protect the monopolists rather than the innovators.

Will the minister and his cabinet stand up for the competition, consumers and net neutrality and overturn the CRTC decision, just as they did for the land line market decision that took place three or four years ago?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advice, as always. Indeed, we are studying the CRTC decision very closely.

Most observers have seen it to be an appropriate balance between the interests of the consumers and also the ability of the providers to provide the services we expect on the Internet, but I am watching those providers very closely. I do not want to see a situation where consumers are put at risk in terms of their access to the Internet.

This will be ongoing, but we are on the side of the consumer, most assuredly.