House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 41% of the vote.
Government Spending June 14th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Canadians are expecting is that ministers and cabinet will in fact lead by example, yet at a time when we are seeing lots of announcements about cuts being made to the public service and to the services themselves the Prime Minister has one of the largest cabinets in Canadian history. The ad budget has gone up by 215%. Just before the election the government announced separation packages for its own employees.
What is the story here? Where is the consistency?
Libya June 14th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I am almost overcome by the good feeling, but I am aware that it will never last, and I am fully aware of what else might follow.
I hope the government will understand that respect is a two-way street. If there is greater transparency in operations and a willingness to discuss issues and to go through them on a systemic basis, then the better off we are all going to be. There is always a great deal of goodwill on this side. Our caucus looks forward to discussions on policies that are based on this approach. The more we can do it this way, the better off we are all going to be.
I want to express my appreciation to my friend the Minister of National Defence, who accommodated us by giving us some briefings and giving us further information. I deeply appreciate it.
The more we can get on like this, the better off we will be. Question period is coming at 2 o'clock, so we will see how long it lasts.
Libya June 14th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I wish I had a magic answer.
I remember asking questions slightly higher up in the food chain over there about Sri Lanka as to why we were not intervening in Sri Lanka. I remember many government ministers saying, “What do you want us to do? Send in troops?”
The Secretary-General of the UN has now commissioned a panel to look into the possibility of war crimes in Sri Lanka.
In the case of Syria, it is a deep and genuine tragedy that is taking place. Thousands of people have been killed. Yet, the world community has not been able to rouse itself to deal effectively with the crisis. We have carried out some sanctions, we have carried out some efforts to restrict the activities of the al-Assad government, but we have not been able to find an effective solution.
There are many countries at the UN, two in particular on the Security Council, that do not want an intervention because they do not want the eyes of the world to be focusing on them, and they both have vetoes. They have taken a very, I regard, reactionary position with respect to the obligations of the community to intervene when there are such clear examples of abuse of a population.
I think we have to--
Libya June 14th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to spend some time in this debate. I want to express my appreciation to the member from Sydney—Victoria for sharing his time. When we become a Gideon's army, we have to share more, and we are happy to do so.
The member from Ottawa Centre and the minister have outlined some of the history of the conflict. I simply want to say a couple of things in addition to the comments that have been made by my friend from Sydney—Victoria.
First, we should not make the mistake of believing that military intervention on its own represents a diplomatic and comprehensive solution to the challenges that we face in the world. It is very important for Canadians to have the understanding that while Canada deeply appreciates and respects the work that our military is doing in Afghanistan and in Libya, as it has done in many other conflicts, the resolution of these conflicts requires more than simply a military effort. This is the first principle that we need to observe.
There are many times when it becomes a little easy to think that if we send planes over and drop some bombs, we are doing our bit for the mission. However, I was pleased to hear the minister today reflect on the fact that Canada's role needed to expand well beyond that.
Also, for my colleague from Ottawa Centre, we are fully supportive of the amendments he has proposed. I hope very much that those amendments will be satisfactory to the government.
We need to understand what is happening. We live in an unstable world where democracy does not exist for everyone and where human rights are not respected. In certain areas of the world, people live in terribly difficult economic conditions and an unstable political climate where repressive governments do not respect human rights. That is the world we live in.
As the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria said, we could rhyme off examples of significant progress that has been made. We have seen much positive change in Eastern Europe and Latin America over the past 50 years. There are still major challenges in Africa, the Middle East and China in particular. China is not currently a democracy, but it is a country of more than one billion people.
The question becomes, what is this standard? How do we deal with the fact that the world is not fully democratic, that the world is not one that fully respects human rights? Do we simply take the case of national sovereignty and say that we can never intervene in the affairs of another country, or do we understand, which I think we have to do, that the entire evolution of international law has taken us to this point where we have to say that what goes on inside a country is just as important as what happens between countries. The question is not so much any more what are the rights of the state, vis-a-vis other states. The question much more is whether the rights of citizens in countries, who are being mistreated by their government, are important.
This afternoon, and I am sure the minister will be there, we will be commemorating the Holocaust. We will be reflecting on the fact that the world turned away from those who were being viciously discriminated against in Germany. We waited for a long time and then the interventions came in Poland. Then the interventions came in Russia and then in all of eastern Europe, and six million people were killed because they were Jews.
After the second world war, we began to realize that we had to develop some sense of the rights of the world community and the rights that people had as a result of the injustices that were being faced.
That is the way we have to understand what is happening in Libya. People ask me, “Why Libya? Why not Syria?” How do we explain this intervention and not that one? The answers are not always simple and, in fact, the answers are not always clear, but we are, slowly but surely as a world, taking the human footsteps toward the point where we can say that we will not allow people to be brutalized by their own government, that we will not simply sit back and do nothing and that we will intervene. Yes, that intervention may have a military component and people will be killed as a result of that intervention, and none of us should take joy in the fact that it is a consequence of what happened.
However, we also understand, from everything we have learned in human history, the consequences of appeasement, of not facing up to dictators, of letting people get away with impunity with killing their own people.
I would like to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I move:
That the amendment be further amended by inserting after the words “political transition”, the following:
That the Government of Canada engage with the Libyan National Council (LNC) based in Benghazi as a legitimate political entity and representative of the Libyan people; that it provide the LNC with advice and assistance in governance, including women's rights;
And further by inserting after the words “alleged crimes”, the following:
That it ensure that Canadian citizens, landed immigrants, or visitors to Canada are not subject to any threats or intimidation by representatives of the Gadhafi regime.
I would add that I fully support the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party. We had additional language, but we did not want to be redundant in simply putting forward the same perspective. I hope these proposals will have the support of the government. They are entirely consistent with the comments which the minister made today, and I hope they will be accepted.
Libya June 14th, 2011
Not above Deepak's weight.
Libya June 14th, 2011
Madam Speaker, first of all, I was very pleased to hear the minister talk about some of the new initiatives the government is planning. I can tell that the government anticipates the amendments our party will be moving this morning to the motion. I think they will be entirely compatible with what is being proposed.
I want to make sure that the minister understands that to move forward on the diplomatic front, as he has suggested, to move forward with the recognition of the Libyan national council as a legitimate political entity, as a representative of the Libyan people, and provide governance assistance, as well as add our support to the International Criminal Court, that these initiatives have to be matched by funds.
On the governance field, in particular, I can tell the minister that one of the central problems is that neither his department nor CIDA have a clear mandate with respect to Canadian assistance on governance. This whole area of governance has fallen into a black hole between those two departments. I would plead with the minister to investigate this question.
If we are going to deal with governance, which in this party we strongly believe we have to, then we need to support those institutions in the country as well as within government in order to provide that governance assistance, in this case, to the Libyan national council, and there are many other examples where it needs to be done.
Adding to the humanitarian and diplomatic work of Canada is exactly the direction we have been urging the government to go. I very much appreciate the minister's comments today on that score.
Air India June 13th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, if one listens to what Judge Major has said recently about the conduct of the government since his report was published, it is very clear that the kind of pious sanctimony coming out of the mouth of the minister just does not match the situation we are facing.
I ask the minister, why no ex gratia payments and why no movement on the key recommendations of Judge Major with respect to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? Why have you not moved on these questions?
Air India June 13th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the minister is forgetting the fourth one: to re-elect the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.
My question is for the Minister of Public Safety.
It has now been a year since the report of Judge Major on Air India. We are now coming up to June 23, which is always a moment of enormous sadness and memory for the families of the Air India bombing.
Why is it that the Government of Canada has made no decision yet with respect to ex gratia payments to these families who have been waiting for so long for justice, consideration and reconciliation?
Citizenship and Immigration June 9th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the lack of transparency continues. My colleague from Markham—Unionville has just received a message from the immigration department in Toronto, which reads:
As we are not currently processing any parental sponsorships at this time...this case will be finalized once we get the go-ahead from Management to start working on parental sponsorships again.
If the government is not processing sponsorships for parents coming in from other countries, why does it not have the human decency to tell Canadians and applicants that is what it is doing, instead of this subterfuge it is putting forward?
Aboriginal Affairs June 9th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also commented on an issue of importance to Canadians, namely the condition of aboriginal communities on reserves. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister.
Is he prepared to show some humility on this issue by acknowledging that his government completely and unilaterally cancelled the Kelowna accord, which would have had a positive impact on the conditions noted by the Auditor General today? Will he—