Bryon Wilfert

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this side of the House has been very aggressive and very vigilant when it comes to pointing out the shortcomings of the government. Obviously, when we return to power we will implement policies and strategies different from what we see.

The issue is timing. When we go to the people we want to go to the people on a number of these key issues and we will.

I know my colleagues on the other side are anxious to have an election because if the economy continues to have these bumps in the road they do not want to be responsible for them. If the Conservatives could not manage the province of Ontario when they were in power in good times, heaven knows what they would do in difficult times.

We are putting forth our views and our policies as to how we will deal with these issues in the future. I know that my friends from the New Democratic Party do not mind an election at any time because they are not likely to be in government in any event, but they are very good at being critical. However, it is more than being critical. It is actually offering specific policies in response to present legislation.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on the theme of lack of accountability and a transparency with regard to the government, particularly on this issue.

We talked about the need to be cooperative in Confederation and the need to work collaboratively. There will be times when people will not agree on issues but I find it surprising that a finance minister from the province of Ontario would stand up repeatedly and basically say that people should not invest in the province of Ontario, the economic engine of Canada, when we have problems in the auto, manufacturing and forestry sectors.

There is no question that the minister may be fighting old battles. Maybe he wants to be leader of the Conservative Party in the province of Ontario but the job is currently occupied. I would suggest that going after the province and suggesting how it should run its budget and how it should address the priorities, and governing is all about priorities, is really not the concern of the federal government.

The federal government needs to get its own house in order. As we know, the government has spent like a drunken sailor over the last two years to the point, according to the ministry of finance, that it is at 0.7% of going back into a deficit, something which this side of the House and this party got this country out of when we inherited a $42.5 billion deficit in 1993. We became the only G-7 country to pay down the national debt and the only G-7 country not to have a deficit.

When we look at the expenses of the government we see that spending has gone up 14.8%, which was highlighted by no less than the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Government spending has gone up a record high. The reality is that we talked about and took action on corporate taxes as a government. We dropped them significantly from about 28% down to 19% and then the current government subsequently dropped them another half percent.

The reality is that it is about investment as well. Under the Minister of Finance, when he was the minister in the province of Ontario under the Harris government, they left a $5.6 billion deficit. Yes, it cut taxes but, unfortunately, it closed about 29 hospitals and fired 8,000 nurses and infrastructure problems became the norm.

We know about the 25% cut to the ministry of the environment. What led to Walkerton? Those kinds of things left Ontario in a sad state and, as we know, when an independent audit came in under the new McGuinty government, it discovered that the books were not as reported and it had a $5.6 billion deficit.

Why are the hon. members from Ontario not standing up for Ontario on that side of the House? Why are they not standing and saying that we need to invest in the auto and manufacturing sectors and that we need to be proactive in ensuring that people in Ontario who are losing their jobs are assisted in areas of retraining? We had a member of the government go to Queen's Park when the budget was announced denouncing the government, again not working in collaboration with them but denouncing them. It was sort of a big brother approach which, I am sure, is quite interesting given the fact that the Conservatives came into power suggesting that they would have a new era of cooperation with the provinces and territories.

The Conservatives have done nothing to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We are talking about people who are losing their jobs and who need retraining. They have even denounced the issue of retraining in the province of Ontario. We need to be investing. When they attack the Ontario government, regardless of political stripe, they are not doing any favours for the people who live in that province, not stepping up to the plate and asking how we can work collaboratively.

Members will remember that when the Harris-Eves government was in power there were six out of eight deficit budgets totalling $28.4 billion. Those people claimed to be the fiscal managers and yet the same group that is now in charge is leading us down the same road, again, 0.7% away from a deficit. When it comes to fiscal management we do not need to take any lessons from that side of the House.

We are the ones, with the help of Canadians, who put the country back on the right track. We see the kind of situation today when the government is heartless and unwilling to help those most in need, which is a major concern to people in my constituency.

Not long after the Premier of Ontario came into office he said:

After eight years of Tory government, the bottom line is: our schools are worse off, our health care is worse off, our environment is worse off and we face a Tory deficit of $5.6 billion.

It's a devastating record, given that these have been years of often spectacular economic growth. Clearly, it was time for a change, and we are working hard to deliver that change.

That is clearly an indictment. We believe on this side of the House about a balanced approach in terms of dealing with personal taxes, corporate taxes but also to invest. I spoke earlier about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities identifying the $123 billion deficit with regard to infrastructure across Canada. The response of the government has been a pittance. It recycles money instead of saying that we need to ensure that Canada takes the lead when it comes to innovation. When it comes to investment opportunities, this is the place to invest and, obviously, not just in Ontario but across the country.

However, when we see this kind of negative approach by the Minister of Finance and by government members, it is not surprising that people look elsewhere in terms of investment opportunities.

What is the strategy? Why would a minister of finance from the province of Ontario attack his own province, regardless of political stripe? Either it is old battles or the Minister of Finance does not understand his own province, which would be quite an indictment not to understand its importance. He comes from an area of Ontario where issues of transit are absolutely critical, where moving people, goods and services are absolutely imperative and yet he has a very callous approach. I talked earlier about the pothole comment, not understanding that all orders of government, including municipal, need to work effectively together and yet we do not see that support at all.

We see a rail link from Peterborough to Toronto for 900 individuals, which is very nice, except when it comes to investing in the greater Toronto area and the extension of the Yonge Street subway up to Richmond Hill, which was one of the things the Prime Minister with the premier and others announced in June of last year, we see no money and no action on that. There is a need to move people in a growing area like York region but we have seen no action. Where are the Ontario members when it comes to those kinds of issues? They are silent.

On the issue of the environment, the government has dragged its feet on the coal plants and has delayed assisting and reducing those for over a year. We hear nothing but the blame game from the Conservatives who have been the government for two years. They need to take action in dealing with environmental issues and greenhouse gas issues. If they do not believe in the science and the fact that the environment and climate change is a reality, I guess this is what we get. We see that they did not believe that because some of the same players, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Environment, were in charge when we saw the cutbacks of 25% to the provincial ministry of the environment at the time they were part of the Harris government.

In the area of manufacturing, we have lost 100,000 jobs since January 2006, jobs that are very hard to recoup, but the government has made no approach to respond to that. We have 20,000 jobs lost since February 2008 alone. These are devastating numbers. These are a real concern to us on this side of the House. We have enunciated an action plan to deal with those kinds of issues on infrastructure and on job creation, but nothing from the other side.

It is a very great concern given the fact of the high dollar. We see a drop of 3.4% or $48.6 billion as of December last year in lost trade opportunities. These are concerns to us on this side of the House.

How are we going to address that? The government has put forth a series of budgets where it has spent and spent but has not addressed the key issues that Canadians are looking for and has had no impact in terms of addressing some of these critical issues.

We on this side of the House do not believe in deficit financing. We are the party that dealt with the $42.5 billion deficit and eliminated it. We do not believe that the approach of the government is a sound one fiscally because it is moving increasingly toward a deficit.

The government took away, for example, the $3 billion contingency fund, which was a fund that was absolutely critical. When we had the SARS situation and the mad cow situation we had a cushion. The $3 billion was there to protect not only the people of Ontario but people right across the country. That was very prudent on behalf of the government of the day. That elimination is of great concern to those of us on this side of the House and it shows the lack of understanding of what is needed to deal with these kinds of situations that occur.

We are very much of the mind that these things must be addressed and they obviously have not been addressed in the budget.

What is the government's strategy now in terms of dealing with the layoffs in the auto sector? What is its strategy in dealing with the forestry industry? We know it left $1 billion on the table with the Americans on the forestry agreement.

The government used to talk about health care but it has not done anything about it in terms of wait times. Some of those ministers were in the Harris government when 29 hospitals in Ontario were closed and 8,000 nurses were fired. Those are not things that we would consider to be progressive. They would not be considered to be thinking ahead in terms of an older population and what we need to be doing. It is not addressing those issues for the people of Ontario. If in fact the government were to take this same approach in Quebec I am sure there would be an absolute revolution.

At least the members from Quebec on that side of the House have been much more articulate when it comes to some of these issues. Where are the Ontario members? Why are they not standing up and saying that these issues need to be addressed?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate. I must indicate that it is actually a rather sad commentary that we need to have this debate.

The debate obviously is centring on supporting and investing in the province of Ontario, the economic engine of Canada, on the need to have good federal-provincial-territorial cooperation, and on the fact that almost a year ago, on March 19, the finance minister said that we really needed to end this unproductive bickering between the provinces and the federal government. Certainly at that time I would have agreed with him.

I am rather disappointed that over the last seven weeks we seem to have gotten into very unproductive verbal warfare with the province of Ontario. It clearly is not helpful for the province. It is not helpful for the country. It certainly sends out the wrong message when it comes to investing in this country, particularly in Ontario, which has been hard hit in a number of sectors. I will certainly go over that.

Clearly if we are going to respect not only jurisdictions but the fact that we need to work together, particularly when we are seeing bumps in the road with regard to the economy, this kind of strategy, if we can call it that, certainly does not augur well in terms of dealing with plants that are shut down and with workers who are now thrown out and need retraining. To invest in this province is critical. The messaging we have heard from the federal government has not been at all helpful.

For example, before we even get into the economy, I note that the government produced Bill C-22 on the issue of representation for a future Parliament. Again, based on the numbers and the increase in population, one would have assumed that Ontario would receive 20 additional seats. Under the legislation, we in Ontario receive 10 seats. We of course support more seats for British Columbia and Alberta, but not at the expense of the province of Ontario.

Where were the Ontario members on that side of the House when this issue came up? They were silent. That silence has been deafening. It is this side of the House and the Liberal Party that have stood up, along with the premier of Ontario, to say that this cannot go forward, that this is obviously not in the interests of the people of Ontario. Again, the members on that side, particularly the members from Ontario, have been very quiet when it comes to this particular piece of legislation. That is not in the interests of Ontario. That is not in the interests of the country at all.

The question becomes why. There seems to be a pattern developing here. Again, when we look at the issue of the economy, we look at the area of infrastructure. We know that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a report late last year which said that there was a $123 billion infrastructure deficit in Canada and that this infrastructure deficit needed to be addressed.

We know that the Conservative Party has always been silent on infrastructure. It certainly was when former prime minister Mulroney was in power. In 1983 when the FCM proposed the original infrastructure program, it lay dormant under that government. It was not until the government of Jean Chrétien came in that we in fact embraced a national infrastructure program whereby all three orders of government were able to contribute.

Unfortunately, however, infrastructure is not simply about roads, bridges and sewer plants. It deals with issues of productivity and issues of innovation. In order to make our cities and our communities more competitive, we need to address the infrastructure deficit. Unfortunately, the finance minister said that the government was “not in the pothole business”. In fact, as a former president of the FCM, I had not heard that language in over 10 years. I thought it was Back to the Future.

When it comes to infrastructure issues, we need to be investing, not recycling. The government proudly announced its $33 billion program, of which $17 billion was recycled money. Mayors and councillors know when somebody is trying to hoodwink them. The reality is that we cannot simply recycle. We need to make genuine investments in these areas in order assist our cities and communities so that we can be competitive, not only at home but obviously on the international stage. We cannot do that if governments only think that the role of the federal government is certainly not to be in “the pothole business”.

I can tell members that there are many mayors and councillors across this country who took issue with that and very clearly believe that at the end of the day, if we do not invest, it is going to get worse. A deficit of $123 billion is obviously one that we need to address and to address very carefully.

For the province of Ontario to move goods and services, whether it be at the border or between communities, we need that kind of support and leadership from the federal government. It is the leadership that the Liberal Party has shown over the years. We did it in 1994 with the national infrastructure program, which was renewed by successive Liberal governments, again demonstrating that we understand the issues.

We also have a national Liberal caucus that deals with cities and communities. It understands these issues. Again, there is silence on the other side when it comes to those kinds of investments for our cities. In fact, if everything were as rosy as some of the members on the other side suggest, then one wonders why the big city mayors caucus of the FCM, and others, continually say that those members do not get it. The government does not get it. Until it does, we are going to have this continual problem.

In terms of an investment issue, on infrastructure alone we know the government does not get it. We know the Conservatives do not get it on the environment. Clearly they do not get it when it comes to transit and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They do not get it in terms of investing in subways and buses and understanding that there is a crying need out there.

Again, we should be partners. It is all about partnership. Confederation is about partnership. It is not about “my way or the highway”. It is about working together collaboratively with our partners, whether they be the provinces and territories or the cities and communities across Canada. Again, it is disappointing that we are not seeing that kind of leadership from the other side of the aisle. This is something that we on this side have articulated. We repeatedly have demonstrated partnership when it comes to dealing with the $123 billion deficit on infrastructure.

Another thing, of course, is that we have heard the House leader refer to our premier as “the small man of Confederation”. If a government is trying to build collaborative relationships between the federal government and the provinces, then why on earth would those kinds of cheap comments be made about the premier of any province? Certainly in the province of Ontario that was not viewed very positively. In fact, it certainly demonstrated the small-mindedness on that side of the House, and again it shows that the Conservatives do not get it.

It all comes down to the fact that the Conservatives do not understand how this country works and what it means to be collaborative. Of course provinces and territories are not always going to agree with the federal government, and vice versa, but it is not done by finger pointing and name-calling. The two governments need to work together.

I understand I am going to have to wrap up until after question period because of what is going to happen next, but I thank members for their attention.

[Foreign Affairs, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the upcoming Olympics has led to crackdowns against human rights advocates in China. This week marks the 49th anniversary of the failed uprising in Tibet against Chinese rule.

In recent days we have seen the arrest and release of Teng Biao, Beijing human rights lawyer and activist, as well as the use of force against protestors and Buddhist monks in Tibet today. What specific steps will the government take to address this situation? I do not want the general platitudes that we heard yesterday.

[March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have no question, nor do my colleagues, with regard to the professionalism of our forces on the ground in Afghanistan. The panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan indicated, in what is dubbed the Manley report, the need for more openness and transparency, and the government has agreed to that provision, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated.

It is in the motion that we had provided to the government, and we are pleased to see that. However, again, it is imperative we know that when these transfers are done, people are treated in terms of the rule of law.

The parliamentary secretary talks about operational matters. I think that is a bit of cover, given that the United States and others indicate when they have captured prisoners on the field. Nevertheless, we will hold the government to account with regard to the issue of transparency and accountability.

I will take the parliamentary secretary at this word. However, once the motion is dealt with tomorrow night, if it passes in the House, this is one of the provisions that we believe is extremely important. I think all Canadians want to be assured that when these things are done, that we not only provide and bring to Afghanistan a level of security, but also the rule of law for the Afghan people, that we work effectively with Afghanistan in this matter and also in the area of—

[March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue at hand with regard to detainees, I raised this issue at the end of January with the government with regard to the detainee policy. As we know, there was a great deal of secrecy surrounding this issue as to whether the policy put in place by the government was continuing or not.

Very clearly, we need to have transparency and accountability when it comes to detainees. Why? Because we are in Afghanistan promoting certain values. One of those values clearly is the rule of law. It deals with the issue of prisoners and clearly there needs to be a consistent approach in dealing with this issue. In fact, in the resolution that the House will vote on tomorrow night, we proposed, of course, that we have a NATO-wide approach in dealing with these issues.

My concern at the time, and I raised this in November and again in January, was that we did not know what the policy was. We heard about cases of torture. When someone was captured, we wanted to know what kind of treatment was being carried out. Of course we know what the state of Afghan prisons is, and we are there to improve not only the justice system but also the prison system. In some of them, there are appalling conditions that clearly we would not want anyone to be detained in.

The management of this issue has been fumbled by the government in the past and we wanted to make sure that there was a NATO-wide solution to the issue of detainees. On consistent monitoring, we heard from the government at the time about the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, but it did not have the authority to do the kind of work that needed to be done to track these detainees to ensure that there was no torture taking place. Then the government suspended for a while and it did not of course inform the House that this in fact had taken place.

In the resolution we will vote on tomorrow night, which the government has embraced, we will in fact look at the issue of pursuing a NATO-wide approach to this to make sure that what we are doing is bringing values consistent with human life, and that we are dealing with values in terms of the dignity of individuals regardless of whether they are the enemy.

Therefore, we ought to commit to a greater transparency, to respect for a policy on the taking and transferring of prisoners, and the government has made some movement in that regard. Obviously the support of this resolution, which contains these provisions, is very important. I certainly welcome that now, but when I raised these issues they were not being effectively dealt with at the time.

The government also does not want to indicate when anyone has been captured. The Americans announce when they have captured people. The British announce when they have captured individuals. We still have not done that. When members of the government come before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, of which I am the vice-chair, we do not get the kind of satisfactory answer that we want.

However, I will say for the parliamentary secretary that we are hopeful now, with the embracing of this resolution, that we will see improvement with regard to this issue. Ultimately we are trying to bring the rule of law to Afghanistan. We are trying to improve the conditions for people, whether they be prisoners in the field or wherever they are in terms of the conditions of Afghan prisons.

I know that Correctional Service Canada has been involved to some degree. It is important to have that. We want to be better than the people we are capturing. We are better than these individuals. Therefore, in order to do that, it is important that this be raised in the House.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague that we are not agreeing to extend the mission in its present form. What we did agree to is that the mission must change, it must end and it must be more than military. Again, I want to point out to the member that this could have been done a long time ago, but unfortunately there was not the political will on the other side to do so.

However, there is no question that when it comes to this mission, the mission will not be the same as it presently is. I emphasize that very strongly.

As for the troops on the ground, having been to Afghanistan, I can say about speaking to troops on the ground and to troops who have come home that it makes a certain impact on a person. I am the son of a former World War II combat soldier who was a foot soldier. We all know that foot soldiers obviously are the ones who do the real heaving lifting, or at least that is what my father always told me. When they got into tough situations, the infantry came in.

These people put their lives on the line every day. Whether they are in actual hand to hand combat, securing a compound, or training, they are in a war zone. We certainly understand that when we get off the plane there and have our helmets and our flak jackets on and people are there to ensure that we get back home.

At the time the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a member of the New Democratic Party and I were there, people wanted to make sure that we all got home. When we are there, we are seized by that fact. In the middle of the night when rockets come in, we know that we are clearly in a war zone. Thus, while we want to emphasize these other aspects of diplomacy and development, which are absolutely critical, we believe that for this mission to succeed all aspects have to be dealt with.

On the issue of the New Democratic Party or the Bloc, it is really not up to me to comment. I think all members of the House support our troops regardless of whether they agree with the change in this mission or whatever. They obviously have to answer for themselves, but I think all members of the House certainly support our troops on the ground. I know that for a fact. What I do know, though, is that the approaches that some of the parties are taking are different. They obviously will have to account for those approaches, just as we have to account for the approach we have taken.

However, I certainly agree with the member: we want to make sure that when our forces are there, they are all well protected. We do realize that even in training they may be exposed to attack from time to time. At the end of the day, we do not intend to handicap them. As I say, we have seen that happen before and it certainly has had tragic results, particularly in Rwanda.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

moved:

That the House take note of the on-going national discussion about Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off in the debate today with regard to our role in Afghanistan. This side of the House has been and continues to support the efforts that our troops have made in Afghanistan since 2002. As is known, we have rotated in and rotated out in the past with regard to Afghanistan.

There is no question that we are bringing to Afghanistan a multiple of approaches in terms of development of democracy, education of women and the rule of law, et cetera. However, under the UN auspices and under NATO, we on this side of the House we believe this is not simply a Canadian mission. Therefore, everyone has to step up to the plate and do the heavy lifting.

In 2002, when we first went to Kandahar for six months, we rotated out. The principle of rotation is that the 35 members of NATO have to participate in the NATO-led mission, not simply a few. Unfortunately, today the British, the United States and the Dutch clearly are heavily engaged along with Canada. Then other covenants with countries such as Germany and others limit their activity, at night as an example. After Kandahar, we rotated out and went to Kabul. Again, on the principle of rotation, we rotated out and Turkey came in when we left.

No one said that this was a mission in which we would be there forever. We believe heavy lifting must be done by all members of NATO. Therefore, in April 2006, I had the pleasure to go to Afghanistan with the then foreign affairs minister, and we saw what our troops were doing on the ground. At that time, they said that we were the best equipped force on the ground in April 2006, except we needed medium lift. Both the foreign affairs minister and I were ferried around on American Chinook helicopters. We did not have that capability. That is something which I will come back to later, and it is addressed in the motion before the House.

From the beginning, we do not want to politicize this mission. For us, it is a Canadian mission.

In April 2006 the government put forward a motion to extend the mission in the form of military involvement until February 2009. It was after very limited debate, I believe about six hours. From that moment on, we said that the government needed to notify NATO about rotation. It needed to let NATO know that we would change and leave in February 2009. Unfortunately, the government dragged its feet when it came to notification. In fact, there was no notification.

Last month the government put forth a motion with regard to Afghanistan. This party looked at it very carefully and proposed our own approach. After consultation with the government, the government came back and embraced basically 95% of what we had put forward. I congratulate the members on that side for finally listening to Canadians. However, I point out that we said three key things: the mission must change; the mission must end; and it must be more than military.

In terms of the change, we have advocated training of Afghan security forces, whether they be the military, that is the national Afghan army, or the national Afghan police. I think all members of the House would concur, that what we want to see is the Afghans eventually have the ability to provide their own defence, that they are able to protect themselves. Therefore, the aspect of training is absolutely critical. At the moment, about 60,000 to 70,000 Afghan soldiers have been equipped and trained sufficiently.

The area of policing is absolutely critical. Where the national Afghan army is relatively well paid and trained, the Afghan police are not. We are trying to control an area with the local police that are not properly equipped and not properly trained. Many of these people are susceptible therefore to bribes and corruption because they do not have a sufficient salary and they do not have sufficient training. This is an area where we, on this side of the House, believe we can play a positive and useful role. That is in terms of changing the mission.

In terms of the mission ending, this is not an engagement in which we are there forever. This is a NATO-led mission in which all countries need to play an active and supportive role with regard to our Afghan allies. We have proposed that in terms of the training aspect, that this will all end in February 2011. The government has proposed July 2011 with an eventual withdrawal, I am assuming, by the end of the year. The government finally agreed to an end date, or at least an end year, which is 2011.

The mission must be more than military. We know, and history is a good guide, that military superiority is not possible. We see what happened with the Russians. The Department of National Defence produced a document, 3D, an evaluation of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, which came out in October 2007 which said that superior numbers in the field will not and cannot work. Eventually, it is an issue of national reconciliation, which I will talk about a little later.

The fact is that we also have to deal with the diplomacy side. Diplomacy is absolutely critical in dealing with some of Afghanistan's neighbours, including Pakistan. I have had the pleasure of being to Pakistan several times. I have a number of colleagues in the Pakistan senate, including the former speaker and acting prime minister of the day, Mr. Soomro, who have talked very much and were engaged on the issue of what more Pakistan can do.

Yes, they have 80,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, but the question is, how effective are they? Obviously, from the diplomatic side, working with our allies, whether it be Pakistan or China to some degree, is important because diplomatic pressure is critical.

We have been very pleased to see a rapprochement between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where President Karzai and President Musharraf have talked about some of the key issues with which they are dealing.

As we know, many of the tribes do not really recognize the border. They are very much interrelated across that boundary. Therefore diplomacy, putting pressure and working with our allies diplomatically, is critical, but the area of development is also absolutely essential.

The person in the local village wants to understand the value of what is going on. We have these national elections, which are all very nice, except where it happens is in a local village, a local hamlet.

As a former municipal councillor and former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I can tell the House that the FCM has done a lot around in the world in terms of empowerment at the village legal, which is absolutely essential.

People need to see new wells for clean water, a hydro-electric dam which will then actually bring electricity to a village, a clinic or a school where individuals who work in the clinic can be trained, whether they are cleaning the floors, doing the laundry or administering vaccinations. The whole program is all about substantive development at the village level.

We were pleased to see that the government, in support of the resolution, is prepared to put more emphasis on development because development is absolutely critical.

If we do not change the lives of people on the ground, it really does not matter about national elections if in fact the national government does not seem to be delivering on the ground at the local level. This is why of course things like training the national Afghan police are critical in terms of being able to hold that area as well. So, it has to be more than military. There has to be an emphasis on development. It needs to be more accountable.

In terms of CIDA, as we know, Afghanistan has become the number one recipient of Canadian aid. Yet, we have had difficulty in the past getting both the previous minister and this minister to account in terms of where the actual money is going, what is the status of many of these projects, and what is actually happening on the ground.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to co-host with my colleague from British Columbia the international Red Cross committee based in Afghanistan which talked about the kinds of projects that are successfully being delivered, why they are important, how we are evaluating these projects and what kind of benchmarks we are setting to ensure that in fact these things are happening.

That is something which people want to see, both at home and abroad. They want to see that we are being successful. And so, part of that again is changing the end date, and being more than military. That is something that this side has emphasized very strongly in this House over the last year and a half.

I want to speak about the issue of training of the national Afghan army. We know that when we train people, sometimes we are going to obviously train them outside the wire. There has been some debate about how these troops would respond if they were fired upon. We do not intend, and it has never been our intent, to hamstring our soldiers on the ground in terms of being able to execute their responsibilities. There will be training. If fired upon, of course they would respond. This is not the situation where the UN handicapped former General Dallaire in Rwanda in 1993. We are not looking at that. We are looking at: if fired upon, obviously they would respond.

However, the major focus is obviously training, not just training in terms of the national Afghan police being able to do their job or for the army being able to do their job but also to have the confidence of people on the ground who are there to be protected. So, that is important.

Again, it is the reorientation of this mission which we have argued for. Reorientation also means rotation. I am pleased to see that the government is finally using that word and understanding that rotating means that others will have to come in.

In the resolutuion we talked about sufficient forces coming in. The government has talked about 1,000 troops. I am still not clear as to this magical number of 1,000, but I can tell members, again going back to that 3D report of Department of National Defence, that military superiority on the ground is not going to win. Eventually, it is going to be national reconciliation. But in terms of having more troops on the ground to assist us in terms of protecting our flanks, this is absolutely critical.

Again, our continuation is based on ensuring that there is protection for our forces who are there and also to continue with the provincial reconstruction team and development on the ground.

With regard to medium lift clarity, the government has indicated that it will not go forward without medium lift. We certainly agree with that. Again, because of the conditions on the ground at times, it is unsafe to move. We unfortunately had Canadian casualties and deaths because of a $10.00 device that blows up a million-dollar vehicle. Therefore, the ability to move troops by air is absolutely essential and, therefore, medium lift. However, this should have been requested over a year ago by the government.

We have a situation, at the 11th hour, where with the NATO meetings in Bucharest coming up the first week of April, we still do not have answers with regard to that. That is a very sad commentary about NATO in general, that no one has stepped up to say they are going to offer the appropriate airlift that we need.

A balance is obviously required and, again, we go back to the issue of defence, diplomacy and development. We have argued all along that this is more than military. It has to be about concrete development with clear benchmarks for Canadians, so that they will know where the money is going, and they will be able to say these are the success stories and we can now move this along.

There is no question that we have, both in the House and certainly in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, been seized with the Afghan issue. An array of speakers have come before the standing committee. They have had various viewpoints but all of them agree that this mission cannot be simply a military force on the ground and that this is certainly not Canada's mission alone.

We need to ensure that we deal with issues such as the narcotics economy, the issue of poppies, and how we deal with the situation where farmers get money for poppy crops. They are eventually developed into products such as opium and of course land on the streets in Canada and other countries around the world. We need an effective strategy to assist our Afghan partners in ensuring that other types of crops can be developed that will be lucrative for those farmers.

We need to have accountability to Parliament. Liberals have argued, and the resolution stresses it very strongly, that the government, particularly the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of National Defence and the Minister of International Cooperation, reports back on a regular basis to parliamentarians. Ultimately, it is Parliament and Parliament's will that is essential in understanding what is going on. We need those updates on a regular basis and Liberals have called for it.

In the resolution we have also called on the government to support the fact that departments have to talk to each other. Instead of silos, which unfortunately we are often famous for in Ottawa, National Defence, Foreign Affairs and CIDA need to talk to each other and be on the same page in understanding where we are in Afghanistan. That is absolutely essential.

There is the issue of cooperation. We, on this side of the House as well as the government because of the resolution, are going to have to work much more effectively and closely with our allies on the ground in terms of diplomatic issues and development. These are essential in order to improve the life of the average person in Afghanistan.

The Liberals chose today to debate this topic for another day in the House because it is important for all colleagues to be able to have their say so people will understand the various issues prior to whenever the vote is taken on the issue of 2011. We have some clarity now from the government on 2011. There is still the issue of why the July date and we need to have that dealt with.

As for accountability, reporting to parliamentarians is critical. This is something Canadians have stressed. People need to be reminded that this debate should not even be occurring now. Had the government taken the actions that the Liberals had called for over a year and a half ago about rotation after the April 2006 vote, we would not be in the situation now, with less than a year to go until the end of February 2009, and having this debate.

Of course, the other question is: What happens in Bucharest? The government has made it very clear, and Liberals certainly concur, that unless certain conditions I have outlined are met, the mission will have to end totally in February 2009 simply because the conditions need to be met.

There is certainly agreement in the chamber on the fact that, without the conditions, we are not prepared to move ahead. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of International Cooperation all realize that we have to have those conditions not only for our soldiers and CIDA workers on the ground but in general.

If NATO is serious about making sure that this mission is successful, and there is much debate and discussion as to not providing the same resources it did in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, without that kind of support, the mission is not going to be successful.

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments with regard to this bill. There is no question that the animal cruelty legislation needs to be updated. We certainly tried in the past to do this with different pieces of legislation, but unfortunately, the Conservatives opposed those updates. There is no question that Canadians want more effective animal cruelty legislation. The legislation has not been updated since 1892.

The question becomes the value of this particular private member's legislation. This legislation does not go far enough in addressing some of the concerns that members of Parliament hear from Canadians. It will not make it easier to convict perpetrators of such crimes. One of the things we continually hear about is the need to be tougher on the perpetrators. We have heard some horrific stories. Some have been mentioned in this debate and in previous debates. Tougher penalties are needed.

We need to remember when punishing people that they are not being punished for mistreating a piece of furniture, but for mistreating a live animal. The penalty has to reflect that mistreatment. We have to make it easier to deal with people who neglect animals.

On the weekend, we heard of a very tragic case in Alberta with regard to the neglect of horses. Unfortunately, many of them had died and others were very badly malnourished. When people see those things they ask why are we not bringing in tougher animal cruelty legislation.

We need greater protection for wild animals and domestic animals as well. We need to be clearer. Unfortunately, this bill does not go far enough. My colleague from Ajax—Pickering has a private member's bill. It replicates much of the legislation that had been in this House in past Parliaments, such as Bill C-15. My colleague's bill reflects much more of the mainstream concerns of Canadians.

I would also point out that this legislation does not address the situation where animals are trained to fight one another. It does not make that a crime. We have seen in the media some specific examples of that situation, such as cockfighting in Vancouver and the case of Mr. Vick in the United States regarding fighting of animals. Those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed.

If we are going to update legislation which has not been updated in over 100 years, we need to be effective in terms of these issues. We need to address those issues effectively for Canadians. When members get calls on this people are asking why we have taken so long. A lot of it has to do with the fact that we have confused protection of animals with hunting and other issues which some members on the other side have argued we have to be a little more vague on.

In fact, Canadians want to be very specific in terms of addressing the issues. Not only is greater protection needed, but greater clarity in the language is needed as well. Currently the language is very vague, which means that unfortunately, there have not been the kind of convictions that are needed. The courts have said that they can only work with the laws they have before them. They want to see tougher legislation. Canadians want to see tougher legislation.

As parliamentarians, we clearly have an obligation to deal with this type of legislation, and I hope that we do not use a piecemeal approach. The legislation of my colleague from Ajax—Pickering deals with some of the specifics I and others have mentioned in this debate.

We need to look at a couple of other factors. We need to deal effectively with individuals who neglect animals, not just those who do those horrific things we have heard about in terms of microwaves and so on, which acts are intolerable. We need to deal with those who neglect animals, those who have an animal and are not able to care for it. We must ensure that when people are convicted of a crime, they are not allowed to own animals in the future because of their wanton recklessness in terms of their treatment of animals.

The bill only deals with the status quo. It does not move it along to the degree to which we need. After 100 and some years, one would think, given all the examples and issues that exist, that it would have been much more effective. It is too bad the government had not proposed legislation on this. It is too bad we have to have it through a private member's legislation, as good as that may be, particularly by my colleague on this side of the House. However, the reality is attempts to move this forward by previous governments were stalled, either here or elsewhere. That is reprehensible. We need to have legislation that protects the public good.

We have waited a long time for this. The power to introduce this type of legislation has to be comprehensive. It has to deal with all aspects of the debate. I am hopeful the legislation will move forward.

The question I would have is this. Why has the government failed to take a proactive stance on this? In the past, government legislation was moved forward at different reading stages. It is too bad we did not see a proactive approach from the current government on this. It speaks to the very nature of the government in not caring about animal welfare in particular. It is unfortunate. Had it been proactive, we would not have had to go through other vehicles, including private members' legislation.

I am hopeful the legislation will move forward. Again, however, the bill before us today does not address some of the fundamental issues, unlike what my friend from Ajax—Pickering has suggested. I look forward to that legislation when it is brought before the House.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly in my speech that the issue of national reconciliation ultimately would be the path, which is why we need diplomacy and why we need to encourage those kind of ongoing discussions.

Militarily, by 2011, if the emphasis is on training, at least we sincerely hope the Afghans will be able to be better prepared to defend themselves.

My colleague may be having a hard time hearing the answer to his question because of the catcalls from government members. Again, I do not understand this. We are trying to come up with a consensus in the House. The member asks if we will have a military solution by 2011. The answer is no.

The Conservatives can shout all they like, but the reality is they are late in coming to the table on this. We have pushed for reconciliation, diplomacy and development issues. We know that all three together will advance the issue, but not just one.