Bonnie Brown

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate. In all of us who are parliamentarians, this debate stimulates a self-examination of our responsibilities. Simply put, I believe we are responsible for two basic things: the establishment and maintenance of conditions that facilitate the well-being of our citizens at home and abroad, and second, the prudent use of the financial resources of Canada's treasury.

As a member of the loyal opposition, I have a third responsibility. According to the rules of Parliament, I am responsible to hold the government to account through questioning and, where appropriate, even criticism.

Tonight the minority Conservative government is asking us to support an extension of two years to our mission in Afghanistan, two years beyond February 2007. The end date of the request is February 2009. That is 33 months from now.

How does this request for an extension impact my three basic responsibilities? First, on the well-being of our citizens abroad, I must consider our members of the armed forces, Canadians working in Afghanistan in diplomacy, community development and all forms of human service to the Afghan people.

I must also consider Canadians at home, including the family members of our soldiers and aid workers and those generous Canadians who work to raise money for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. For example, my local chapter of Canadians in Support of Afghan Women has, since 1998, sent $280,000 directly to schools in Afghanistan.

I must be clear at this point that I supported the mission which began only three months ago. I support the three components of that mission, that is, defence, development and diplomacy, but I want to see how these three components work together to effectively better the lives of all Afghans.

As I said in the take note debate just about a month ago, we must monitor our activities in Afghanistan, watch for outcomes, both intended and unintended, evaluate the facts that emerge, and make decisions as the situation evolves. So I ask myself, do the first three months of this new type of operation give us enough information to decide our course of action for 33 more months?

Certainly we all agree on the goals. They are laudable, but will our activities there achieve these goals? In my opinion, it is too soon to tell. That is why yesterday in the House I introduced an amendment to the government's motion.

My amendment referred the motion to a joint committee of defence and foreign affairs. It asked such a committee to hold public consultations with Canadians, both experts and regular folks, and then to report to Parliament by October 15. At that time, the government would have had nine months of observations on the mission and reports that would give us sufficient information on which to base a judgment and a plan for the future.

As the previous speaker mentioned, the Dutch debate on their role in Afghanistan took 10 months. They concluded a commitment of two years after 10 months of debate. We are being asked to stretch our commitment, and we are committed to it, to three years, after six hours of debate. There is something inappropriate about this request from the government.

I am totally aware that this mission itself represents life and death for some of our soldiers. It represents the viability of certain Canadian families who may lose a husband, a wife, or a son or a daughter. It represents hope for the future of the Afghan people. It is very important, and we are the people who are responsible.

That is why my main question is, what is the big rush? Is Parliament in charge of our foreign and defence policy or is NATO or is Operation Enduring Freedom? I keep hearing we are being asked to do this and asked to do that, but I think Canadians are prudent folks and they would like to take their time and be sure that a course of action is viable and affordable and has a chance of being successful.

Talking about affordable, on the prudent use of financial resources, we know that we have already spent over $4 billion in Afghanistan since we first went there on our various missions. During the same period we spent only $214 million on UN operations. We know we have 2,300 troops in Afghanistan and only 59 abroad in UN operations.

I ask myself, is this the balance that Canadians want? We do not know. How much will 33 more months cost? For example, if the terms change and if 2,300 troops become 5,300 troops after the big recruitment drive by the government, that would at least double the cost. We do not know what the government's plans are. We do know that the plans in the budget suggest another 23,000 members of the armed forces and we know there are great big dollars in the budget to accommodate that, but we do not know the connection between all those new service people and the Afghan mission.

Certainly I am not against spending money in Afghanistan. They have needs there and Canadians are generous, but I question whether Canadians are on side for this large expenditure. After all, as the government keeps reminding us, it is their money.

What about my responsibility as a member of the loyal opposition? In the last election, Canadians decided to give the Conservatives a chance to govern, but as a slim minority. Canadians decided to elect a strong opposition to keep the new group in check. If I vote yes to this motion, I give the government my approval for whatever manner it chooses in conducting this mission, because if I ask a question, the government will come back at me and say, “You voted yes”.

I believe Canadians are always right. Their marching orders to me are, hold the new government to account. Therefore, I cannot give up my right to question and monitor the government's management of an important military mission abroad.

The Prime Minister seems happy about his first 100 days and Canadians are respectful of their Prime Minister and his accomplishments, but they are also aware that he has little more than 100 days of experience as a Prime Minister and no previous cabinet experience.

I admit he carries a very heavy load and in my opinion he can benefit from the longer experience in government, in life and in matters of world geopolitics that can be found in some members on this side. That is why I want to keep the lines of communication open, the ability for this side to question that side all through the next several months.

For all these reasons, the fact that it is too rushed, the fact that Canadians do not like quick decisions, the fact that I am not comfortable that I know the whole story, that it has not been shared with me, I will definitely be voting no at this time.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Earlier today a motion was adopted by the House relating to the debate on Afghanistan to be held tomorrow. This motion prescribes that once the debate has commenced, no amendments will be considered. One could call it a take it or leave it motion. I have some serious concerns in this regard, particularly when there are matters of life and death.

Therefore, I wish to move an amendment at this time, the effect of which is to require that at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate, the whole matter be referred to a special committee of foreign affairs and defence for public hearings and a report to this House on its findings and recommendations by October 15, 2006.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech and on, what I would call, his total acceptance of the new Pest Control Products Act. I realize he was not with us at the time the bill went through the House and the Standing Committee on Health but I was.

It seems to me that the motion by the member for Toronto—Danforth is trying to extend to urban and suburban dwellings and the spaces around them the rules that the bill covers for farmers and rural dwellers.

My colleague might be interested to know that at the time this bill was created it was estimated that 80% of Canadians lived in urban settings and it was interesting that 80% of the witnesses who came to talk to us about the bill were from urban settings. They were literally begging us to ensure that the rules coming into force with this bill would apply in urban settings.

Many of them had been begging their municipal governments to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and were not getting anywhere. The municipal governments were saying that the province or the federal government should do it and we in turn were saying that it was a matter of local responsibility. It seems to me that we heard from every possible stakeholder and the serious message we heard was mainly from urban people who wanted the bill extended to their environment. It seems to me that the motion by the member for Toronto—Danforth does just that.

I would ask my colleague on the other side whether he feels these rules should be restricted to rural dwellers or whether urban dwellers such as those in Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia might also be entitled to the benefit of them.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the questioner and his party for the tremendous work they have done on the EI file over the last number of years.

He will recall that the major cuts to the EI system happened as a direct result of the terrible annual deficit left by the previous Conservative government. Most programs that the federal government ran were cut at that time and it took years to get back to a point where we could make improvements. As the financial--

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his correction. I am sorry, it is 23,000 more recruits. I would like to point out just how much money that will cost the treasury, not just the salaries for these new soldiers, sailors, et cetera, but also the infrastructure that will have to be built to house and maintain them.

I believe he was accusing the Liberal government of social engineering. His party did that for the last 10 years. The Liberal government did occasionally use a tax credit or some such thing to elicit certain behaviours. However, it is a situation of the pot calling the kettle black. There is a lot of social engineering in this budget.

There is money to help when registering a child for sports, of which I very much approve, although the amount one actually will get is so little: $80. I know my daughter's fees for her children's dance lessons amount to thousands of dollars each year. The $80 becomes small change.

There are several issues in the budget which I find funny, considering the accusations that flowed from the Conservatives when they were in opposition to the Liberal government, only to find that the Conservatives have replicated the same style. That is very strange.

As far as trading what I believe is called carbon credits, it is not the ideal scenario. On the other hand, if we can help bring all countries together, through such a mechanism, I am not opposed to it. The main thing is there was a plan. There were a great number of dollars in the last Liberal fall economic update for a variety of environmental improvement strategies, all of which have been cut. I think most Canadians are sad about that.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the old saying,“Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you what you are”. I do not dispute the wisdom of this statement, but I think a more updated version would be, “Tell me where you're spending your money and I'll tell you where you're going”.

The Conservative government's first budget does not tell the whole story, but it does drop a few hints. I agree with the leader of the Bloc Québécois who said that the real budget is next year.

I also agree with my favourite journalist who said last week on TV that with the performance of the economy and the size of the surplus left by the previous Liberal government, a good news budget could have been written by a chimpanzee.

It was good news for some Canadians, I agree, those comfortable folks in the affluent suburbs where we can find some moms lucky enough to stay home to focus on their children's needs. Yes, they will get a cheque which is supposed to recognize their truly hard work, but if they calculate the Conservative government's recognition of their contribution, they will realize the government thinks they are worth about 27¢ an hour.

The government is underestimating these women who could earn good salaries in the marketplace, but stay home because they can afford to do so and because they choose to do so. For these women, 27¢ an hour is an insult.

Actually, they are more concerned about the state of the environment in which they are raising their children. They are not happy about dumping overboard an international plan, the Kyoto accord, for what seems to be as yet a vague notion of a made in Canada plan, one that has still to be developed.

If this mom's family home is located near a transit line, the parent who goes to work outside the home can get there using public transit with a 15% tax credit on the purchase of a monthly pass. Homes near transit lines are more expensive, so lucky people who live in these homes just became luckier.

These two strategies are the bait. They reveal the narrow casting for future votes that the budget represents. However, people in Ontario have seen this movie before. It does seem like good news at first, until time passes and shows the cost to society of these cynical payouts.

On budget day a chill ran down my spine when I saw former Premier Mike Harris in the front row of the gallery, nodding and smiling as his acolyte, the Minister of Finance, unveiled the same neo-conservative prescriptions the Harris government used in Ontario.

Ontarians know that good news for a few lucky ones translates into bad news for many. They watched the decline of public education in the province as the Harris government starved the system, demonized and demoralized the teachers and negatively affected almost every student.

The affluent simply withdrew their children from the public system and enrolled them in private schools and were rewarded with a tax credit for school fees. In my town the number of private schools grew by 400% during these years.

However, the most vulnerable in society suffered. Social assistance rates were cut ruthlessly to the point where recipient parents were unable to feed their children properly. For the working poor, a second and even a third job became the norm.

For the children in these families, the school, which had been the last safe place, shrunk in its ability to respond to their needs. Social workers and psychologists were reduced. Music and art programs were reduced and sometimes cut altogether.

The heroes of this period were the teachers who worked harder, but still witnessed a rise in the dropout rate as young people, unserved, simply gave up. None of the human service professionals are surprised that 10 years later we are facing a rise in gangs and guns.

I describe Ontario's experience to warn Canadians in other provinces. The same people who brought this misery to Ontario are now in charge of our federal tax dollars. Our new federal Minister of Finance and our new President of the Treasury Board were part of the Harris government and still believe in its policies.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

The evidence that these people do not believe in community investment is seen by their throwing overboard the beginnings of a national day care program, most of the strategies developed by environmentalists to reduce global warming, and the best arrangement we have had with the aboriginal people in 30 years, which is the Kelowna accord.

Where are the Conservative putting this money they are saving? They are giving bits and pieces back to selected taxpayers, but the largest chunks of it will go to more people in uniform with guns. They are going to try to recruit 2,300 more people into the armed forces for missions like Afghanistan, add 1,000 more RCMP officers and, for the first time, put guns into the hands of our officials at the border. One of my colleagues joked as to when they were going to issue uniforms for us to wear in the House of Commons. In addition to more guns, they have introduced such justice measures that will put more people in jail and require more prisons and more prison guards, with guns no doubt.

I am a Canadian. I have English roots, but I have a long held profound respect for my brothers and sisters in Quebec. My respect is multifaceted and includes admiration for their nurturing of language and culture, music, drama, film, dance and literature. Even more profound is my respect for their advanced programs in education, their early childhood program, their community colleges and universities. I believe their education system does not simply prepare people for jobs, but tries to prepare them for a rich and meaningful life.

Progressive programs in youth justice have kept many people out of jail. From everything I have experienced in Ontario, Canada needs more Quebec solutions, not less. It needs more cooperation and community, not more American competition and individualism. Quebeckers should be worried about what they will lose under the Conservative government and the alien culture it represents. When the government present its next budget, its true colours will show.

I do not believe Quebeckers will be willing to trade their traditions of caring for each other for the ruthless individualism the government will espouse. I ask them not to be fooled into complacency by the small bait offered in this budget because there could be another unpleasant price to pay.

That is the relationship between large tax cuts and the resulting threat to the treasury. Certainly, the Ontario tax cuts by the Harris government left a large annual deficit, even though the record of economic activity at the time suggested boom times. I notice that this federal budget did not provide a prudence factor in the case of an economic downturn.

Considering the legacy of deficits from the last two Conservative governments experienced by Ontarians, that is $42 billion from Mulroney-Campbell and $6 billion to $8 billion from Harris-Eves, we should hold our applause until we see what the budget's combination of tax cuts and spending does to Canada's long term financial health.

[Health, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the money of which the minister speaks is the money that we promised in the 10 year health plan. It is not new money. This is simply carrying forward previously allocated money.

Considering that we left the largest surplus in the history of the country to the new government, why can we not find one new dollar for the Conservative health care guarantee?

[Health, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report that there is no new money in the budget to achieve the government's guarantee of shorter wait times for health care services despite the recent throne speech that made the guarantee.

The provinces have already said that they cannot attain the Conservative guarantee without new money. How does the Minister of Health expect to keep his promises to Canadians when he failed to get the necessary funds into this year's budget?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the comments of the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, because I know she is a longstanding member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I appreciate the fact that she pointed out the value of having the text to review.

Personally, I am always most interested in the maintenance of civilian control over the military. I would like to ask her a question about the text. I would direct the member's attention to article 2 and clause f compared to clause l.

Clause f states:

No permanent changes of station of forces assigned, attached or otherwise made available to NORAD operational control will be made without the approval of the national authority of the Party concerned.

I think that is very good, because it states that no real changes can be made unless the government of each of the two countries approves.

Looking at clause l causes me some concern, because it states:

Terms of Reference for NORAD shall be updated expeditiously following the entry into force of this Agreement....Changes in the Terms of Reference, including the addition of other aspects of the missions heretofore identified, shall be made by agreement between the Chief of the Defence Staff of Canada and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States...

Then, almost as an afterthought, it states:

--with approval of higher national authorities as appropriate....

What strikes me is, who is going to decide when that is appropriate? Because essentially, changes to the terms of reference are going to be made by two people and it sounds to me as if they can decide when they have to refer it to the civil authority or not. That raises concerns in my head. That is my first question for the member.

My second question for her goes to clause e, and reflects her mention of the fact that Canadians fear any further integration between the Canadian and the American military. I share that concern, because if this is air and sea, maybe this clause is not too frightening, but if it ever became air, sea and land, it would become very frightening. This clause sets a precedent, should the government decide to go in that direction and to include land, when it states:

Temporary reinforcement from one area to another, including the crossing of the international boundary, to meet operational requirements is within the authority of commanders having operational control.

Once again, having the text allows us to think into the future. In my opinion, we should watch that clause very carefully if anybody starts talking about integrating land forces.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments about the need for vision. It was exactly that need for vision and the need for across the department coordination that led the last Liberal government to establish a new department called the Department of Emergency Preparedness and Public Safety because all these things have to do with public safety. In any such event as a nuclear accident or some such thing, it would be that minister and that department that would lead, and then all relevant departments would participate, the public health agency being one of those, and meetings would be convened with that set of ministers to each take on their own roles in solving the problem and guaranteeing public safety.

I take as a compliment her idea of this coordination and cooperation in a horizontal way, but I can assure her that one department would be in charge and one minister and that would be the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.