Bryon Wilfert

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we should enforce resolution 1591, definitely. I do not think there is any question that that would be a very important step. The issue, of course, as the member knows, is trying to get the collective will around that table to enforce it. That leads to the second part of the question, which is what is available outside the Security Council of the United Nations?

I believe very strongly that an African solution is only possible if the right tools are given to support the African Union and those forces there on the ground. Again, we talk about peacekeeping. I would suggest that the real word is peacemaking. As we have seen in other conflicts, the issue is not to go in and simply maintain a peace. It is to try to create one. This is very difficult. There are tools at our disposal. We will see what the next 48 hours bring. I would suggest that we will probably be back to revisit different options in the weeks to come.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I remember back in 1979 when the forces in Tanzania invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin. Publicly there was condemnation by African leaders of the invasion of the territorial sovereignty of Uganda, but privately they were rejoicing that Nyerere's government had finally rid Africa of one of the worst blights, being Idi Amin.

The sensitivity is there about any kind of military operation. The question would be, if one does not have the political support of African states, what kind of composition of force would take place? It is very clear, as we have seen in other cases, that winning the battle does not necessarily win the war. I think it is a fair question, but it is very hard to predict the kind of force one would need, how long it would be there, what kind of stabilizing force would need to be there in the longer term and what kind of reconstruction would be needed.

There are great sensitivities. Before we invoke that we certainly need to look through the diplomatic channels at what would be the tools necessary in order to bring that about, if that were, and I would suggest probably, the last resort. At the moment, the African Union troops there need to have not only the diplomatic support but certainly the tools to carry it out. They cannot be sent in to do a job for which they are ill equipped.

It may be an issue that we may have to come back to. Hopefully we will not, but if we do, I think we have to look very carefully at what kind of composition and mandate we would be looking at.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton—Springdale.

There is no question that tonight we have heard a collective sense of urgency, a collective sense of despair, sorrow, even foreboding. This evening we are on the brink of either hope or disaster regarding the events that have unfolded. Some members talked earlier this evening about Rwanda, the Congo and Angola, where the world did not take collective action and in some cases when it did, it was too late.

Hans Morgenthau, the renowned theorist, talked about the state's act in the national interest. What is in Canada's national interest? It is in our national interest that there be an African solution to this problem and clearly we have a role to play. Historically, whether it is the present government in Canada or a past government, we have paid attention to this situation where we know that rapes, murders and destruction of whole villages occur. If these things occurred closer to home, we would have been called to arms, but do we have the ability to do so? We have ways through logistical support, diplomatic support, and economic support to deal with African states in the region.

We see the spillover in places like Chad. The crisis in Darfur is causing instability. That has significant implications for the sub-Saharan region. My colleague spoke earlier about the problem of a government in Khartoum, that even if we get an agreement, how will that agreement be implemented? How do we hold the parties concerned to fulfill that agreement?

Canada can play a role in supporting our African allies in this regard. The African Union wants to very strongly assert its role in this particular situation. As a central tenet of Canadian foreign policy we have always valued human rights. We are seeing the wanton destruction of human rights. A multilateral approach through the African Union and for those on the ground can play a very important role.

We have contributed over $11 million, but money alone is not going to solve the problem. To get the collective will to implement any agreement will require severe monitoring on the ground. It will require troops on the ground. It will require that we hold those who sign any agreement accountable, not only to the people of that region, but to the international community as a whole. We have a responsibility along with our friends to ensure that.

There is no one in the House who is not prepared to step up to the plate and say that we and our allies can play a collective role through diplomatic and economic channels. The fact that we may have two RCMP officers on the ground at least demonstrates that for Canada this is not simply a Sudanese problem or a Darfur problem, but it is a problem of the world community. How we react on this type of issue sends a signal to other areas. In Africa Sudan is not the only issue or problem unfortunately.

We have the collective will and the ability to work with our friends in the African Union for an African solution. I certainly hope and pray that in the next 24 to 48 hours we get an agreement which we will be able to monitor and enforce, which is critical.

[InterParliamentary Delegations, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group representing parliamentarians' visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from November 12 to 15, 2005.

[Canadian Forces, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the four brave Canadian soldiers who lost their lives in the name of freedom in Afghanistan.

One of those young men was Corporal Matthew Dinning, who was born in Richmond Hill. He served with distinction in the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters at CFB Petawawa.

Matthew was a bright, energetic young man who had wanted to become a police officer like his father. He knew the risks of his mission, but was prepared to serve his country in this difficult conflict.

His grandparents, Jim and Rhelda Stockall, are friends of mine and I want them to know, as well as his mother Laurie, his father Lincoln and his brother, that this nation is with them during their difficult time.

Matthew's sacrifice has not been in vain and the lives of his comrades, Bombardier Myles Mansell, Lieutenant William Turner and Corporal Randy Payne have not been sacrificed in vain.

We salute these brave soldiers, along with their families. They are in our hearts and our prayers. We will remember them.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two reports.

First, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group representing the participation at the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Conference on Renewable Energies held in Gifu, Japan on June 4, 2005.

Second, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group representing the participation in the 26th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization held in Vientiane, Laos, September 18 to 23.

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is because of the policies that I announced and the fact that in 2003 the Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional Districts forecasted emissions that would be going down. It is because of the policies of the Government of Canada.

To suggest for a moment that we support the issue of raw sewage, let me give an example of what the government has done. When it comes to the national infrastructure program to support cities like Halifax to stop the raw sewage going into the sea, it was our government that supported that.

It was the Conservative Party government that for 10 years opposed the national infrastructure program. It lay dormant for 10 years. It is the Liberal government that brought in the national infrastructure program and it is this government that helped in dealing with Halifax and sewage. It is the city of Victoria that is polluting the sea. It could step up to the plate. We have a program, a program no thanks to the Conservative Party.

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments are much broader than the question originally posed. First of all, it is nice to hear the member from the Conservative-Alliance finally recognizing the importance of the environment. Given that, I guess a death bed confession is better than nothing. The fact is that the member's party has not even recognized the science when it comes to climate change.

Our government is the one that brought in project green, the greenest $10 billion budget in Canadian history, and the most aggressive plan of the G-7 in terms of dealing with climate change. The party over there denies Kyoto and an international role for Canada. It is this Minister of the Environment who has in fact been very engaged in ensuring leadership as we lead up to COP 11 and MOP 1 in Montreal. We are going to demonstrate to the world not only what Canada is doing but working collaboratively with others to ensure that it is a global responsibility.

I would point out to the member that on the issue of sumas energy 2 the Government of Canada, through the Department of the Environment, provided necessary information and scientific data. In the end, as the member quite rightly pointed out, the National Energy Board turned down the application. Sumas energy 2 appealed it, as was its right and again it was denied. So, I am not really sure what the issue on sumas energy 2 was because we provided the information. Presumably, that assisted in the decision which was no.

I know the hon. member. I am sure he likes no because that is what he wanted and that is what was delivered. The fact is that we certainly do not have any lessons to learn from the Conservative-Alliance on the issue of the environment.

We are dealing with, for example, wind energy. We are almost at the cusp now of dealing with the commercialization of wind energy in this country. The removal of over 90% of sulphur in gasoline is ahead of the United States. The move toward ensuring that we have renewable energy sources in the country is extremely important.

I am very proud of the fact that the Minister of the Environment, the government and the Prime Minister have taken the leadership role, both at home and abroad. We have the technology fund to promote green technologies in this country. We have the partnership fund to work with the provinces and territories because unfortunately, environment is not purely a federal issue. It is municipal as well as provincial.

As a former president of the Federation of Municipalities, I can tell the member that I know lots about the Fraser Valley. I know lots about the issues there. I have dealt with municipal politicians in that region over the years. I can tell him that I applaud the cities in the Fraser Valley for the work they have done.

At the end of the day, if the issue is sumas energy 2, we provided the necessary information. It was no the first time. The appeal came and it was no the second time. To suggest that the federal government was not involved and was not a player is absolutely factually incorrect.

However, on the issue of the environment, I am hearing from the member and congratulate him on recognizing the health issues regarding the environment. It is something that members in his party and at committee do not recognize on a daily basis. Maybe the member should join our committee because he is a little more enlightened, at least on that aspect, than some other members that I have heard, which is disappointing, I must say.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group respecting its participation in the second General Assembly of Interparliamentarians for Social Service held in Seoul, Korea August 24 to 28, 2005.

I might say that at that conference I was re-elected international vice-president of the organization.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill S-37, which is about the importance of protecting cultural heritage.

Canada, as we know, is a country with a rich and diverse heritage. The importance of our heritage has long been recognized by the government. We have established our national museums, our libraries and our archives. We have a system of national parks, sites and monuments that, I would suggest, is second to none.

We are committed players on the international stage in terms of international agreements that seek to protect the world's heritage.

Why do we do this? Because as a nation we recognize that our cultural heritage is at the heart of our society: where we have been, what we have done and, indeed, who we are.

From the famed totem poles of the Haida to the Parliament buildings, from the historic districts of Quebec City to Newfoundland and Labrador's Cabot tower, our historic places are as important to us in terms of our identity as the maple leaf, the beaver and, indeed, the Rocky Mountains.

Because we recognize how important heritage is, we also recognize what a terrible thing it is when heritage is lost. There is ample evidence of our efforts as a nation and as a government in seeking to prevent the loss of heritage.

Most recently, I would like to point out the government's historic places initiative. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I had an opportunity to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues in this regard. It is a model, I believe, of a federal-provincial-territorial partnership, which seeks to stem the loss of our built heritage and other historic places through such means as financial initiatives and financial incentives for developers to adopt and reuse rather than tear down historic buildings.

As a former educator who taught Canadian history for many years, I can tell members that for me this is a very personal issue. It is extremely important in terms of protecting the heritage of this country for future generations.

I can give another good example. We have seen only too clearly the impact on a society of the loss of culture and heritage among Canadian aboriginal peoples. We have learned that regaining a sense of culture and a sense of identity can be central to the healing of a community.

The government has committed to providing support to aboriginal communities to help preserve aspects of their heritage that have been or could be lost. One of the most important initiatives of this kind is the government's commitment of $172.5 million over 11 years to preserve, revitalize and promote aboriginal languages and cultures, because we understand how important cultural heritage is to a society.

We have seen that the very reason heritage is so important to people is also why it is a target during armed conflicts. We have seen it in the former Yugoslavia. We have seen it in Afghanistan and recently in Iraq. We have seen cultural heritage targeted specifically because of the long term and often permanent damage its destruction can do to a people, to their morale, their identity and the long term well-being of their society.

The list of examples is disturbingly long and is evidence of great pain and distress. I would like to illustrate this with just a few points.

During the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, members may remember hearing and seeing the story of the intentional destruction of the 16th century bridge at Mostar. It was not just a bridge. It was an important cultural icon to the local community. It was intentionally destroyed to demoralize them.

I want to quote the comments of a journalist who tried to convey what the loss of this important piece of heritage meant. He said:

We expect people to die; we count on our own lives to end. The destruction of a monument to civilization is something else. The bridge, in all its beauty and grace, was built to outlive us...it transcended our individual destiny. A dead man is one of us; the bridge is all of us forever.

Bill S-37 will clear the way for Canada to strengthen our commitment to prevent and punish acts of this kind. We demonstrated that commitment by joining the Hague convention. It is now time to reaffirm that commitment by joining the two protocols to the convention.

Canada has been very fortunate not to have suffered the loss of its heritage during a modern armed conflict, but Canadians are not strangers to this issue.

We have seen the conviction of former Yugoslav military personnel for war crimes as a result of the 1991 attack on the world heritage site in Dubrovnik. I can tell members that it was a member of the Canadian armed forces who led the UN war crimes investigation team that investigated alleged war crimes in the former Yugoslavia in general and in Dubrovnik in particular.

This same expert from our armed forces also participated in Canada's delegation to the diplomatic conference that finalized the second protocol to the Hague convention in 1999.

Canadians understand what this is about. We are involved. We are committed to the protection of heritage at home and abroad. We understand and are committed to the international rule of law and to preventing the damage and destruction of important heritage during armed conflict.

We have an international obligation. We are going to fulfill that obligation with the passage of Bill S-37. In my view, joining the Hague protocols is the next logical step in that commitment. I would certainly urge all members of this House to support this. I believe it is timely. Again, I believe it is the last piece we need to have to ensure the protection, on an international basis, of heritage sites during armed conflict.