Deepak Obhrai

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member nitpicks areas where he thinks the budget has not impressed. However, look at the whole the budget, the economy and what the government has done. I do not understand why he has difficulty with reducing the GST by 2%, or income splitting for pensioners. Now we have a new savings plan. The budget addresses the issues of ordinary Canadians.

During the long 13 years of Liberal rule, taxes were going up and Canadians were feeling the pinched. Now, for the first time, when tax returns are done, Canadians will see more money returned to them. More money in the pockets of Canadians is more wisely spent than in the pockets of the bureaucrats.

I fail to understand why the member or his party would not support the budget when we take into account the global picture of what is happening with the Canadian economy, what we are targeting toward aboriginals, students, seniors, as well as reducing the GST, which benefits everyone. It is beyond our understanding. Canadians keep asking what is wrong with that party and why can it not support good policies.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the motion clearly specifies how we would inform Canadians. We have been informing Canadians all the time. The NDP members have their heads in the sand. I said that the NDP has an attitude of hear no reason, and now I say it is one of hear no information. The NDP has already made a decision for Canada to leave. What is the point in telling those members anything because they have already made a decision not to support this resolution. I fail to understand the member's question at all.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Bloc does not want us to leave tomorrow as the other parties have been saying. If we leave in 2009, the work will not be done.

The member referred to a book. My ancestors came from that region and I know what is going on there. My colleagues and I understand the cultural complexity of that region.

Never before has there been such a brutal regime as the Taliban, even in Afghanistan's history. For the first time the international community has joined together. The international community under the United Nations has joined together under the Afghanistan Compact to rebuild that country, and that will be the success the member is asking for. If we stay until 2011, our work will be a success. The London compact, the Afghanistan Compact by the international community, is working.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important historical day. The Afghan ambassador told me yesterday at a function that today is a very important historical day for Canada and the international community, because today we are discussing Afghanistan. Today we are discussing international efforts to bring peace and stability in the world. Today we are talking about providing security.

It is an international effort mandated by the United Nations under NATO command, but the whole community is coming together. Not only is NATO providing security, but it is also important that all the regional countries are in Afghanistan to rebuild it: India, Pakistan, China, all of them.

I have attended the rebuilding conferences on Afghanistan in New Delhi to see how all the regional countries have joined together to provide development assistance. Although NATO and Canada are providing the security aspect, we must not forget that the development effort in Afghanistan is not only done by us, but also by all of the regional countries that surround Afghanistan. They know the importance of stability in Afghanistan because it provides security for them as well.

Today I would like to give the House an update on our mission in Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members why Canada is in Afghanistan and why it is so important that we continue the work we are doing.

What has been achieved in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban is remarkable. Through Afghanistan's determination, Canadian efforts and the support of the international community, Afghans are showing leadership and taking control of their own lives and their country as a whole. Let me list a few achievements in this regard for the benefit of the House.

Close to six million children, one-third of them girls, are enrolled in schools in 2007-08. That compares with the 2001 figure of 700,000 consisting of boys only. Canada is supporting work to establish 4,000 community based schools and train 9,000 teachers, 4,000 of them female. About 120,000 children, 85% of them girls, will benefit.

Afghans' per capita income doubled between 2004 and 2007. Canada is the top donor to Afghanistan's microfinance program. This program is benefiting more than 418,000 savings and small loans service clients in 23 provinces, including Kandahar. More than two-thirds of the program's clients are women.

Some 83% of Afghans now have access to basic medicare. That compares with 9,000 in 2004. The infant mortality rate is down by 22% since 2001. To look at it another way, this means 40,000 more babies survive every year. The under five child mortality rate is down 26%.

Behind these numbers is the undeniable truth that the living conditions of the people of Afghanistan are improving, that this country, which suffered so terribly under the brutal Taliban rule and through years of civil war, is being rebuilt. We are proud that Canada is assisting in this. We are especially proud of the tremendous work being accomplished by the brave Canadian men and women, both military and civilian, who are serving in Afghanistan. Through these collective efforts, the Afghanistan government is developing institutional capacity that will have enduring results. However, rebuilding a country like Afghanistan after decades of war takes time and commitment.

For these reasons, the Canadian government has taken seriously the recommendations made by the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. This group of eminent Canadians was given the difficult task of providing Canadians with the high level of debate, insight and analysis that goes beyond partisan politics. The result of their efforts is a balanced, thoughtful and comprehensive report to Canadians.

The government has accepted the panel's specific recommendation of extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan under the conditions that the right steps are taken to ensure that our young men and women who are in harm's way are given the best chance of success.

Alongside the United Nations and our international partners, Canada has been effectively engaged in efforts to strengthen Afghan governance at the national and subnational levels. Canadian efforts focus on helping the Afghan government strengthen the efficiency, transparency and accountability of its institutions.

Let me comment on the revised motion on Afghanistan that our government has presented to the House. The revised motion represents an effort to achieve a bipartisan consensus on the future of Afghanistan. It acknowledges what is required of Canada's mission to succeed.

It is evident that the commitment to Afghanistan made by successive Canadian governments has not yet been completed. The ultimate objective is to enable the Afghans to govern their own country. By signalling our intent to withdraw now, we would run the risk of losing everything that we have worked for. There is no doubt that the cost of failure and abandonment would be hard.

We can all take heart from the fact that there is some fundamental common ground between the government and the official opposition on Afghanistan. This is visible particularly when it comes to the idea for the mission to continue until 2011. We also see common ground on the notion that operational decisions should be left to Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan. On this side of the House we believe this is a reasonable compromise. We believe this addresses the important questions Canadians have about the future of the mission.

The revised motion states a clear and principled position. This is a Canadian position, rather than just a Conservative position or a Liberal position. As a Canadian position, it is one that can be supported by the majority of the elected representatives of the Canadian people. This is the duty we owe to our troops. Every day they put their lives on the line for us. It was politicians of both parties who asked them to do that. It is now up to the politicians to do their part for the people of Afghanistan and to work together to reach a consensus on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Yesterday I was at a function on the promotion of democracy, something which the foreign affairs committee had presented last year to the House. It talked about how Canada would be involved in the promotion of democracy. This conference was being held at Queen's University.

Sitting next to me was a young German lady from a German institution that does development work in Afghanistan. We talked about the development of Afghanistan. She said she represented an institution with the same left-wing ideology as the NDP. I asked her what she thought about the position of that party. She said she was there to tell them that without security, there will be no development in Afghanistan.

That institution has the same ideology as the NDP, the party with its head in the sand and the attitude of hear no reason, see no reality. That party is the only party around the world with the ideology that says to leave Afghanistan without development. Yet the NDP's own brothers and sisters around the world, including the lady from Germany, are saying that there can be no development without security.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member is on the foreign affairs committee with me. He is a former vice-chair. I have been working with him on the foreign affairs committee for a long time and I respect his judgment on the foreign affairs committee.

However, I have some questions for him in light of what his associate foreign affairs critic said yesterday in this House in reference to the study the foreign affairs committee is doing on Afghanistan.

As part of the whole study on Afghanistan, it is important to listen to all voices so that the committee can get all the facts and figures and make the right judgment. One of the key elements of that is the bipartisan panel headed by Mr. Manley. That panel was mandated to take a comprehensive and unbiased look at the mission and come back with recommendations, which we now see the government has adopted in this resolution, and now we find enough common ground with the Liberal Party.

When we in the committee asked for the Manley panel to come in front of the committee, the Liberals refused. Why they refused, I do not know. It came to me to ask them why they were afraid of the Manley panel, why they would not listen to the Manley panel.

We have put forward a request that the Manley commission come before the committee. I have submitted those names as witnesses. I hope that at committee the Liberal Party will agree to have the members of the Manley commission come before the committee so we can listen to them. They are free to ask any questions.

What I fail to understand is that yesterday the member's associate foreign affairs critic said that the Manley commission members should have talked to us beforehand. Why would they talk to us? We are not the experts on Afghanistan. We are studying the issue on Afghanistan. Why would they come beforehand and listen to the committee? It should have been the other way around. I am extremely amazed that the Liberal position is that the Manley commission should have listened to us before going out. We are not the experts. In fact, we listen to the experts.

Perhaps he could explain what his associate foreign affairs critic said yesterday.

[Ukraine, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was very disappointed by the recent statements made by Russian leaders, including President Putin, stating that they would aim nuclear weapons at Ukraine if it joined NATO and allowed U.S. missile defence assets on its territory. Such statements are a source of preoccupation in Canada as well as with the Euro-Atlantic community.

Even if couched in hypothetical terms, the threat gives us cause for considerable concern. As a matter of fundamental principle, the use of such threats is unacceptable. Moreover, it is not consistent with the positive relationships we have been striving to develop in the post-cold war environment.

Our response is firm: the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine are not to be questioned. Ukraine is free and must remain free to choose the foreign policy course that suits its aspirations. In this respect, it can count on Canada's unquestionable support.

[Burma, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was appalled by last September's violent crackdown by the Burmese regime on protestors exercising their right to peaceful dissent. This is why last November the government imposed the world's toughest sanctions against the Burmese regime.

The Burmese authorities have continued to arrest and detain those who participated in the protests. This January the regime charged 10 pro-democracy activists.

On Saturday, the Burmese regime announced its intention to hold a referendum on a new constitution in May, as well as general elections in 2010. However, Canada believes that an authentic dialogue with members of the democratic movement must occur if there is to be democratic reform in Burma.

We urge the Burmese regime to include all concerned parties in both the constitutional and electoral processes.

[February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated to the hon. member, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that he reported the matter to Passport Canada. Passport Canada has assured us that the problem has been fixed.

Only a few files were accessed. All POL users must register using the Government of Canada's secure channel. Passport Canada has the ability to track who accesses what files and when. Furthermore, only a small portion of the online application can be accessed. Of the six pages that make up the online form, only the fifth one was vulnerable.

Passport Canada's main database was never jeopardized. Passport online is temporary and it stores information for those who apply for a passport through the web. Passport Canada takes seriously the obligation to safeguard personal information by ensuring that the most effective and secure processes are in place.

[February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight on this issue. I thank the member for Windsor West for bringing forward this issue.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, like Passport Canada's CEO Gerald Cossette, was very concerned to learn of the breach of the passport online system. This incident was investigated and Mr. Cossette assured the minister that Passport Canada took immediate steps to correct this very serious issue.

In fact, this incident had been reported to Passport Canada before the press covered it. Passport Canada immediately suspended access to the system, investigated this claim and took appropriate action.

Passport Canada recognizes that the protection of personal information is of critical importance. To this end, it dictates significant resources to ensure that the privacy of our fellow citizens is properly safeguarded. Passport Canada will continue to work to ensure that the passport online system operates securely, including constant monitoring and testing.

Rest assured that this incident received prompt and meticulous attention and that all issues were fixed before being made public. Passport online now is a highly secure application.

In short, the member for Windsor West would be pleased to know that this problem has been fixed.

[Afghanistan, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we see yet again more confusion and division on the part of the Liberal Party when it comes to our mission in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party insisted that the Liberals want to stay in Afghanistan. He stated, “The party over there wants to pull out of Afghanistan, not this party”.

Yet the leader of the Liberal Party wants to continue to stick to his line that Canadian soldiers should not be allowed to engage in a combat mission in Afghanistan, but only to do training. Of course, he has no problem with invading Pakistan.

Perhaps the deputy leader of the Liberal Party could explain to his leader what the independent panel said on this kind of plan:

One variant would have Canada end its combat mission completely in February 2009. This Panel did not judge this to be a viable option.

The deputy leader of the Liberal Party said recently, “do it right or don't do it at all”. That is what he should tell his leader.