Bryon Wilfert

[November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with regard to the issue of Afghanistan and a question I had posed in the House earlier this session which had to do with the issue of rotation.

The House adopted a motion which said that our combat role in Kandahar, Afghanistan would end in February 2009.

Clearly, the government has failed to notify our NATO partners about rotation. In 2003-04 we had a force in Afghanistan. We notified NATO and the Turks came in and replaced us. The government seems not to be willing to do just that. The defence minister is talking about maybe going until 2011. The chief of the defence staff talks about going as far as 2017.

Clearly, this is not a Canadian mission alone. It is a NATO mission. Of the 26 member countries, only six of them have taken an active combat role in Afghanistan.

The Liberal Party has made it very clear that as of February 2009, we believe that the military role should end. That does not preclude that we would not take on another role. Another role could be training of the Afghan national police, which is very much in need. We see issues of corruption, the failure to have security in local villages, et cetera. We can take on other important roles in Afghanistan, but not a combat mission.

By 2009 we will have had the longest combat mission abroad in Canadian history. We do not think it is realistic for us to continue past February 2009.

The essence of the question was to find out what is the position of the government.

Number one, the date that was originally proposed, by the way, was February 2009. Will the government stick to that?

Number two, when will the government inform NATO that our combat role will end in February 2009? The longer it waits, the more difficult it will be to get replacements.

Finally, who really speaks for the government? Is it the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or indeed, the Prime Minister? Or is it the chief of the defence staff who talks about staying there as far in time as 2017? Canadians need to know. Canadians want to hear the answer. They want to hear a definitive answer.

It is rather ironic that a government that proposed the date of February 2009 is running away from the very commitment which it had put forward in this House, which the majority of members had supported, and is now saying that it really may not be February 2009, that it may be 2011 or beyond. That is what is important. We need to know what are the realistic options.

This party is prepared to work with others on creative proposals for after February 2009. I do not want to hear from the government about cutting and running and all that nonsense. We are prepared to be in Afghanistan, but in a different role and certainly not in a combat role. We have made that very clear.

The government continues to come back. It does not want to tell us the facts about what happens to Taliban forces who are kidnapped. We have signed international protocols dealing with that issue. If we are to be there to talk about the rule of law, about human rights, et cetera, we need to practise that.

Certainly, we do not want anything to happen to our soldiers. We certainly want to convey our condolences, as we did earlier in the House today, to the families and friends of those two brave soldiers who lost their lives on the weekend.

The issue is very clear. We have a deadline of February 2009. The government has to inform NATO of the rotation. It has failed to do so. The question is, when will the government do so, so that this House knows and the public knows?

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff contradicts the minister, which is not unusual. Maybe he should talk to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

These are human lives that we are talking about. All that the government can do is repeat the same pathetic talking points, when clearly the facts show that human rights are being abused.

What will it take for the government to act? When will the Conservative government stop transferring detainees and find a permanent NATO-wide solution to the problem?

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2007]

This government has covered up reports of detainee abuse for almost a year. It told the House there is absolutely no basis for our questions.

We have seen the reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs. We have seen the reports from Amnesty International. They confirm the allegations of abuse.

Will the minister tell the House what evidence, if any, he relies on to justify his claim that there is no abuse? The onus of proof is--

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do not have to take any lessons from that side of the House in support of our troops.

This government--

[Afghanistan, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the positions of the minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff are not reconcilable.

Canadians expect the government to be honest, truthful and unambiguous. Canadians are clear. They want our combat mission to end in February 2009.

The only question that remains is this one. Who is telling the truth about these future plans, the Prime Minister, who wants to extend our combat mission to 2011, or the Chief of the Defence Staff, who says 2017? Which is it?

[Afghanistan, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, amidst the latest allegations of torture and abuse, there remains a government desperate to confuse the public about its true intentions for the future of our mission in Afghanistan.

How else to explain the differing accounts of the end date of the combat mission? The Prime Minister says one thing. The Chief of the Defence Staff says another. Who is telling the truth?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague that the Liberal government reduced corporate taxes dramatically, from 26% down to 19% and the Conservatives are proposing a dramatic cut from 19% to 18.5%. I would point out that reducing corporate taxes gives us a competitive advantage in the world, which is extremely important.

I understand where the member is coming from, but I would point out to him that we need to be on that cutting edge. That gives us an extra cutting edge.

At the same time, I suggest that a reduction of the GST by 1%, which would cost the national treasury between $5 billion and $6 billion, could be better used elsewhere. The government across the aisle eliminated the $3 billion contingency fund that we had set up to deal with unexpected situations, such as the ones we have had in the past, such as SARS, BSE, et cetera.

The fact is the GST cut could better be used in terms of infrastructure investment. That would be very important.

I do believe a reduction in corporate taxes would encourage investment. It would encourage reinvestment in cities and communities. Obviously, it would make us extremely competitive internationally.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlottetown.

I am delighted to speak to this motion. First of all, we have a good fiscal situation in Canada because of the record of the Liberal government for 13 years. I would point out that in 1993 when the Liberals came into power, we inherited a $42.5 billion deficit. During that time, we had to deal with fundamental issues to put our fiscal house in order.

There is no question that the current government inherited a significant amount of money because the Liberals were prudent. We dealt with the deficit and at the same time, we invested and we started to pay down the national debt as well. I think during our time in government over $60 billion was paid on the national debt.

I want to talk about municipal infrastructure. It should come as no surprise that the current government has failed miserably the cities of Canada. I point that out because in 1983 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed a national infrastructure program to the government. At that time there was about a $17.5 billion municipal deficit. The government of the day said that if it were re-elected it would put that into operation, but that government was not re-elected. The Conservatives came in and for 10 years the national infrastructure program lay dormant.

In 1993 when the Liberals returned to power, they created the national infrastructure program, with participation from all three orders of government: a third, a third and a third. This was renewed in 1997. As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities I know all too well how important this was for cities in this country.

During the time of the Liberal government from 1993 to 2006, a number of major infrastructure programs were developed. In fact that money went toward improving highways, transit, sewers, basic infrastructure, recreation. It was extremely important. Our cities are the economic engines of Canada. We need to invest in them. We need to realize that although constitutionally the cities are under the jurisdiction of the provinces, the fact is that people who live in the cities, and now 80% of the population lives in our major cities in Canada, we need to invest in them. We need long term sustainability.

Regrettably the current government has failed. Now we have a $100 billion deficit. We are dealing with everything from rusting bridges, and we have seen what has happened in the city of Montreal as an example, to poor water treatment systems, to problems with transit. There has not been the investment. The government will probably talk about the building Canada fund of $30 billion of which $4 billion only is earmarked for cities. With a $100 billion deficit, $4 billion is not going to cut it.

We need real partnerships. We really need to invest. When the Liberals were in power we eliminated the GST on goods and services. I remember fighting that battle. We only got 57% of the rebate and eventually it was the Liberal government that came in and eliminated 100%. What did that mean for Richmond Hill alone? It meant a million dollars in savings in one year.

Understanding cities is important. We need to understand that they are the economic engines. People who live in these cities have to get to work. They have to be able to get from point a to point b and they cannot do that if the infrastructure is falling apart. We all have a responsibility.

When the leader of the Liberal Party went to Calgary in June, he reaffirmed the commitment of this party to long term infrastructure sustainability. This is a party that returned part of the gas tax to cities and communities across the country. This is the party that understood from the beginning the need to invest in infrastructure. When we invest in that, we have better productivity and that is extremely important for the country.

When we talk about lowering taxes I am clearly on record as supporting the lowering of taxes, both corporate and personal taxes, but we also have to have the investment in communities, whether they are large or small.

We have situations in Canada where we are not competitive because we do not have that investment in infrastructure. We need to have that. If the government is bringing in a fiscal update, it needs to look at that kind of investment in cities.

We hear the big city mayors across Canada continually say that the government is not listening. It is not paying attention to an issue which clearly is of the utmost importance for Canadians. Any fiscal update or budget that may come forward needs to address that fundamental issue.

We cannot have sewers that are falling apart. We cannot have a situation where roads are falling apart. People want to see three orders of government working collaboratively. That does not preclude the private sector. We certainly have seen private sector investment in past infrastructure programs. That is very useful, but again, the municipal governments have to be at the table. They have to be part of the solution. They have to be able to, as they did under the Liberal infrastructure programs, propose what their capital issues are. They have capital programs, five and ten year programs, where they can say they need to advance these things that are very important.

I know my friend from the Northwest Territories who is in the House, a former mayor of Fort Smith and a former president of the Northwest Territories Association of Communities, whom I had the pleasure to work with for a number of years, understands this problem from a northern perspective. There is no question whether one is in the north or whether one is in the southern part of this country, infrastructure needs to be addressed.

We of course had the new deal. These are the kind of innovative programs that I will want the government to consider, to start to really listen.

I realize that the big cities have not necessarily been electorally successful for that party, but that should not be the consideration. The consideration should be that these are the areas of Canada that produce such wealth. If we want to be truly competitive, if we want to match what is being done in Germany, in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere, we need to invest in cities.

I would urge the government to take a leaf out of the Liberals' book of what the Liberals have done in the past successfully. We have received accolades galore from city mayors across the country because they understand. We developed a 20 year strategy to address infrastructure and other needs in this country. For me that is a vision.

We need a national vision when dealing with infrastructure. We cannot do it piecemeal. We cannot simply say that it is somebody else's responsibility. We need to have it earmarked. We have to be able to say to the provinces and the cities that we are all part of this issue. It is not simply about writing cheques; it is about making sure that the money is delivered for the programs.

The same would be true for recreational facilities and things like bicycle paths, if we really believe in making sure that people are healthier. The federal government has a role to play as well in reducing carbon monoxide and improving the health of people in our cities and communities across the country and investing in transit. Again, it should be a dedicated transfer. Funding is important in those areas of the country where that is warranted.

This is part of the Liberal vision, what we have enunciated and have implemented for many years. We believe very strongly that this is something the Government of Canada needs to do because without doing so, from a competitive standpoint we will fall behind.

That is also true in investing in research facilities in our cities. We must make sure that we are investing in post-secondary education. With respect to post-secondary education, we need to convene a federal-provincial conference to talk about the plight of students who are faced with horrendous debt as they come out of colleges and universities. The Canadian Federation of Students and other stakeholders who understand the problem need to be at the table so that we can design a dedicated transfer to the provinces in that regard, as we did on health care funding when we were the government. It is extremely important that we do that.

My plea is very simple. If we do not invest today, we will suffer tomorrow in terms of being competitive in the international community.

I would trust that the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his mini-budget or his statement, will address that. We are all for debt reduction and all for tax cuts, no problem, except we need a balance, and if we are not going to bring that in, we will suffer in the long term.

[United Nations Day, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today is United Nations Day. Sixty-two years ago, the nations of the world founded an organization whose goal was as simple as it was ambitious: to prevent war, to reaffirm human rights, and to promote social progress and freedom for all peoples.

Canada's history in the UN has been a proud one. We are a founding member. A Canadian, John Humphrey, was the principal drafter of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Another Canadian, Lester Pearson, revolutionized the United Nation's role in peacekeeping, and Canadian soldiers have for decades proudly served in the blue beret of the United Nations.

The UN is not a perfect institution, but it is better for Canada's participation in it, and the world is a better place for the existence of the United Nations.

I encourage all members and all Canadians to celebrate United Nations Day.

[Foreign Affairs, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kafila Siddiqui, who was a constituent of mine, recently died in Pakistan under questionable circumstances. Her husband contacted my office on March 28 and we immediately contacted the Canadian High Commission, urgently, on three occasions and also the Minister of Foreign Affairs' office, which gave us a 1-800 number.

The High Commissioner in Pakistan has been aware of the situation since early April. The minister has been aware since April 11.

Could the minister tell the House what follow up has been done by his office after he was contacted? What is he doing now to ensure justice is being served?