Denis Coderre

[Point of Order, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, these past two days, during Oral Question Period, a tendency has been exhibited in this place, especially between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party.

I find it totally unacceptable, and I say so as a Quebecker, to see members from either side question the legitimacy of members of Parliament. Today, the member for Saint-Lambert, like the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie yesterday, referred to “token Quebeckers”. The member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière also questioned the legitimacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie by referring to him as “the token member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie”.

I find it unacceptable that members of Parliament be described as “token”. Every member of this House serves adequately his or her constituents. Some may be less competent than others, but the legitimacy of members should never be questioned. I therefore ask that, from now on, no reference to token Quebeckers be made in this House.

[National Defence, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to protect the equipment, he had better get out the anti-rust paint because 40 tanks have been sitting at Longue-Pointe for two years. Our armed forces cannot use these tanks or train with them because they do not have the equipment.

We have learned that one of the reasons the 60 tanks remain in Europe is that the Conservatives, through a bureaucratic trick, plan on tinkering with the existing budget and ensuring that Germany or Switzerland will obtain the contract for upgrading the tanks.

However, on April 12, 2007, his colleague announced:

“All of the work will be done in Canada”.

Why has the current defence minister changed his mind?

[National Defence, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a $1.3 billion matter. The former Minister of Defence had this to say on April 12, 2007: “Equipping Canada’s soldiers with the best protection is my top priority. By immediately acquiring stronger and more heavily protected tanks, our soldiers in Afghanistan have the best equipment possible...”

That was two years ago. Are the views of the current Minister of National Defence on protection and immediate procurement the reason why, of the 100 tanks purchased two years ago, 60 are presently in Europe and 40 are sitting idle at the Longue-Pointe base in Montreal?

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, we must be careful not to speak in absolute terms when trying to compare what was happening before with what is going on now. I agree with the hon. member that there is still a long way to go. I looked at the Transparency International index and Afghanistan fell by 59 points. Of course, so much needs to be done and not enough is being accomplished in terms of women's rights and freedom of the press. Certain cultural factors must be confronted there. We must not be ethnocentric, but certain questions definitely need to be addressed at the conference. This is not a new diplomatic approach. It is a diplomatic approach that should have been taken from the beginning.

That is the reality. That is why there was not enough emphasis put on the other “D”, which is diplomacy.

There is a situation with women. There is a situation with children. I noticed in a report that there are abortions taking place due to rapes. It is not a pretty sight and it is bad, but I would urge caution in saying that it is the same as when the Taliban was there.

Just one instance is one too many. We must focus on women's rights and the living conditions of the Afghan people.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. I have, from the outset, talked about the balance between the 3 Ds. Of course, the solution in Afghanistan is not military, it is political. We need to ensure that, of the 3 Ds, the D for diplomacy is able to do its best. So we have to re-evaluate our approach.

We had the Manley report. We are continually told that there is more to it, because now more civilians are involved. At the committee, which the hon. member attended this morning, we discussed a greater presence for CIDA and for Foreign Affairs. As Canadians, the first step that we ought to have taken was to have our own special envoy. We need that presence, that authority, and it would play a vital role. As I have said from the outset, we need to re-evaluate the situation and work towards a regional, geopolitical solution. We have to ensure that there is security, but we must emphasize diplomacy.

But it is the elections that concern me at the moment. We will have Mr. Karzai. There is a growing feeling that his government does not have the confidence of the international community. We think that there will be elections on August 20. What will happen if they are later? When we look at the opposition to Mr. Karzai, we need a code of conduct to achieve reconciliation when one wins and the other loses. But I have to confess that, if there is one area that we must emphasize, other than the matter of the special envoy, it really is how we are going to operate during the election period. There will be the security aspect to consider. There is also the aspect of ensuring that Pakistan does not interfere. In that sense, since the solution is political, diplomacy will have to regain its former glory at this conference.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, my approach today was neither positive nor negative, just constructive. I went to Afghanistan on my own, I would remind hon. members. Unfortunately, I did not have the backing of the Conservative government, but once I got to Islamabad, and to Kabul, the embassy took good care of me, as did our troops when I was in Kandahar.

That said, no I did not see the schools. I did, however, speak with a lot of people, some of them in the field, and they spoke to me of their concerns.

The Taliban have a proverb that says “you've got the watch”, talking about us, and “we've got the time”. That is the situation right now. Of course, we can say that there was some progress at certain levels, but the reality in the field and the reason why I read that, saying that Afghanistan is at the brink of chaos, is that it seems that there is a lot of territory that we have been winning. But because we are not necessarily there now, and there is the national army or the police force, that territory has also been recuperated by the Taliban.

At the same time, when Brigadier General Laroche was there and they made what is known as the “omelette”, when the forces were put together, interesting things happened.

Unfortunately, I am not certain about police training. There is a reality that must be taken into consideration. Many of these people are illiterate. They live under threat a great deal of the time. The Taliban are currently conducting guerrilla warfare. When people walk alone in the streets or are left on their own, they are vulnerable to Taliban attacks. For that reason, there is an increasing number of home-made bombs and attacks. Hospitals and the department of justice have been attacked. That is the reality in the field.

Progress can be made but much needs to be done. We need to know what is actually happening on the ground before going there because there is less security in Afghanistan at present.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, like my colleagues, I think this debate is extremely useful, and am very pleased that we can have it before the conference at the end of March.

As I said from the start, this debate is not about the relevance of the mission. I think we must send this message of solidarity to our troops and tell them just how much we support them and their families. We grieve when these young men die in uniform, in the name of peace, liberty and democracy.

Still, today, I think it essential to have this sort of debate to prepare the future exit strategy for our soldiers. It also serves to raise relevant questions as to the progress we have made and whether our efforts in the area of development are making a noticeable difference.

I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister said we would not win the war against the insurgents. We have known from the outset that the solution in Afghanistan was not a military one and that we had to reorganize accordingly. This was done subsequent to the Manley report. It was not done quickly enough in my opinion, because we have a 3D strategy in Canada—development, diplomacy and defence. It is time now to move on to another stage.

I must say that the article in Spiegel in which the Germans say “Afghanistan is on the brink of chaos” reads like a message from the local leaders.

It states:

--the US military and development workers in the troubled country. The elected government, they warn, can no longer compete with the Taliban.

We have a situation and the time has come to think and use that conference to make sure that we take the right decision, to make sure that we accompany the Afghan people to find a real solution for their needs.

As a country, as a citizen of the world, we have a duty to intervene when people are suffering, but at the same time it is important that we keep in mind that we are not there as a protectorate. We are there to accompany the Afghan people and we have to take some very important decisions.

I was a cabinet minister myself when we discussed that issue. The reason why we did not go to Iraq but we went to Afghanistan was exactly that, that multilateral issue. It is important that we all keep together and reaffirm that commitment, to be generous but not naive. It is important that we find a way to define if the triple Ds are properly put in place.

When I put questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it was in this regard. We can have one conference to reaffirm our commitment and one to ask the Afghan government what it has done.

It is a very corrupt government. President Karzai is even known as the mayor of Kabul, since over 60% of the country is uncontrolled. The situation in southern Afghanistan is difficult, as it is even now in the area of Wardak, west of Kabul. Kabul itself is even under attack. We are faced with this reality.

I want us to be happy. I am pleased because, with Mr. Obama, it seems there has been a revival and there will obviously be more troops. It feels like a new approach is on the way. Napoleon said that geography dictated politics. There are glimpses of a new geopolitical reality on the horizon. We must have a strategy for Pakistan, and Iran must certainly be watched, because the situation there needs watching. It is fine to say that production of poppies and opium is down, but it is a huge scourge and a problem.

Quite honestly, I would have appreciated the minister telling us, despite his eloquence, that we are not going there just to report on what is in the Canadian government's three latest reports. I would have liked him to describe his strategy. We are not going there just to reaffirm our commitment. An update on the current situation must be achieved, along with a plan for our activities in the next two years.

When the Prime Minister said that we could never beat the insurgents, if had he gone on to present our strategy, things would have gone a little better. Unfortunately the fact that he said it in the United States obviously distressed some people, but, more importantly, the fact that he did not go any further once again caused a problem with the perception of the mission. Many people sent me emails saying we had no business there. I say we do. We have things to do there.

It is a many sided situation, and if we eventually want to tackle Darfur and other countries, we have to recognize that we have a role to play as citizens of the world.

I believe that the role of those in power and officials, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of International Cooperation or the Prime Minister, is really to make it known that it does not stop there, and that the state of things must be taken into account.

Therefore, the exit strategy will be essential. It will make it possible to tell our soldiers that we are proud of them and that they did not fall in combat for nothing. After 2011, we will not be there in a military role, but, as in other operations, we will have a role in the humanitarian and diplomatic aspects.

I like the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but he has other fish to fry. He has more than one file to deal with. This way he can be asked to study a particular file, if we remind him that today, for example, is Afghanistan day.

We can say that also for our Minister of National Defence. He can say, “Today you take care of Afghanistan. We need you there”. The reason why we need that special envoy is exactly for that purpose. That person will have the full authority of the Prime Minister and all the delegation of power from all the departments. When we will have negotiations to take care of the situation of Afghanistan to apply those triple Ds, that person, because I have been a special adviser for IET, will have the kind of political authority which provides a solution eventually.

I could have talked more about national defence. There was discussion of equipment and the need for tanks. Of the 100 tanks bought, 40 or 60 are in Europe and 40 are at the Longue-Pointe base and are not yet organized.

Perhaps if I send a message to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, he could eventually explain to us why these tanks, so vital to the mission in Afghanistan, are still not ready. I think our 20 German Leopards had a few jolts and will probably be needed from now to 2011. We could have asked another question as well. In the name of the mission in Afghanistan, billions of dollars of equipment was bought, which is still not ready. The government was in such a hurry, that, in the name of national security, it bought equipment without bids, and it is still not in use today.

In these times of economic recession, it might be reasonable to ask ourselves how contracts were handed out. That said, I think we should talk more about the conference in The Hague. I hope that the Prime Minister and the minister will take our questions there and that, instead of adopting a wait and see attitude, they will be proactive and decide what will be done in the next two years in connection with the military.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for being available this evening. In today's debate, there is no question of the mission's relevance. We all agree on that, and I thank him for recognizing the work done by our troops. It is important to do so. That said, he will come up against one fact at the NATO conference. While we will reaffirm our commitment to this mission, there remain some unanswered questions.

There are differences between the north and the south, as he knows. There also are differences among countries, which are not conducting the same missions as the Canadians, the British, the Danes or the Americans. If greater success is to be assured, consistency is essential.

And so I would like to ask the minister first if an effort will be made to bring greater consistency to the mission, given that, for example, the German mission is not the same as the Canadian one or the Turkish one. The minister has also spoken of the Afghan government. In fact, it looks like an accounting, an attempt to see how the Afghan government has acted over all these years.

Pakistan, in its Waziristan region, for example, is a problem as well. It is an unoccupied zone, where the Pakistani government does not interfere. It is where the Taliban go to muster. This is a fact. There is even talk of applying sharia law there now. The Taliban are pretty much left on their own there. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about this Pakistani Afghani situation, and in particular as concerns this tribal area.

Finally, I would like to put another question to the minister, one that is not unimportant. It is fine to have a civilian head, to have someone who is empowered to negotiate at the same level as the general. I would like him to tell us why Canada has no special envoy, given the situation. I myself was the Prime Minister's special advisor for Haiti, and know very well that a full delegation of powers at all levels brings greater strength. The solution in Afghanistan has to be political. So why is there no special envoy from Canada?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister assumes responsibility for this appointment, fine, but he says he was not aware, and that holds no water. So it is one of two things: either he signs appointments blindly, or he signed this one on the recommendation of the political lieutenant of the Quebec Conservatives.

In committee today, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said that, had he known, he would not have appointed Mr. Pierre. Now the harm is done, will he withdraw his recommendation of Mr. Pierre as a board member and will he have cabinet cancel the appointment?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the Conservative government recently appointed Pharès Pierre, former chief of staff of the Prime Minister of Haiti during the Aristide regime, to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Given the importance of the Haitian situation for Canada, it is a source of concern that such an appointment has taken place. The Haitian diaspora is justifiably concerned.

Two questions arise with respect to this appointment. Why did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recommend Pharès Pierre as a board member, and did the security report not mention Mr. Pierre's political past in Haiti?