Bryon Wilfert

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it may depend on the committee. I am on the defence committee and after my first day there, it seems to be working fine. It is up to members to ensure that they work in a collaborative spirit.

With respect to the establishment of a special committee, this is what the House passed. Canadians expect us to work together effectively, to evaluate the mission, to demonstrate leadership with regard to the mission, and to call the appropriate ministers to the committee, so it will work.

We keep talking about how things do not work. Why are we not talking about working together? We should be talking about our men and women who are doing the work in the field. There is nothing more important than ensuring their safety. In order for us to understand what is going on and how we can be more effective in our support, the special committee which the majority of the House agreed to needs to go forward.

In the spirit of cooperation, I and my party intend to make the committee work when it is established. We want to make sure it is established as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the job.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the member's memory, but I will point out to the member that what we are talking about today is simply actualizing what was in those 30 hours of debate.

What we are doing today is putting forward a motion, which the government accepted on March 13, which establishes the special committee dealing with accountability and transparency on Afghanistan. What we are doing is putting forward the motion to say that this has to be established, so I am not sure what the member is saying.

The issue of the 30 hours of debate has absolutely nothing to do now with the fact that we passed a resolution. We now expect it to be acted upon. In order to act upon it, one of the provisions, and if the member's memory is a little unclear he can read it again, talks about the establishment of this committee. That is all we are doing, nothing more and nothing less.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. On March 13, we passed a motion in this House to change this mission, to make it more than military, and to have a firm, fixed end date. In that motion we said that we needed accountability and transparency when it came to dealing with the mission in Afghanistan. It was absolutely critical that we have accountability in terms of what is happening there, establishing those benchmarks.

It has been almost a month and we still do not have from that resolution the establishment of the special all party committee to deal with this mission. In the motion which we put had put forth, and 95% of the motion was adopted by this side of the House, it spoke about accountability, bringing the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of International Cooperation and officials from time to time to respond to issues regarding this important mission. This is a Canadian mission with a Canadian motion that was adopted by the House.

It is important that parliamentarians are able to hold the government accountable with regard to the mission, to understand where we are going in this mission, to be able to review the laws and procedures governing this mission, to make sure that Canadians understand what is happening out there, and that through Parliament we are able to do that because it is this Parliament that is supreme in terms of that accountability.

Unfortunately, almost a month has gone by and we have not had that established. I am hoping later in my remarks to put an amendment forward to help actualize that special committee.

It is critical that when we talk about the mission in Afghanistan, we want to talk more about the issues dealing with diplomacy, working with our allies in the region to ensure that it is not simply as we said during the debates in this House, simply a military mission. We said we need to focus on the areas of training, particularly in terms of the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police.

We need to ensure that the Afghans at some point will be able to shoulder the burden in dealing with the situation in that country. In order to do that, training is absolutely critical and we said that we would do that. After February 2009, Canada will be there to assist in this very important mission along with our NATO partners.

There is no question that in order for Parliament to be engaged we said that a all party special committee needs to be formed in order to look at the progress, to set those benchmarks, and to understand where we are in the area of dealing with diplomacy, in terms of areas of development. What kind of aid are we providing there? How effective is that aid?

If we build a clinic, it is not just the building that is important. It is ensuring that we have the people trained to wash the floors, do the laundry, to ensure that they can provide basic medical services to people. So the whole package is taken care of. We need to see where we are on these types of issues. Therefore, the special committee is extremely important.

I would point out that after some reflection I am going to propose on behalf of our party an amendment because last week on Wednesday we wrote the government to say that the special committee needed to be established. On Thursday, in a question in the House under routine proceedings, we asked about this special committee and on Friday we put it on the order paper.

I would like to propose the following amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the words “That a special committee” with “be appointed to consider the Canadian mission in Afghanistan as referred to in the motion adopted by the House on March 13, 2008, Government Business No. 5, consisting of 13 members which shall include six members from the government party, four members from the official opposition, two members from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, provided that the chair shall be from the government party; that in addition to the chair, there shall be one vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party's members of the committee no later than April 10, 2008; that the quorum of the special committee be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2).

I put that amendment forward in the spirit again--

[Japan, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Japan. This is a historic relationship that has been nurtured over the years since 1928.

Although our countries are separated by the Pacific Ocean, we have built strong and lasting bridges in the areas of commerce, trade, cultural exchanges and peacekeeping missions: “Miles apart--Minds together”.

Japan has the second largest economy in the world and Canada has played an important and integral part in advancing business opportunities in Japan as well as encouraging Japanese investments in Canada.

Canadians of Japanese ancestry who arrived here over 100 years ago have contributed immensely in the areas of environment, commerce and architecture, to name a few.

Today, the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group will hold a reception with His Excellency, Ambassador Nishida of Japan, that will highlight the relationship between our two countries. This will be the first of a series of events bringing Canadians together to celebrate this unique and important relationship. Arigato gozaimasu.

[Afghanistan, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the resolution passed by the House was clear. It is incumbent on the government to provide Canadians with increased accountability and transparency about our mission in Afghanistan. This is not a partisan mission; this is a Canadian mission.

Why are Conservative viewpoints only welcome in Bucharest?

[Afghanistan, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a key recommendation adopted by Parliament on the mission in Afghanistan was for the government to increase transparency to all Canadians. The House passed a motion requiring that transparency.

The Prime Minister says that this is a Canadian mission and a Canadian motion. Why is he leading a partisan delegation to Bucharest?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Disbelief, Mr. Speaker. In fact, some people thought he had moved from the province of Ontario. Some might wish that he had moved out of the province of Ontario, but they could not believe that a member of the government, never mind the finance minister, from the province of Ontario would suggest that this is the last place to invest.

I cannot understand why, particularly with closure of plants and especially with the situation as it is, the finance minister is pointing the finger at the provincial government.

We should be working collaboratively. Regardless of whether or not we always agree, we need to work constructively on infrastructure, on the auto sector and on the forestry sector.

Clearly, my constituents were quite surprised. They thought maybe he had moved. Some wished that he had, as I say, because they do not understand how it is good public policy to bash one's own province and to advise against investing.

I would suggest that some of my colleagues, when standing in front of empty, closed plants, should point out and say that for the finance minister of Canada to not want anyone to invest here does not make any sense.

That is a rhetorical question that I have asked in the House. I do not understand the strategy. I do not understand the end game in that kind of approach to say to people that they should not invest in their own province.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the member, although I would caution him that the last thing we really want is for the Minister of Finance to run in the province of Ontario given his dismal record when he was minister, such as the $5.6 billion deficit he left, the 29 hospitals that were closed and the 8,000 nurses who were fired. I would not want to wish that. I know the member does not.

The reality is that the finance minister wrought fiscal activity on this country. To bring it back to the provinces would definitely be back to the future. It would not be something Liberals would like to see.

Though I know the Minister of Finance may not be too happy with the present leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in the province of Ontario, he is actually a very good man. He is working hard for his constituents and maybe there is a little envy on the part of the Minister of Finance because he is actually doing a reasonable job due to the fact that he is more balanced than the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is certainly not balanced. We know that.

The Minister of Finance only believes in one thing, which is how we can spend ourselves back into a deficit, and he has a good track record to prove it.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague that on this side of the House, when it comes to infrastructure issues, we were the party of infrastructure. Liberals did not wait for 10 years as the previous Conservative government did and let it lay dormant for 10 years.

In 1994, after being elected, Liberals brought in the national infrastructure program, in which all cities, towns, villages, provinces and territories worked collaboratively together. That was infrastructure. We understood that. I have not heard the word “infrastructure” from Conservatives for 10 years, so it is a bit rich now to suggest that somehow they are coming to the rescue for cities and communities.

When it comes to the issue of fiscal imbalance, it is very interesting. If we look at the days when there was a national deficit in this country, never did we hear a word in the chamber with regard to fiscal imbalance. Why? It is because when we do not have any money, nobody comes to ask for any.

Under the Liberal government when there began to be surpluses and it started paying down the debt, there was suddenly a fiscal imbalance. The question of fiscal imbalance is rather strange given the fact that the provinces and territories have the same fiscal capacity as the federal government, if not more, if they want to deal with those issues.

However, again, this is a government that eliminated the cushion of $3 billion, so that if there is a crisis tomorrow, we will be on the hook because of the incompetence of the government when it comes to dealing with fiscal management.