Bob Rae

[Health, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The government's decision to order the vaccine was delayed considerably. It is also clear that the distribution and availability of the vaccine were also seriously delayed.

I have a simple question for the minister. Does he not understand that those delays have cost and will continue to cost people's lives?

[Health, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for public health and for H1N1.

It is very clear that there was a delay in the decision of the federal government to order the vaccine. It is very clear that there has been a delay in the distribution of the vaccine.

I would like to ask the minister, in light of these two clear facts that are delineated by the evidence, does she not understand that these delays have cost and will cost lives?

[Afghanistan, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to give General Hillier and other witnesses an opportunity to tell their story and to deal with what are clear contradictions in the evidence that has been given by ministers and the statements that have been made by General Hillier. The answers, by the way, I quoted directly from what General Hillier said yesterday. It would be wonderful to have an opportunity.

The Conservatives shut down the inquiries. They have refused to allow these witnesses to be called. They have taken them off the witness list.

If the minister wants to get at the truth, why is the government preventing us from having an inquiry into this issue? Why does he--

[Afghanistan, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Afghanistan.

Today in Le Devoir, there was an interview with General Hillier. When discussing the 2006 torture issue, he said, quite clearly, that “Everyone knew about it”. Then, in reference to the Minister of National Defence at the time, he said, “We talked about it often, during every briefing”. That contradicts what the ministers said yesterday.

[Afghanistan, October 22nd, 2009]

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.

[Afghanistan, October 22nd, 2009]

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?

[Afghanistan, October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Colvin was a Canadian diplomat who had reason to know certain things about conditions in prisons and conditions with respect to Afghan detainees. He shared that information with the people with whom he had to share it.

We are asking in this House a very simple set of questions. Who in the government knew about this? If not in the government, who in the bureaucracy knew about this? Why did it take so long for the Government of Canada to act, to act in the name of decency and to act in the name of honour? Why did it delay for so long? That is the question.

[Afghanistan, October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and concerns the same subject. It is now clear that the government does not have a process to find answers to very simple questions.

Who received Mr. Colvin's report? Who in government was aware of Mr. Colvin's reports? Why is the government continuing to prevent the House from knowing all the facts and the whole truth? Why is it still obstructing justice?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member on every occasion, but I would say to him that if he followed my public and private record on the softwood lumber agreement, he would know that I had strongly advised against its adoption. I was consistently opposed to it and I remain opposed to it.

I think we all have to understand that withdrawing from it will in and of itself lead to significant challenges in the United States and with the United States for the very reason that I have given. The industry in the United States is determined to resist fair and free competition from Canada.

However, I would make the point to the member, and through him to my colleagues, to say one of the great illusions of the last five years on trade was the Prime Minister of Canada coming in and saying, “I've got peace in our time. I've got an agreement that's going to give us peace in our time”. It was not true in 1938 and it is not true today. We did not get peace in our time with the softwood lumber agreement. We simply got another base, another platform from which the Americans can continue to harass and challenge every step of the way, every provincial policy and every federal policy, because the key issue for them is that they never want the Canadian industry to reach a point of competitiveness where it is able to get the products it wants and needs into the United States at their expense. For them it is a zero-sum game and that is the problem--

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would say to the hon. member is that one of the difficulties with trade law is another country can subsidize all it wants and can still complain about goods that are coming into its country.

However, I would certainly be challenging what the Americans are doing at the WTO. I would be taking every step that we could to do that. Then I would be saying to our American friends that for every subsidy they place on us we will have to do the same. We have no choice and no option but to provide a similar benefit to the companies that are having to do business with them, and to work hard to see that in taking those steps we would arrive at a negotiated result that would not put the industry at such a disadvantage.

I say to my colleague, knowing that he followed the softwood lumber debates very closely, I think the difference that existed between those who were opposed to the agreement and those who were in favour of it is that those who were opposed to the agreement were prepared to continue the fight. However we also understood that to get into that fight even further would have required further government investment and government expenditure.

I do not think we can shy away from that, because unless we are prepared to put that forward, we are not going to arrive at a healthy conclusion.