House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 48% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs June 13th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should ask the member from his party for Pickering—Scarborough East, who said, on November 8, 2005, that the charges against Omar Khadr were very serious.
As we have said, Mr. Khadr faces serious charges. Any questions regarding whether Canada plans to ask for his release are premature and speculative at this time.
Zimbabwe June 13th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, Canada endorses the statement made last week by 40 eminent African leaders that the Zimbabwe election should be free and fair.
Canada condemns the repeated detention by two key opposition leaders, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara, and the recent arrest of Tendai Biti. Opposition should be permitted to campaign freely without fear and prosecution.
We are also very concerned that the government of Zimbabwe continues to harass and effectively shut down independent organizations. In such an environment it is impossible for a free, fair and democratic election to take place.
We support greater UN involvement in Zimbabwe, including an envoy and UN Security Council consideration of the situation. Last week, the Government of Canada called on the Zimbabwean ambassador to deliver these strong messages and to express our deep concerns with the recent conduct of the Zimbabwean government.
National Defence Act June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice to this debate.
As the House knows, this is a government that is firmly committed to the principles of accountability, transparency and openness. We recognize the important role that Parliament plays in upholding these principles.
Parliamentarians, representing Canadians from coast to coast, form the fundamental building blocks of our democracy, which is why, from day one, the government recognized the value and importance of engaging the House.
Through rigorous debates and informed discussions, we have demonstrated our belief in Parliament's relevance. We have shown time and time again that we are committed to strengthening the role the House plays in decisions affecting Canada and Canadians.
However, the government is not prepared to support Bill C-513.
My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, has already eloquently outlined the many negative implications that the bill would have on the relationship between government and the Parliament of Canada in important areas related to national defence and to our ability to act effectively and rapidly in Canada's interest abroad.
My colleague reminded us of the dangers that the bill would pose to the Crown's prerogative in vital areas of foreign policy and defence. He reminded us that the bill would severely diminish Canada's standing as a reliable ally. He reminded us that the bill would severely compromise Canada's capacity to play a leadership role on the world stage.
Perhaps none of this should surprise us. The Bloc is not in the business of putting Canada first. In contrast to the Bloc, which seems to try everything possible to weaken Canada, our government does everything possible to strengthen Canada. That is why we oppose the bill.
In addition to the countless glaring problems with the bill, which my colleague outlined during the first hour of debate, I will use this opportunity to discuss the technical flaws that plague the bill. In this respect. I wish to speak to three key technical problems.
First, Bill C-513 would require the Minister of National Defence to table the declaration of intention to place Canadian Forces on active service before the House of Commons and would require the minister to table the declaration to place the Canadian military on active service for a foreign mission, which might include an offensive facet.
In requiring a declaration of intention to place Canadian Forces on active services, the proposed legislation fails to recognize that an order in council already exists that places all deployed Canadian Forces personnel on active service.
By virtue of OIC, PS.1989-583, April 6, 1989, the regular force component of the Canadian Forces is already on active service in Canada and abroad and reserve armed forces serving abroad are on active service. Moreover, the Canadian Forces, its components, units, elements and members can be deployed internationally without being placed on active service. They can be placed on active service without being deployed abroad.
Indeed, the placement of Canadian Forces members on active service has consequences, though upon discipline and the Canadian Forces' ability to retain a member at the conclusion of their service engagement.
For the benefit of the member opposite, it may be helpful to explain what it means for a member of the Canadian Forces to be on active service.
Placing a Canadian Forces member on active service merely allows the Canadian Forces to retain members in the service, if required, and allows service tribunals to impose more severe sentences in respect of some service offences.
The second technical flaw in my colleague's bill is that she fails to define clearly what she means by an offensive facet. The reference “offensive facets” implicitly suggests that offensive and defensive facets can be easily distinguished. One again, the member opposite has it wrong. Bill C-513 has it wrong. To distinguish between offensive and defensive facets of a mission is artificial, meaningless and misleading.
In the complex security environment of the 21st century, to describe the military's role as either offensive or defensive is an unfortunate oversimplification.
While the Bloc member may prefer to divide the world into simple dichotomies, French/ English, separatist/federalist, some things defy strict categories. The role of the military in a mission is not always subject to quick and easy classification as offensive or defensive. The issue is not black or white. All Canadian Forces missions are conducted pursuant to a national defence mandate. Offensive actions may be required while in a defensive role.
The third technical shortcoming of the bill pertains to its failures to include a provision on what would happen if Parliament was not in session, what happen if Parliament had been prorogued and what would happen if Parliament had been dissolved for an election.
In any of these cases, there would be a clear delay in order to secure the kind of authorization for which the bill calls. Such deals for a vital emergency military deployment could be disastrous. It is not difficult to imagine the challenges that would have resulted had Bill C-513 been in place in the summer of 2006, when Canada took action to rescue people in southern Lebanon. Would the member's bill require Parliament to have passed a motion to deploy troops to this rescue operate?
Oftentimes in the course of a rescue mission, soldiers may have to resort to the use of protective fire. When this happens, do the forces in this rescue operation still play a defensive role, Or have their efforts become offensive?
When Canadians elect a government, they entrust the government with an exclusive right to deploy our armed forces. To support the bill would be to undermine that trust. The current framework and system by which decisions are taken to deploy forces abroad is not broken. Bill C-513 would take a well-functioning arrangement and would break it.
Canada's Parliament has a long and distinguished history of considering our military deployments. We take these deployments seriously and Parliament's views are sought. We have held debates to ensure that Parliament is kept fully abreast of the actions of the Canadian Forces as they seek to bring peace and order in conflict situations. Whether 50 years ago, when Canadians were deployed to the Suez as part of the United Nations Emergency Force, or today in Afghanistan, Parliament's views have been heard and have been respected by our government.
In conclusion, while we appreciate the principle behind the legislation, serious and fundamental technical flaws mar Bill C-513. In addition to the technical flaws that mar the bill, the proposed legislation fails to recognize existing levels of parliamentary oversight. It fails to appreciate the importance of the government's authority to act quickly and decisively. In so doing, it fails Canadians.
The famed English philosopher, Edmund Burke once stated, that, “Parliament is a deliberate assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole”. I could not agree more. Here in this chamber we consider the business of all of Canada. As Canada's elected representatives, we carefully deliberate on every issue that will shape our collective future.
Today, we are continuing to build on a legacy that stretches back to the earliest days of our nation. I am proud to be a member of this government, a government that recognizes and honours this heritage. At all times, we have worked hard to advance the principles of accountability, transparency and openness.
However, we cannot support the bill. In attempting to fix a problem that, frankly, does not exist, it would risk undermining our government's very ability to carry out Canada's foreign and defence policy.
Omar Khadr June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, Canada strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out in compliance with international law, including established standards of human rights and due process. That is the Government of Canada's position. Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges of terrorism.
However, let me just say the government is following the same policy that the previous government established in 2002.
Omar Khadr June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, we do not comment on any questions regarding another country's judicial process, but I would like to say to the former NDP leader of Ontario that he can ask his leader what was his government's policy because this policy was initiated when his leader was in the cabinet of the previous government.
Omar Khadr June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, as I have stated on numerous occasions, Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges in relation to his capture in Afghanistan. Any questions regarding Mr. Khadr's return to Canada are premature and speculative, as the legal process and appeals are still going on.
Omar Khadr June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, we do not comment on the judicial process of another country, but what is important to understand is that Mr. Khadr faces some very serious charges regarding terrorism.
The Government of Canada strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out in compliance with international law including the established standards of human rights and due process.
Committees of the House June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the member is right. I was born in Tanzania and I know very well the history of Tanzania. I was there during the time when the winds of change were taking place on the continent and what is today called Zimbabwe was ruled by a white regime. The country I was staying in was in the forefront of fighting colonialism and white supremacy rule.
I agree with the member that the situation now in Zimbabwe is terrible. It is not only terrible, but, as one of the pastors from South Africa stated last week, Zimbabwe has become a police state under Mr. Mugabe.
This government is acting very strongly and has made strong representations to the African Union and to the South African government to have peer pressure put on Mr. Mugabe to ensure that there is a fair and transparent election.
The good thing about all of this is Mr. Mugabe lost the election and now we have a run-off. Now it is critically important for the people of Zimbabwe to make their choice as to who will run.
The member is absolutely right that Mr. Mugabe is using all the state apparatus to ensure he stays in power. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of us to make that noise. However, I will never accept any kind of intervention as an invasion of Africa by any other forces out there. We must work with the African leaders to ensure they address the issues in Zimbabwe because it is in their interests as well.
Committees of the House June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Crowfoot for his work as chair of the foreign affairs committee and specifically for his work on this file. This motion was in front of the committee, and has been debated for a while.
As I mentioned in my speech earlier that Transparency International recently released a report in which it evaluated 42 petroleum companies on the basis of public disclosure. Guess which companies stood out? It was the Canadian companies. Canada's Nexon, Petro-Canada and Talisman Energy consistently ranked well in all categories, either high or very high, above average.
Companies are taking corporate social responsibility very well. Talisman now has a complete department that looks into corporate social responsibility.
Let me provide another concrete example to show how Canadian companies themselves do a very good job of meeting the standards.
Last January I was in Ecuador for the inauguration of President Correa. A lot of Canadian mining companies are in Ecuador, close to 43 of them. One company had not met the corporate social responsibility. It was the other Canadian companies that told that company to clean up its act. It was the Canadians policing themselves, because it is in the larger interest of Canada to ensure that it has well run, corporately social responsible companies.
As I mentioned, our investment is over $121 billion and it is vital for Canadian industries to police these things.
Committees of the House June 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, as the member should know, as we all know, Canadian companies are held to a very high standard by the Government of Canada. We expect them to comply not only with the rules of local countries, but what the Canadian public expects of them as well. That is the key element. The other day I had dinner with the Chilean delegation and it asked me this question. I said that Canadians expected Canadian companies to hold to these very high standards.
Yes, we have standards, but there are always challenges, and the member is right that things change. This is why the round table conference was held by the government with industry stakeholders, NGOs and everybody. Comprehensive round table conferences were held in four cities of Canada.
The recommendations are now with the government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, during committee of the whole, that he would respond to those recommendations after they had been studied, to ensure we got it right and that the laws of Canada were complied with. We should wait until that report comes forward before asking these kinds of questions.