Bryon Wilfert

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no confusion.

There is no question that if we are going to notify NATO of our intent to withdraw our troops from the Kandahar region in February 2009, then the government has the responsibility is to ensure there are other troops for the rotation. That is what the previous Liberal government did. I do not think there is any question that we notify them in the consultation.

The problem is that the government refuses to say whether or not it is even going to consult in terms of this date. It came up with this artificial date of February 2009. The House voted, and we take the will of the House, that we will accept February 2009. I would suggest that in those intervening two years since that motion leading up to 2009, the government will have lots of time to indicate what progress, if any, it is making in that regard.

The leader of the official opposition was more than clear. If we read his speech at the Université de Montréal in February 2007, it said that we will be there until February 2009, pursuant to the resolution in this House.

What the member does not seem to understand is that if we are going to notify NATO, we expect NATO to then be in a position to say, “Yes, and the rotation will be country X”. That is what we did and that is what I expect the government to do.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I first would like to salute our brave men and women in Afghanistan who put their lives on the line every day for this country.

Having visited our troops in Afghanistan in May 2006, I can tell members they are the most committed personnel we will ever see and they understand why they are there. I believe all members of Parliament, regardless of party, support our troops in the field.

However, we should understand this motion. The motion clearly says that we will end our military engagement in Kandahar in February 2009. It does not preclude other Canadian activity, military, diplomatic or development-wise, in other parts of the country. It talks about in Kandahar.

This is not solely a Canadian mission. Under the auspices of the United Nations, and NATO in particular, we are shouldering the responsibility along with other NATO allies. What is important to keep in mind is that the government has not announced, in terms of rotation, to NATO who will come after us, as we did before, under the previous Liberal government, in Kabul where the Turks came in after Canadian troops had served there. Therefore, the issue is about notifying NATO that someone else will have to step up to the plate.

We are not abandoning Afghanistan. Nor are we walking away. We may in fact have a different focus in Afghanistan after February 2009. However, as long as we are in Kandahar until February 2009, this party and our leader has made it very clear that we support our men and women in the field. Do not suggest otherwise. To be very clear, we support our men and women.

We want to point out that Canada has contributed significantly in the field. Although some NATO allies have covenants about terms of engagement, we believe very strongly on this side of the House that the government needs to continue to pressure our NATO allies to put more troops in the field and to assist in shouldering the responsibilities that we have under this mission. Now we only have six countries out of twenty six that are prepared to do so. That is not good enough. Canadians are prepared to, in some cases, give the ultimate sacrifice, but we cannot do it alone. It is not solely a Canadian mission.

We also need to ensure that the government puts more pressure on Pakistan. Having been in Pakistan on two occasions, recently in February, I had the opportunity to speak with both the foreign affairs chairs for the Senate and the House of Pakistan. They indicated they had 80,000 troops along the border, but, clearly, it is a very porous border. Obviously there are also political issues in Pakistan itself, but it recognizes the contribution of this country. Pakistan is stepping up to the plate more than it has in the past. Prime Minister Aziz had indicated very strongly to me that it was working with their allies, including Canada and the United States, to seek out, capture or destroy Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. However, we need more diplomatic pressure, and the government can do that.

The problem is the focus of the government has been purely military. It has not been on the other two aspects, which are critically important, diplomacy and development, which I will speak about a little later.

We have an opportunity not only in assisting and training the national Afghan army but, in particular, the national police. Back in May 2006, six RCMP officers and one officer from Charlottetown were in Kandahar helping, but that is not enough. We have a lot of opportunity and expertise to assist the police. One of the problems, quite frankly, is they are not paid on a regular basis. Another aspect is they do not have the right training and motivation, and that needs to be done.

Again, we are shouldering our responsibility. It was the Liberal government that stepped up to the plate after 9/11. We support this mission. Any suggestion that we do not is pure fallacy. The fact is, by February 2009 we are saying that others have come up to the plate and we need to look at other opportunities for Canada.

I would suggest a couple of things. First, when our leader indicated very clearly that we support this mission, he also said that we should not forget the important role that we have in the diplomatic community and how we can assist in that regard. Again, we do not hear enough about that. If in fact that is going on, we need to hear more and see more transparency on that particular issue.

We know that when it comes to the issue of the poppies, we could be doing more. We know we could be doing more in terms of CIDA. We hear about all these projects that are being created by CIDA. I can say that, in the short term, these projects are very good and putting young women and young children back to school is extremely important. However, the sustainability of some of these projects is what we must question because three or four months after the buildings have been built we often hear that they have been destroyed by fire and so on by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces. Therefore, we need to look at a strategy more in terms of longevity. I think that is extremely important.

There is no question that we have had a disproportionate number of casualties compared, say, to the Dutch who are in an equally difficult position, but we have never shrunk from our responsibilities. However, the question I have for the government is why is it reluctant to put pressure on our allies to say that by February 2009, a date which the government proposed in the House back in May 2006, we will end our military involvement in this region, we are now seeking a rotation ,as we did previously, but we will not be walking away.

The Prime Minister used the term “cut and run”. I do not remember anyone on this side of the House ever suggesting that. In fact, I find it extremely offensive to suggest that anyone on this side of the House would do so.

We believe, though, that we cannot have a military option without a diplomatic option and without a development option. If we really want to improve the lives of the average Afghani, we need to coordinate better all of the development aid that is going in, to which about 44% can only be spent currently by five major ministries in the Afghan government.

Again, there is the issue of accountability. Where is this money going? In terms of our aid, Afghanistan is not even among the 25 CIDA recipients and yet the bulk of our aid is going to Afghanistan. If it is going to go there, we need to be able to say that this is the status of the project, this is what is happening and this is where we are going with this particular project because we must ensure we are getting value for dollar.

At the moment, through our provincial reconstruction teams, as the House knows, we are very active but again we cannot do one without the other. We need to have them there.

I think President Karzai has been very clear on that. A military option alone will not solve the problem. We must work with our allies to be effective. Again, without that ability and without the government making it clear to those allies, we will continue to have uncertainty. Uncertainty is not good for our troops overseas and it is not good for the Canadian public. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to do our utmost to ensure an improvement.

When I see young girls going to school for the first time and learning to read and write and learning certain skills, this is something we did not see under the Taliban. We want to ensure this continues forever but we will not be able to do that unless we work in a coordinated manner with our allies to ensure this is done.

The government's response is that if we do not support 100% the direction of the government we are not supporting the troops. That is not true. We will not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to the support of our personnel overseas but we also will not shirk from our responsibility of indicating very strongly to Canadians and to our allies that they need to take more responsibility and that from six of the twenty-six that they all must end these covenants, that they must become actively engaged and that we must be doing what is the right thing, not only for the Afghan people but for our personnel whether they be military or otherwise.

[Foreign Affairs, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with that answer. The Prime Minister yesterday had an opportunity to meet with hockey players. That is very nice, but unfortunately the president of Liberia deserves better from the Prime Minister.

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, why will the Prime Minister not take time from his schedule today to meet with the president of Liberia? Does he not care?

[Foreign Affairs, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is an inspirational woman. Beyond being the first woman democratically elected president of an African country, she and her administration have taken sweeping steps to rid Liberia of corruption.

Why did the Prime Minister yesterday refuse an official request to meet with the president of Liberia while she is in Ottawa?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

It has been just over a week since the Conservative government delivered its second budget in 14 months, and unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it fails on the test of foreign policy. In addressing foreign policy needs, the government is basically silent.

Although the government claims that it has delivered something for everyone, it really has not dealt with the area of foreign policy. It should not be a surprise, because foreign policy is amateur hour when it comes to the Conservatives. They do not really have a focus on foreign policy. Other than the United States and Afghanistan, they think they can do without the rest of the world. Unfortunately this is very true when it comes to the budget.

I would point out that Nancy Hughes Anthony, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce made the comment:

The government promised in November that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and I think they broke that promise today.

It certainly did on being more competitive. I will get into that when it comes to a number of issues around the world where the government has failed.

The present government likes to talk about the previous Liberal government, so let us talk about the previous Liberal government. In 2005 we put forth the CANtrade strategy which provided $485 million over five years to help Canadian business succeed in emerging markets. The Conservatives scrapped this initiative and have now replaced it with $60 million over the next two years.

The Conservatives also cut $970 million from indirect costs of research programs which cuts assistance to Canadian universities. How are we going to be competitive abroad when this kind of narrow action is taken?

The budget says that the government is going to double international assistance by 2010-11. The Conservatives talk about their commitment of an additional $200 million for reconstruction in Afghanistan, $115 million initially, and $230 million to the issues of advanced markets, but the Liberal government in 2005 provided an increase of $3.4 billion over five years for international assistance, and committed to double official development assistance to over $5 billion by 2010.

The previous Liberal government understood the international community. It was out there. It was clear that it worked hand in glove with the international community and certainly with Canadian business and Canadian universities. Unfortunately, the Conservative government's view of the world is very different.

The government has changed the whole approach and structure on Afghanistan, and its mission is exclusively, it seems, military. We do not see the accountability factors when it comes to development assistance. We are providing more financial dollars to Afghanistan, yet it is not in the top 25 of CIDA recipients. We see that it is spending 10 times more money on the military than on humanitarian assistance in the Afghan theatre, and $200 million for Afghanistan in this budget is not new money. The Conservatives are very good at recycling money, but again it is the same money that the Prime Minister announced in the previous month.

In 2004 the Liberal government passed Bill C-9, the Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa which improved access to expensive drugs for the world's least developed countries in the fight against HIV-AIDS, malaria and other epidemics.

This budget talks about $175 million to accelerate implementation of a Canada first defence plan and $10 million to establish new operational stress injury clinics. The reality is that the government's Canada first defence plan is at odds with the priorities of the armed forces. Much of the equipment will not even be located or maintained in Canada, effectively selling out Canadian sovereignty, of course, and more important, depriving our aerospace industry of significant economic benefits.

In 2005 the Liberal government created a new veterans charter that provided for the most sweeping changes to veterans services and benefits since the end of the second world war. During the 2005 federal election, the Conservatives promised to veterans that they would immediately extend the veterans independence program and services to all second world war and Korean veterans, and of course resolve the agent orange issue.

The government made a promise of $80 million to make CSIS operations more effective. What does this really mean? On a review of the budget, the reality is there is not a real commitment as to how the money will be spent.

There has been no commitment in the budget to hire, for example, more police officers. The government talks about law and order, but it does not walk the talk. It is this party that talked about hiring and will hire 2,500 new officers across the country and provide that assistance. In budget 2007 the government commits no new money for additional police officers. Again, the Conservatives like to talk about crime, but they do not walk the talk.

The Conservatives talk about the previous Liberal government, that the Liberal government did this and that. The reality is the facts certainly show something different. On foreign policy it seems that anything we did they think is bad. They come in and change direction, but they have no substantive policy to assist in innovation, in dealing with international trade, et cetera.

There are two examples on China which are unbelievable. At the beginning of the mandate of the Conservative government, in February when the Conservatives announced the new cabinet, they said there were a thousand Chinese spies in Canada. They could not back that one up. Then the Prime Minister said he was going to talk tough on human rights. He had a 15 minute bathroom break with Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, in Hanoi in November last year. Assuming that eight minutes were used for translation, he had seven minutes in which he could talk about human rights, trade issues and a whole list of things which he is so proud of. Again the Chinese were not impressed.

Clearly this party when in government had a consistent policy of engagement with China. This party has been working, not only on the trade issue, but on tough talk, working with the Chinese and improving the judiciary, improving human rights in the area. One of the most galling things has got to be the short-sightedness of the government in closing four consulates: in Milan, in St. Petersburg, in Fukuoka, and Osaka. Let us take a look at that.

When we look at the Kansai region of Osaka, it has 25 million people, a GDP greater than all of Canada, and the government says, “No, no, it is okay to business. You can do business in the Kansai region. We are going to hand out”--and this is from the minister--“handbooks”. Handbooks do not cut it.

The second largest economy in the world is Japan. It has an economy greater than all of Asia combined, including China, and the Conservatives' answer to Canadian business, Canadian investors, in one of the most important markets outside of the United States is to say “We will close down the consulate and we will hand out handbooks”. This really is not too impressive. Who is not impressed by this? Let us take a look.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said that the consulates also serve as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of information for Japanese and Canadian companies, organizations and individuals. Anyone who knows Asia knows that the issue is friendship first, business second. We have to be on the ground. We have to have those contacts. They do not have those contacts because now they will be giving out handbooks.

The Conservative government is swimming in money, thanks to the good economic management of previous Liberal governments which eliminated the deficit. Remember that when we came to power in 1993, that side of the House had left us a $42.5 billion deficit. The Conservatives seem to forget that. Unfortunately, or fortunately for them, we left them with more money than they know what to do with. Of course now they are spending it here, there and everywhere, but there is no focus. They have all this money, but they have to close four consulates. That seems to me to be just unbelievable.

The comment of the Canada-Japan Society is that even prior to the announced closing of the consulates in Osaka and Fukuoka, Canadian interests were underrepresented in Japan relative to Japan's importance to Canada as a market for our goods, a source of tourists and students and a major source of investment in the Canadian resource and automotive sectors. They are people who know the Japanese market. They wrote the Prime Minister at the end of January and there was silence from that side of the House.

There is no question that when it comes to the area of foreign affairs, when it comes to the kinds of investments for Canadian business to be competitive, to be a player, the Conservatives have been silent and they have cut back.

There is no question that the former Japanese ambassador was very concerned about this approach. Japanese colleagues in Tokyo were absolutely astounded that we would take such an approach in terms of dealing with this. The government thinks it can deal with it out of Tokyo. It thinks it can deal with it out of Rome.

The government does not understand foreign policy. It is demonstrated in the budget the government presented last week.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would highlight for the parliamentary secretary that landmines, like cluster bombs, are indiscriminate, and that they, by their very nature, kill innocent civilians without regard. The fact is that they do not care whether one is a combatant or non-combatant, a farmer, a business person or a child at play.

The real issue is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of the country should have stepped up to the bat early and not decided, relatively at the last minute, to say whether or not we would participate. Landmines or cluster bombs, it is the same issue and the same problem. We need to deal with this and Canadian leadership and values on this issue were very important. I was disappointed at the failure of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to take the initiative.

At the same time, Canada has now signed and I hope the parliamentary secretary and the government will now follow up and keep the House informed because it is a critical issue.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have raised the issue of cluster bombs on several occasions, on the 1st and 16th of February. I also had sent out several press releases on this issue on the 19th to the 23rd.

The issue really is one of leadership. After the UN discussions on the convention on certain conventional weapons failed in November 2006, the government of Norway decided to take leadership and to look at Canada and the Ottawa convention on land mines in 1997 as a model to deal with this issue.

There is no question that cluster bombs are indiscriminate. They kill up to 90% of unintended targets, including civilians, often children. Vietnam and Laos are still affected by these today. Because they are bright and small, people pick them up and the bombs explode.

I had asked the government to show real leadership. Two weeks prior to the meetings on February 21 in Oslo, the government still had not made up its mind as to whether or not it would be attending. The real issue was if the government was going to attend and what it was going to do there. Was it going to be there showing leadership with real proposals on dealing with this issue?

Over 122 countries had supported the land mines ban, and this was another opportunity for Canada to be a leader. This is a Canadian values issue, dealing with the indiscriminate killing of civilians, particularly women and children, yet two weeks prior to the meetings, the government was still hesitant as to whether it was going.

In the end, 46 states in Oslo agreed to move forward on a ban on these initiatives by the end of 2008. Of course, I would have liked to tell the House what the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed, if anything, at Oslo. Unfortunately, I could not get any information from foreign affairs or from the minister's office, nor was anything on the website.

The fact is that the devastation from cluster bombs occurs worldwide.

The United States did not attend. Japan opposed it. Poland opposed. But 46 states agreed that this was a very important issue for people. I am only asking the government to show some leadership and say what kind of constructive proposals it would have in order to work with our allies and like-minded states to get a ban on this.

At the foreign affairs standing committee, a Conservative member opposed a motion on this subject put forward by a member from Halifax. The government did not show support until the last moment. Finally, Earl Turcotte, the director of the mine action and small arms team at foreign affairs went. I am pleased that someone from the government did go, but I am disappointed that again it was not someone at the level I would have expected on such an important issue that affects so many people around the world.

Leadership is needed on this issue. One of the Canadian success stories is the land mines treaty. The question that comes to mind is, does the government have a clear policy on this issue? Even though Canada signed, what is the policy? Why have we not signed treaties with other countries on this? Where is the leadership? Why is it that we have not been able to come to the fore?

It is clear that the Norwegians were trying to model the conference on what we did back in 1997. I would urge the government to keep the House informed on the process. It is very important. It is important for women. It is important for children. It is important for everyone. I hope to hear an answer.

[Foreign Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the international conference on cluster bombs will be held in Oslo next week. Canada is attending, but with little enthusiasm. Past Liberal governments have shown real leadership since the Ottawa convention, which reflected traditional Canadian values.

I realize that foreign affairs is foreign to the government, but will the government go to Oslo with concrete proposals and show real leadership or just be a Hollywood backdrop?

[Heritage Day, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, St. Mary's Anglican Church, built in 1872, the same year Richmond Hill was incorporated, is being honoured during Heritage Day in a celebration of historic places across Canada.

The Hon. Jean Chrétien, the minister responsible at the time of the foundation's creation, said:

Maturity may be recognized in a nation when its people take thought for their past: take thought... in the dynamic sense of knowing the past as a key to understanding the present and future.

Heritage Day is an important opportunity to celebrate the architectural heritage and historic places of Canada. The Heritage Canada Foundation promotes the third Monday in February each year as Heritage Day.

A Victorian tea will be held at St. Mary's Anglican Church and the archives committee will put on a display of historic artifacts. This will include a presentation and historic photographs of area churches from the Richmond Hill Public Library's unique collection. Church architecture in the region from 1850 to 1900 will be the topic of conversation.

It is hoped that the residents of Richmond Hill will join in celebrating national Heritage Day in the beautiful and historic chapel.

[Foreign Affairs, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a Norwegian-led effort to develop an international treaty to prohibit the use of cluster bombs is set to get under way in Oslo on February 21. Canada has always been a leader in the efforts to ban weapons that present significant risks to innocent civilians.

The Norwegians are using the Ottawa convention on the banning of anti-personnel landmines as a model for this effort. It would be an international embarrassment for Canada not to attend. Countries such as the U.S. are attending. Canada has yet to confirm its attendance.

I urge the Prime Minister to get off the fence and send a representative from Canada to the meeting. Could he confirm our attendance?