Mr. Minister, what is your understanding of the Geneva convention and its application to detainees by Canadian Forces in the field?
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 17th, 2007
Mr. Minister, what is your understanding of the Geneva convention and its application to detainees by Canadian Forces in the field?
Business of Supply May 17th, 2007
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I do not think that answer sits very well. Could the minister again respond with regard to the issue of an overall approach to the detainee issue? Obviously Canada is not alone in dealing with this type of issue.
Have any constructive or useful comments been made by the minister's counterparts with regard to how to deal with this? Obviously the question in mind that I would like to go to is with regard to the Geneva convention and its application to the Canadian Forces in the field.
Business of Supply May 17th, 2007
Mr. Chair, I hope that the minister does talk to the foreign affairs minister and, in that case, shed some light on this particular issue.
Has any thought been given to establishing a NATO-wide detention facility so that we can deal with all of the detainees and ensure they are not tortured or mistreated by Afghan authorities?
Business of Supply May 17th, 2007
Mr. Chair, this is obviously not just a Canadian issue. Can the minister tell me what thought, if any, has gone into a NATO-wide solution to this issue of the detainees?
Business of Supply May 17th, 2007
Mr. Chair, with regard to Afghanistan and the detainees, having been in Afghanistan last year, I first of all want to salute the good work that our troops do. Because I am concerned about our troops, as is everyone on this side, I want to ask the following questions.
At any time in the past month has the minister raised the issue of mistreatment of detainees with his counterparts at NATO? Could he be specific?
Mr. Speaker, one of the forums in which Canada can play a very important role is the Commonwealth. Historically on the Zimbabwe issue, the previous government had worked with Nigeria and South Africa in dealing with the Zimbabwe situation.
There is no question that the situation has become far worse over the last year. The average life expectancy of a woman is 32 years and of a man is 37 years. This is clearly an intolerable situation.
We see abuse of human rights unprecedented on the African continent. Yet we again need to use all of our diplomatic offices. The hon. member suggests quiet diplomacy or diplomacy behind the scenes. I also suggest that maybe we should call in the Zimbabwe diplomats in Ottawa and indicate to them that if things do not improve, we would consider expelling them.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight on an area of foreign policy which I think is very important to many Canadians, and that is the situation on the African continent.
A few years ago, the prime minister of the day had pushed at the United Nations for something which countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, et cetera, agreed to, and that is the responsibility to protect. There is a collective responsibility among all nations to deal with issues such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
There are just two examples I wanted to look at tonight. The other month we had the president of Liberia here and we saw the rather stumbling approach of the government with regard to her presence, but the issue that I want to talk about first of all is in Zimbabwe.
The Liberal Party has called, both on March 13 and on April 24, for action by the government to deal with the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe and the fact that Mugabe has deployed his security forces, his green bomber militia, to basically turn a country which used to be an exporter of food into an importer. By the end of this year, inflation will reach as high as 4,000%.
People are fleeing Zimbabwe, risking their lives every day because of this regime which has brutalized people on the streets and in their homes, has packed the courts, has changed the nature of government, and has essentially allowed few foreigners to document what is happening. We only hear from those who have been able to leave.
We called upon the Government of Canada to increase aid from $4 million to $20 million for medicines, food and other essential supplies, to working with NGOs, to appoint a Canadian envoy to deal with this crisis, and to pressure the Security Council into bringing Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, before an International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Yet, we have heard nothing but silence from the government benches.
The Sudan in Darfur is another example where again Canada had shown leadership in the past. A former Liberal prime minister had been to the Sudan in 2004, advocated and supported the role of the African Union, along with the logistical support of Canadians helping members of the African Union on the ground. There is a genocide going on, and again we hear little from the government benches.
If the central tenet of Canadian foreign policy is to be human rights, if it is to be the security of the individual, then we need to act. Africa is not simply something that we can read about or watch in the news. It is something that Canadians have a deep understanding of and concern for. We need to see action at a multilateral level. Whether it be through the United Nations or in concert with our allies, we need to take action.
We have put forth, through the previous government and obviously now, proposals to the government. We would like to work with the government to ensure that if in fact we are going to act, we need to act in concert with our allies.
I would point out that on the international policy statement, which the previous government had enunciated in 2005, I have yet to hear from this government whether it supports it or rejects it. It has been very quiet on it, but part of that policy statement was the issue of intervention to provide support in these cases.
Mr. Speaker, the member has not answered the question, which is: What is the overall strategy of this government when it comes to representations abroad?
I am talking about closing missions. When we had a $42.5 billion deficit, some were closed. But now we have 4 closed and 19 more on the chopping block.
The parliamentary secretary talks about the Japanese ambassador. The former ambassador of Japan to Canada, Ambassador Numata, said:
But I'm afraid that the closure of these offices will not really be helpful...I keep going back to this point about perception. It sends the wrong signal. I'm sure it's not the intent of the Canadian government, but in this world you have to be concerned about perception.
So, clearly, maybe the government does not care about perception. Maybe it does not care about whether our business people compete with the Americans, the Australians and others. But the reality is, if we are going to close, and the minister was asked a point blank question, “What is the strategy, the overall policy, going to be?” The answer is--
Mr. Speaker, I posed a question with regard to the closing of the consulates in Japan, Italy and Russia. At the time, I was told that there would be no difficulty and that the government would be able to respond effectively by using handbooks.
I point out to the House as an example that in Osaka, Japan, 25 million people live in the Kansai region. Japan has the second largest economy in the world. It is a major trading partner. In fact, it is our number two trading partner for direct investment as well. Yet we were going to close that consulate, in which there is a GNP greater than that of all of Canada. The government response was that it wanted to save money. This is at a time when the government is flush with dollars, yet it wanted to cut these consulates, and more will be on the chopping block.
I would point out that I put a motion forward at the foreign affairs committee to have the minister appear. He did appear, but his answer was not sufficient. I see the minister smiling over there. I would point out to him that if we are going to be global, if we are going to compete with the Americans, the Australians, and others, then we have to be a player. We cannot do it simply from the capital.
The former Japanese ambassador raised questions about this. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Japan opposed this, as did the Canada Japan Society.
Everyone knows about doing business. Japan is an example. We closed those two consulates in Japan on March 31. Everyone knows that we need to make friends first. Business comes second. We need to have those contacts. By closing those consulates, we unfortunately sent out a very damning statement about our interest in that part of the world. We did the same in Milan, Italy, which was a jumpoff point for our business people in eastern Europe. Suddenly it has been closed and the opportunities for us are gone.
Now we learn that 19 more may be on the chopping block, including one in Riga, Latvia. This again sends a very negative image of Canada.
The government says that when the Liberals were in power we closed consulates. I would point out that when we inherited a deficit of $42.5 billion some consulates were closed by our government. Now the Conservative government is awash in money. I respect the minister, but he should know better. He received letters indicating the problem with closing these consulates. If we really want to be competitive, if we really want to be on the cutting edge, then we should not be closing them.
The Conservative government has not been honest. It has not answered the fundamental question. What is the overall strategy of the government when it comes to our representation abroad? What is the master plan?
Apparently there is no master plan. If there is a master plan, the government should be able to produce it. It should be able to tell us why it is doing these things. It should be able to tell us its strategy. There is no strategy on that side of the House.
Those members talk about wanting to be competitive internationally, yet they are closing consulates. They want to be competitive and yet they have no strategy. The government is not helping the business community, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which says the government has no China strategy either. At the end of the day, we have a government with no direction.
This is an important issue not only for our business community but also for Canadians who are travelling abroad. Essentially, we need a clear mandate as to what the government is all about when it comes to our representations abroad.
Foreign Affairs May 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we know a lot more, given the Ottawa convention as a good example.
Tensions between these countries are escalating. The Estonian ambassador was roughed up in Moscow this week. This is a serious issue. If the government is committed to having Canada play a role in international affairs, and so far the track record has not been promising, we need to take action immediately.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs take control in his department, take action, and support Estonia against Russian intimidation as other NATO countries have already done?