House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2008, with 42% of the vote.
Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan May 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member, who is also on the defence committee, to look at the statements that Afghan women here in Canada have made exactly about the counter-insurgency role that Canadians are performing in Afghanistan. They have said it is not making Afghanistan a safer place for them. They are saying that it has raised the level of violence in Afghanistan. I think the voice of women in Afghanistan should be heard.
Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan May 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of Parliament, as the defence critic for the New Democratic Party, and also as a concerned Canadian citizen, mother and grandmother.
When I became defence critic four months ago, I did not know a lot about military affairs, but I had a guiding principle then and it remains my guiding principle today. After four months of total immersion in Canadian defence policy, I am more convinced than ever that military force must be used only as a last resort.
Military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. It has profound, often negative consequences for the lives of individual human beings. Those individuals include the soldiers we send into harm's way, their husbands, their wives, their sons, their daughters, and yes, their mothers and fathers, as well as their grandmothers and grandfathers.
Never let us forget the grave responsibility we carry anytime we put the lives of young Canadians on the line. Is the mission necessary? Is it a mission that can succeed? Is it the right mission? Are we doing everything possible to ensure the safety and well-being of our soldiers? Are we doing everything possible to adhere to international standards concerning the protection of civilians, the choice and the use of weapons, and the treatment of detainees?
The decision to deploy a military force is a deadly serious one. We are not playing a video game. We must guard against becoming pumped full of aggression and testosterone, throwing caution to the wind, secure in the knowledge that we here as members of Parliament will never find ourselves in harm's way.
The NDP has serious concerns about the proposal to complete our mission in 2007 and then have a new mission for a further two years in Afghanistan. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to voice those concerns. We are not afraid to vote against this motion. Our concerns have been inadequately addressed. It is our right. It is our responsibility. The government has not addressed our serious concerns. It has failed to answer our questions.
For four years the U.S. military, the most powerful military in the world, has tried to stabilize southern Afghanistan at the point of a gun through a forward leaning, counter-insurgency approach. The U.S. military has failed in that effort. The situation has become more, not less, dangerous. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Heroin production has skyrocketed. The insurgents are becoming ever more adept at building and deploying sophisticated roadside bombs.
Today the United States wants to draw down its forces in Afghanistan and it wants its allies to pick up the slack. Most of those allies, most of NATO, have been dragging their heels, concerned that the counter-insurgency approach creates more problems than it solves. Canada, however, has rushed into this gap, taking on the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Kandahar province.
The NDP shares the concerns of many of Canada's allies that the counter-insurgency approach cannot succeed, and if it cannot succeed, why are we there? Is it simply because the United States has asked us to be there because it wants out? Or is it simply because we do not have the imagination or wherewithal to devise a better approach? Or is it because we do not want to be elsewhere on a different, less macho, more explicitly humanitarian mission, saving the people of Darfur from a full-blown genocide?
Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian overseas development assistance. The NDP unequivocally supports the continuation of that funding, especially when it supports the work of non-governmental aid organizations operating at arm's length from foreign military forces whenever possible.
Afghanistan is a large and diverse country that offers many opportunities for the deployment of reconstruction teams made up of a mix of Canadian Forces, CIDA, foreign affairs and RCMP personnel. The NDP unequivocally supports the maintenance of a sizeable Canadian reconstruction presence in Afghanistan. However, as the leader of our party has explained, the NDP believes that the extension of the counter-insurgency mission is not the best use that could be made of Canada's small but highly skilled professional army.
Genocide is occurring in Darfur. Yesterday the UN Security Council charged Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to find countries willing and able to commit troops and equipment for that all important humanitarian mission. Canada is able to answer that call with the best soldiers in the world and equipment designed specifically for robust peacekeeping, unless we vote today to extend the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.
Turning our backs on genocide is not a decision that we should take lightly or in haste. It is not a decision that should be pre-empted by a snap vote after only six hours of debate and no consideration by parliamentary committees. It is a decision that strikes at the very heart of what this country is and what we as Canadians believe.
The NDP has other concerns about the extension of the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. We remain concerned about Canadian soldiers transferring detainees to Afghan or U.S. custody without adequate protections for Canada's continuing obligations to those detainees under international law. We remain concerned about Canadian soldiers relying on anti-personnel land mines laid by foreign forces in violation of the spirit and the intent of the Ottawa land mines convention.
We are also very concerned about the cost of this mission. By the time the current mission is complete in February 2007, it will have likely cost Canadians in excess of $5 billion. The Polaris Institute has estimated that a two year extension or a new mission would cost an additional $2 billion to $3 billion.
We could provide a huge amount of reconstruction and humanitarian aid for $7 billion, not just in Afghanistan but also elsewhere. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. For $7 billion it is incumbent upon us as guardians of the public purse to confirm that there is no alternative to the counter-insurgency approach and to ensure that this is the right mission.
Finally, the NDP is concerned about the continuing uncertainty over the timing for the transfer of overall operational control over Canada's soldiers from the U.S. military to NATO.
The motion before us states that Canada's commitment in Afghanistan is an important contribution with that of more than 30 other countries to international efforts under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO. But where is NATO? When the current mission was decided upon last summer, the Liberals told us that Canadian Forces would be transferred to NATO operational control by this spring, by February. The transfer has been delayed, not once but several times. Today we read newspaper reports that Canada might well end up leading the NATO mission, presumably because no other NATO country wants the job.
It is a misleading motion before us. Our current commitment is under the auspices neither of the United Nations nor NATO. It is under Operation Enduring Freedom. In this situation, facing this uncertainty, the NDP could not in good conscience vote for it.
I have spoken today as a member of Parliament, as a citizen, as a mother and as a grandmother. The decision to use military force is one of the most important decisions a government could ever make. I repeat that this is not a video game. We are talking today about the lives of millions of people, Canadian lives, Afghan lives and the lives of the people of Darfur. We have to ensure that we make the very best decision, that this is the right mission and that all of us can in one, two or ten years look the families of our soldiers in the eye and say yes, it was a mission worth dying for.
National Defence May 12th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, Canadians stopped their government from engaging in missile defence once and I am confident they will do it again.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister committed that any involvement in missile defence would be brought to the House for a free vote. Will the government commit today to hold a free vote in Parliament on Canada's role in missile defence for Europe before the Prime Minister's meeting with NATO leaders this fall, or was that just another broken Conservative promise?
National Defence May 12th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we learned today that just like the Liberals, the Conservatives are now flirting with the idea of dragging Canada into missile defence, this time in Europe. Reports indicate that the NATO plans are virtually identical to the U.S. plans for missile defence in North America, the very same plans that Canadians successfully opposed.
Can the minister confirm that Canada's representatives to NATO endorsed initial plans for ballistic missile defence in Europe?
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross may watch over detainees who Canada has passed over to the Afghan government. The ICRC does not normally inform other countries when a particular country denies access to its detainees. It does not ensure that there will not be torture or inhumane treatment.
The agreement does not provide the chance for Canadian officials to visit or even receive updates. The government of the Netherlands negotiated an agreement that is much stronger. I do not understand why the government will not redraft the agreement to ensure that Canada is in compliance with our international obligations and the treaties that Canada has signed. It needs to be done, and I urge the government to reconsider.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the response from the Minister of National Defence to a question I asked him in the House on April 5. I questioned the minister about the agreement that was signed by the chief of defence staff with the government of Afghanistan governing the transfer of prisoners taken by Canadian Forces.
I am concerned about how this agreement was signed and about its provisions. First I want to discuss its signing and then outline legal opinions provided by experts in the field.
Rumours about the signing of the agreement began to circulate earlier this year. Initial attempts by legal experts and NGOs to examine the treaty were stonewalled. It appeared that the government was not comfortable with the contents of the agreement and refused to release it to the Canadian public. However, the government was forced to make the contents of the agreement public on March 30.
Two noted legal experts, Professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa, and Professor Michael Byers, director of the Lui Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia, have written formal opinions on the agreement. Canadians who are watching tonight can find copies of these legal opinions on the website of the Polaris Institute at polarisinstitute.org.
I want to say that the concern New Democrats have is that the agreement potentially puts our Canadian Forces at risk. Indeed, the first day the House was convened, I requested an emergency debate on the matter. This agreement places Canadian Forces in a situation where they may be violating the laws of Canada and of the international community.
There are good reasons that we as Canadians follow the Geneva conventions. If our soldiers are detained by a foreign military or taken prisoner in another war, we demand and expect reciprocal treatment for our forces. Furthermore, Canadian Forces could potentially be taken before the International Court. I know that no one in the House would want to see that happen.
The first opinion by Professor Attaran concerns the implications regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter applies to most actions of the Canadian government, including the ability to make international defence agreements. Section 7 of the charter states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
This section has been interpreted by the courts as severely limiting or abolishing the ability of our government to hand over individuals to a foreign government if there is a substantial risk of torture.
The Afghan government does have a documented record of torture. I want to be clear that we are committed to working with the government of Afghanistan to improve the welfare of the Afghan people. Afghanistan is coming out of a quarter century of civil strife and faces enormous challenges. In any state where there is extreme poverty and difficulty maintaining order, there will be the threat of torture.
The opinion of Professor Byers concerns the international dimensions of the agreement. In his opinion he states that the arrangement is clearly a treaty, that it is a written agreement between two countries which places rights and obligations on both parties. This is the dictionary definition and the legal definition of a treaty.
Professor Byers states that the agreement does not provide adequate protections against violations of the 1949 Geneva conventions. Geneva specifies that a number of acts “are and shall remain absolutely prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”. Among the--
National Defence May 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be almost no restrictions placed on the U.S. when it comes to our sovereignty. The Liberals did not ask for any and the Conservatives do not seem to want any.
When it comes to information sharing, the minister bends around for the U.S., but when it comes to sovereignty, who will stand up for Canada? It is not that government.
In how many ways has Canada's sovereignty been impeded, been given away in this Norad agreement?
National Defence May 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, during last night's debate on Norad, I asked the Minister of National Defence if Canada would be sharing information about our internal waterways with the United States. He responded by saying, “I'm not certain. That's up for question”.
How could the minister be so clueless on such an important aspect of an agreement that he signed just last week? Why did the government not ensure Canadian sovereignty through the Northwest Passage?
Norad May 3rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I know that the member chaired the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons in the previous administration and was part of the international policy statement review. I have two questions for him.
First, in the spirit of consultation with Canadians, I want to ask the member if he would support the notion that I put forward that Norad could be extended in its present form for 12 months in order to give Canadians an opportunity to come before a joint foreign affairs-defence committee on this proposal that was signed by the Minister of National Defence to expand Norad?
Second, the proposed new treaty includes the phrase: “Norad's airspace warning mission for North America shall include airspace warning, as defined in this paragraph, in support of United States national commands responsible for missile defence”. This language confirms the 2004 agreement entered into by the Liberal government. Does the member think that this aspect of our relationship with the U.S. should be revisited? Does he support or oppose Canadian participation in missile defence?
Norad May 3rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I do not think anyone wants to support illegal drug traffic, certainly not in this House nor anywhere else in the country.
However I would remind the member that we have different laws from those in the U.S. I am not sure Norad is the appropriate place to be enforcing our criminal laws. We have our own sovereign laws in Canada. We have our own police forces that are enshrined with the responsibility to deal with that.