House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Afghanistan February 25th, 2008
If the hon. member wants to hear the answer, heckling is probably not a good idea. If one asks the question, one would assume one would listen to the answer. The answer is quite clear. The Conservatives mentioned training, but they did not put that on the front burner. Maybe they should have come to this conclusion a lot sooner than now. Then we would have had better answers.
Afghanistan February 25th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, first, I point out for the hon. member that it was only a few weeks ago in the House that the government used the language “around 2011” to end the mission. That is not very precise. Maybe for the Conservatives that is precise, but “around” does not give an end date. We are pleased that now they support our position of 2011. Again, I want to know this from the government. Why the end of 2011?
On the issue of training, absolutely we agree with training. We heard that in the Speech from the Throne. The problem is the government was not prepared to put that on the front burner. It said that it would continue the combat role and at some point down the road it would shift to training.
Afghanistan February 25th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to participate in this debate. As the son of a World War II veteran, I learned very early the importance of the military and the sacrifices that our men and women make on the battlefield.
I am also pleased to see the Minister of National Defence here because I had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan with him when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs in April 2006. We saw firsthand the training of our soldiers, the people doing reconstruction, the need for medium lift helicopters, and the fact that we had to be transported by American Chinooks from place to place. That certainly had a great impact on me.
I thanked the minister at that time because we had the opportunity to see what a lot of Canadians did not see: men and women on the front line prepared to put their lives on the line for this country, for freedom, and to ensure the Afghan people had the benefits they did not have that Canadians took for granted. That was very important.
Not long after our return, the motion came from the government to extend the mission until February 2009. That was the government motion. I am now pleased to see that the government, in responding to the official opposition's proposal, has come a long way in embracing what we have said.
It is important to emphasize that we have said the mission must change. It must end and it must be more than military. There is no question that rotation is now being spoken about by the government. That is critical because when Canadian troops went to Kandahar originally in 2002, they rotated out after six months. When they went to Kabul, they rotated out and the Turks came in. Why? Because this is a NATO-led mission.
This is not an issue that some have described in the past about cutting and running. This is a NATO-led mission. Over 35 countries are involved. Many have covenants on their participation, but Canada has always stepped up to the plate. However, this is not solely a Canadian mission. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect that Canadians should be going back for third and fourth tours of duty.
Obviously, in the proposal to respond to the government, Liberals wanted to have a number of things clearly spelled out. One, of course, was an end date. I will be looking forward to hearing from the government as to why it chose the end of 2011.
The Liberals had said our troops should be completely out by July 2011. It is too bad that this debate had not occurred over a year ago because this side of the House has been pushing for over a year to in fact find out when the government would notify NATO. We are pleased that it has finally said it will notify NATO and that our mission will end in 2011.
We are pleased that the government has also embraced the Liberal position with regard to training, which is currently being done. However, more training is necessary not only for the Afghan military but for the police because once an area is cleared, it is the Afghan police, which are woefully undertrained and underpaid at the moment, who need the reinforcement. Canadians can do the job but the heavy lifting part we talk about needs to be done in terms of rotation by others.
The government has said it wants 1,000 more troops. I would like to find where in the Manley report or the government report dealing with Afghanistan it is 1,000. Why is it not 2,000 or 5,000 in terms of this mission to support our troops and also the medium lift helicopters which I spoke of before? It is absolutely critical.
When I visited in April 2006, the troops told me that Canadians were the best equipped army on the ground, that the previous government had supplied them with the best equipment possible, except that they needed helicopters. That is something which the government at this date is trying to find. If we do not get those two key elements, obviously we cannot support them.
The mission must change in terms not being just military. We have on this side of the House argued for a long time that ultimately a military solution is not going to be possible in Afghanistan.
We know that because the defence department, in a 3D mission evaluating Soviet participation in Afghanistan in the 1980s, said in one of its conclusions that ultimately it must be an issue of reconciliation, that a military solution was not possible and therefore diplomatic efforts must be undertaken. This party has argued for diplomacy for a long time with allies in the region and obviously a special envoy.
Again, it is too bad that the government has waited so long to respond to this, but the reality is we have been arguing this and our leader spoke of this in February 2007. Had some members paid attention at that time, we certainly had articulated that, but again, sometimes it is better late than never.
It is too bad, when we are dealing with this situation, that the government did not responded much sooner. A diplomatic solution is absolutely key, and obviously reconciliation.
We talk about the issues of detainees, and one of the things that we believe and are trying to support is a better judicial and prison system over there. Again, is that not about Canadian values?
We are talking to the government. We do not want it to be like the Taliban. We want to make sure that we have a process dealing with law, to make sure the people are fairly tried, that the conditions which they are in are not overcramped, and that they are certainly not in a situation that we could not tolerate. We have asked for NATO-wide standards. We see that in the resolution and again we appreciate the fact that the government has embraced that.
It does not matter what side of the issue one is on, we all support our men and women in the field. Again, we have heard sometimes language in this House which really is not appropriate. We want to say, whether it is the New Democratic Party or the Bloc or the government, that we all support our troops. We may come at it from different positions from time to time, but nobody has a monopoly on it.
Clearly, I see the need for coordination and transparency. We have argued for a long time that Canadians need to know the facts. The trouble, unfortunately, with a lot of issues in the federal government is that we are dealing with silos. People are not talking to each other, the military with foreign affairs and foreign affairs with CIDA. Therefore cross-departmental discussions need to take place. They are absolutely critical.
There is a need for clarity and therefore, having a special committee to get updates regularly from the government, from all of those departments involved, is absolutely critical. Parliamentarians ultimately have to make decisions and they have to be based on available facts. Again, we have argued this for a long time.
I know I may get a question from the other side, saying that we had our chance to have the Manley people come and talk about this before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing Committee on National Defence. That was after the fact.
I raised the point, in the foreign affairs committee, that we should have them beforehand, before they wrote their report, so we could give parliamentary input into what they were saying. However, the government probably did not want to do that because it was not sure what it was going to say.
After the fact, when the Conservatives embraced it, they said that we needed to have them come. We had already read the Manley report. We want to have a genuine discussion, and again it is too bad that the government has waited until the eleventh hour to do this.
It is not practical at this point to suggest that we want to change the mission in a way which recognizes rotation, which recognizes that training is absolutely critical, and that others must step up to the plate.
If in fact we have not been able to get the necessary requirements to this date, I am not sure what the government is doing to ensure that by the time it goes to Bucharest, if in fact this resolution passes, that it will in fact have the ability. When is it going to make a firm decision? Is it going to make the decision on January 31, 2009, or is it going to say, when it goes to Bucharest and no one has stepped up to the plate, that we cannot continue?
The mission cannot be business as usual. If anyone out there thinks that this party supports business as usual, the answer is no. Obviously, the government does not support business as usual or it would not embrace what is basically 95% of the language of what we put together.
It is nice that the Conservatives have finally come on board, but again, in seeking all party support, it would be helpful if they would listen for a change. Often they are very good at catcalls, but they are not very good at listening. In this business, listening is sometimes better.
Kosovo February 25th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, a non-position is hardly a position. It may be for the government but it clearly will not satisfy Canadians.
Can the government clearly tell us when it plans to come to a position, how does it plan to get there, and when will it announce its conclusion to members of the House of Commons?
Kosovo February 25th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, over a weak ago Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. Since then a number of countries have formally recognized Kosovo's independence; others have not.
A few minutes ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs announced a non-position.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what his government's position is?
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member. What I am concerned about is the Minister of International Trade went to China last month and threatened the Chinese by saying that he would drag them before the WTO in order to get this approved destination status. If that is in fact supposed to be a love-in, I would hate to see what is not. In this case, threatening them with the WTO did not advance our case.
The Liberal Party is prepared to repair Canada's relations with China. It is prepared to get back the agreement we had in principle, move forward and sign the deal. If the parliamentary secretary is suggesting that there was a new opening with regard to the Chinese, another question would be this. Why did the minister threaten to drag the Chinese before the WTO?
I encourage the government to stop the rhetoric, get to the table and work out an agreement the way others have done. In the end, what the member said is correct—
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss in the House the question I raised on December 12 of last year, which had to do with approved destination status. It is extremely important when it comes to the issue of promoting and advertising tour groups both in Canada and in China.
In 2005 the previous Liberal government had an agreement in principle to deal with this issue. This is a very important issue in terms of advertising, because 134 countries have approved destination status and it is absolutely critical for us as a country in order to be able to promote tourism. In particular, there is the fact that the Chinese have over 120 million foreign trips a year. On average, they spend about $1,800, it is assumed, when it comes to hotels, shopping and so on.
We need to tap into that huge market, but as we know, the government's relations with China have not been very good, to say the least, or to be charitable. The fact is that when the government came in, it talked about a thousand Chinese spies in Canada and it waited about a year to have a meeting with the ambassador here. Generally, it has been a very rocky road.
Therefore, what has happened is that this agreement in principle has fallen off the table. We need to have this agreement in place because it will give us the opportunity for tour agencies to send groups to Canada and allow Canada to advertise itself in China as a preferred destination. We need to get that opportunity.
Unfortunately, the relationship is one in which there has been no agreement. In fact, we had the government threatening to take China to the WTO, and there are other moves that have not been beneficial.
This is important for our tourism industry. It is important for our tourist agencies. In this country, many people of Chinese descent would love to see this, as well as others, but the failure of the government to move on this issue has been and continues to be a very sore point.
We see the booming economies of China, India and others. The fact is that this is an opportunity that at the moment has been lost. We cannot have that happen. We need to have this.
The previous Liberal government saw the opportunity in China and Southeast Asia. We moved very quickly on that. We moved Canadian tourism's headquarters to Vancouver. We see Asia as an important opportunity for us, yet we are looking at a situation in which an estimated 700,000 Chinese tourists or more could come to Canada and, unless we have this ADS agreement, we will miss out.
Therefore, I urged the government to get back to the table, to cut down on the rhetoric with the Chinese and to come up with an agreement in the interests of both parties. In particular, for our tourist industry this is critical, as we are talking about a potential 700,000 tourists. We are talking about an average of $1,800 being spent by people coming here. It is a tremendous market.
We are looking at the Australians and others who have these agreements and we see where the tourists are going. They are not coming here. We need to get this done. I have urged the government to do so.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary either will have some good news tonight or will at least indicate to me that we will get back to talking, because in the end this is not a partisan issue. This is a Canadian issue. We are pushing it because on this side of the House we believe that it is in our national interest to push something that others are taking advantage of.
David Dunlap Observatory February 11th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, despite the bitter cold and mounds of snow, I, along with members of our concerned community of Richmond Hill came out to voice our concerns regarding the sale of the Dunlap Observatory.
The David Dunlap Observatory has been a research centre for the department of astronomy and astrophysics since 1935. In 1972, the first black hole was discovered by the observatory.
It is a valuable site to our community. My goal is to ensure that it remains a working teaching and educational centre for astronomy.
I recently had a meeting with the president of the University of Toronto, David Naylor, and other key officials to press for an extension until mid-May for the request for proposals. The purpose of the extension is to provide the consultants, Lord Cultural Resources, more time to do a thorough study of the site. I was pleased with the meeting.
The Dunlap site is one of historic significance. My ultimate goal is that the Government of Canada will protect and purchase the site for a national urban park, to preserve its legacy for future generations to enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member did not address the issue of the detainees, but I will respond by saying this. Prior to the independent panel submitting its report, at the standing committee I asked that it come before us for parliamentary input. I see no value in asking people to come after the fact. We have all read the report. It was the government members who opposed having Mr. Manley and others come to the committee beforehand to get the input of parliamentarians.
Therefore, it is a bit hypocritical to suggest somehow that after the fact, now that the government says it embraces the broad strokes of the Manley report, it is okay for them to come. It is unacceptable. What is also unacceptable is the government still has refused to talk about the detainee issue. We have put those questions to the government repeatedly in the House of Commons and repeatedly we have been stonewalled by the government. Is that because the government members are not talking to each other, they are not talking to the Chief of the Defence Staff? We are not sure who is making policy over there.
Mr. Speaker, on November 19, I raised the detainee issue in the House and was informed that there was no basis for my question. I was also informed that the government's policy had not changed and that there was no issue with regard to abuse. The government claimed that if this were an issue, it would immediately stop any transfers.
We know that as of November 5, 2007, there was a change. We were misled by members of the government, including the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Many times in November it was said that if there were any abuses, the House would be informed. Clearly, it was not. Our party repeatedly asked about the transfers. Why? We are in Afghanistan to support the rule of law and to hopefully bring a sense of democracy and human rights to that country.
What is the government's response now to the issue of transfers? We have seen it flip-flop. It says that this is a national security issue and an issue with regard to operational matters. The Americans announce the capture of Taliban prisoners, as do others. It cannot be a security issue for us and not for them.
We believe the transfer issue is at the fundamental core of the failure of the government to show transparency and accountability when it comes to the Afghan issue. Canadians want to know precisely what is going on over there, yet the government continues hiding behind all sorts of issues.
The Prime Minister's director of communications first blamed the military on the change of policy. Then she had to do a back flip the next day and say that the government had been informed. There is nothing the Prime Minister's Office would not be aware of, particularly something like this.
The government is attacking us by questioning our patriotism. No one in the House is more patriotic when it comes to supporting our military. Having been in Afghanistan in April 2006, I can tell the House that our troops are doing a phenomenal job over there. When parliamentarians raise issues for Canadians, we expect the government to be upfront and honest, but that has not taken place.
We were told that these allegations of torture were not credible. Yet as of November 5, 2007, the transfers stopped. They stopped because the military was concerned about the abuses it had seen.
The independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan has indicated there is no transparency and accountability with the government. That side of the House does not seem to want to come forward about this.
Canadians want to be informed about decisions. They want to now what is going on over there. We have a right as parliamentarians to know these things. If we have concerns about certain issues, then we need to express those concerns to the Karzai government. It needs to be clear on our concerns. If there are allegations, we want those allegations investigated. We want to ensure the facts are on the table. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case.
An interim report on Afghanistan was provided by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. We only reported on the comments of witnesses. Unfortunately, the government put forth a minority report with no recommendations at the time. We wanted to put forth what we heard. The government has said that it can not do that, yet it talks about transparency and accountability.
I put that to the government. I await the answer from the parliamentary secretary.