James Lunney

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Excuse me, that party opposite when it was in government. Thank you. It chose a very tough assignment for our forces. Everybody acknowledges that we cannot build without security. We have to get the security right in order to build.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. It is obvious that the government opposite chose the Kandahar assignment. It was a tough--

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some of that discussion related to his question already today.

We have not just decided that Ottawa will draw up a plan for rebuilding in Kandahar province, but like the other successful provincial reconstruction teams, Canada's model has been to ask the local officials and the local councils, and to consult on what projects would best help their communities prosper, such as building another bridge, which we recently did. There is the Arghandab River causeway joining highways 1 and 4, a tremendous project. We just built a well at Kandahar University, with a civil military cooperation team. These are great examples of responding to local needs and getting the job done so that the local economies can improve and life can be better in each of those communities.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are kids in Canada who are not in school when they are supposed to be, but whatever the exact numbers are, I am sure they change from day to day. It is a difficult task for kids going to school in this area. It is a difficult task for families trying to rebuild. There is still instability in some areas, but it is getting better all the time. Since our forces have made a concerted effort to root out those insurgents by going out and chasing them down, security has been improved.

We know what was happening when the Taliban was allowed free rule there. They came in and burned down the schools and killed the teachers.

There has been a great improvement in security, with all due respect to my colleague opposite. Our Canadian Forces recently helped to rebuild and pave the key Kandahar-Spin Boldak highway. It is crucial to have paved roads there, because IEDs cannot be planted effectively in paved roads.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I have been following the debate with a lot of interest today, as I did last night as well. I cannot go on with my speech without first making reference to our troops who are serving on the front lines in Afghanistan representing their country, and to our development forces, the people who are working hard on provincial development and construction teams.

I am sure most members receive Veritas Magazine. The current issue features one of our fallen soldiers, Captain Matthew Dawe, representing one of the 79 soldiers who have fallen, a fine Canadian young man. A fine family gave up a son who was over in Afghanistan serving our nation and doing tremendous work as part of a NATO led coalition, a UN sponsored mission, trying to bring that country into the modern era. It is a tremendous undertaking in this decade.

The purpose of this debate is to discuss why we are there, and some interesting information is coming forward in that regard.

Being from Nanaimo—Alberni, I am probably as far away from Ottawa as one could get in Canada, perhaps with the exception of the member from the Arctic. We do not have a large military presence in my riding, other than a very large contingent of retired military, but we do have a reservist unit in our area, the 5th (B.C.) Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, based in Victoria and up in Nanaimo. At least one of my constituents, Eric McNealy, is serving in Afghanistan right now. Certainly our thoughts and prayers are with him and with all of our forces over in Afghanistan.

There has been some discussion about the Manley panel report. It was not that long ago that the Canadian government commissioned five distinguished Canadians to go to Afghanistan to interview people. They spent three months conducting more than 470 interviews. They interviewed people on the ground in Afghanistan. They interviewed aid workers and other of our NATO allies over there. They thoroughly examined the issues.

It was disappointing to me, as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, that when it came time to bring the Manley panel before the committee to hear their observations and to ask them questions, that did not happen. Whether we agree with their conclusions or not, it seems to me it is the responsibility of committee members to listen to their observations. For years I served on the health committee, and whether it was the Romanow report or the Kirby report from the Senate, if it had to do with health, we wanted to interview the people because we wanted to contribute to the debate.

It was rather disturbing that the members of the opposition in both the national defence committee and the foreign affairs committee turned down the opportunity to have the Manley panel appear. Members could have asked questions in order to have a more fulsome debate on that very well-informed document about the future role of Canada in Afghanistan. It is about why we are there, what we are doing, what we are accomplishing, what the facts on the ground are. The members of the panel had the privilege of spending three months reviewing this issues. Most members of Parliament have not had the opportunity to examine the issues in-depth that these distinguished panellists had.

That was a very large opportunity for the members serving on those committees to inform themselves and better enter into this debate today and it was missed. I think the tone of some of the questions reflects a lack of information and members would have been well served by reading the report, if not taking that opportunity to actually have the panel members at committee and get the answers to their questions.

We heard the minister of state a short time ago talk about her experience in Afghanistan with the women and the impact of the microfinance programs. We have to understand that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and we are trying to help out. A microfinance loan for as little as $100 can help a woman who has lost her husband. Many thousands of women are widowed because their husbands were killed by the Taliban. They are raising their children. A simple microfinance loan could help them establish a small business, feed their family and help them get their children an education in order to move ahead and create a local economy. It was mentioned that 90% of those very small loans are being repaid, which is probably a good lesson for some government programs we have seen around here, where large loans are made and not repaid, but that is another story.

The microfinance loans are being repaid. We heard a comment that perhaps the 5% of loans that are not paid are those that are given to men. It is a great thing that we are over there helping to create a local economy, especially with the women, and allowing them to establish a business, whether it is baking bread for their family and neighbours, or whether it is a small business of another nature.

Why are we in Afghanistan? We hear this question being asked. It puzzles me because there are many reasons that we are there. We are accomplishing things. The first and most important thing to say is that we are part of a NATO led, UN sanctioned international security assistance force, commonly called ISAF.

The role of ISAF is to restore security to allow the rebuilding of Afghanistan to continue. There is development and reconstruction work, the building of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals for example, which can only take place when civilian workers and the projects they are working on are themselves safe from harm. This is the secure space that Canada's military and our international partners are there to provide.

We are there as part of a coalition of some 37 nations. Most of them are NATO nations, but there are other allies as well. The member opposite asked why it is that for every $1 that is spent on aid another $12 are spent on the military? We heard the parliamentary secretary address that a moment ago. Our soldiers are not only over there doing military work, but they are actually part of the reconstruction team. They are building the roads and bridges. We hope to outline some of the great projects they have done in a very difficult area.

It is true what the member suggests. There are other members who have suggested that we should pull out of a very difficult assignment in Kandahar province. The previous Liberal government sent us to that area. It deliberately chose that province knowing it would be a tough assignment. We might have had an easier assignment building in Kabul where there is much more security, or in the north of Afghanistan where security is not as big an issue. Frankly, our troops are on the front line making it possible for all the great successes in other areas.

If our troops were not holding the line in the south and countering the insurgency coming in from the south, which is the volatile and unruly area, then reconstruction efforts throughout the entire country would be in peril. We would be foolish to think that if insurgents were capable of overrunning Kandahar province that they would stop there, that they would not turn their attention to Helmand province on the other side and other provinces and roll right back into Kabul and continue their tyranny throughout the entire country.

We are on the front lines in a very difficult spot. Our troops have paid the price. They are doing their duty in an admirable way. As Canadians, we should be very proud of that.

I visited our military base in Trenton over the summer. Our transport squadrons are based there. I was very impressed with the morale in the military and with the focus, discipline and camaraderie on that very large base. There are some 3,500 military and civilian personnel there. They have the tough assignment of receiving their fallen comrades back on behalf of the entire country because the planes land in Trenton.

It is commendable that Canadians have taken it upon themselves without prompting, without being encouraged or told to do it, to line up on that highway which we now refer to as the Highway of Heroes whenever a fallen countryman returns home.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Let me talk about education. More than six million children, one-third of them girls, are now enrolled in school in 2007-08. Under the Taliban back in 2001 there were only 700,000 children, boys only, in school. The economy has doubled. Community development is moving ahead. There are more than 19,000 community development councils, more than 10 vocational training initiatives in Kandahar. The number of tuberculosis cases has declined. Childbirth statistics are improving. The number of deaths of women during childbirth is down and the infant mortality rate is down. Those are all good reasons for being in Kandahar and in Afghanistan.

I could go on for some time, but I will conclude with this point, that more than five million refugees have returned since 2002 and more than 365,000 in 2007. Ninety per cent of those returnees are finding jobs within six months of their return.

We are making a difference in a very difficult part of the world. Our Canadian Forces are admired. They have taken on a tough assignment. We are doing the rebuilding that is necessary and we are making progress. I hope all members will stand together to show our forces that we are standing with them at this time.

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend from the NDP, the member for Timmins—James Bay. He added some very interesting points to the discussion, although he was all over the map on a range of other issues, which were interesting but maybe not relevant to the debate.

Since we are debating a bill to amend the Constitution Act that goes back to 1867, he quite correctly pointed out that many small ridings with a small number of people are being represented by one member, perhaps in Yukon or in Northwest Territories, 30,000. Maybe there are 30,000 in Prince Edward Island. It is very different.

We have had to juggle between areas that are vastly distributed with small populations, in an attempt to bring balance over the years. For some of the members who have entered the debate tonight and who have ignored what has happened historically, it has never been exclusively representation by population. We have always had to balance the disparities and regions by population.

There have been three guiding principles: first, no province would have less MPs than senators, and our friends from Prince Edward Island like to remind us they were good negotiators; second, no area would lose seats; and third, representation by population should be attempted.

The bill attempts to do exactly that. No region would lose seats. It is consistent with the history of conciliation, recognizing other areas that have needs. It will provide a representation for those provinces that have vastly outgrown other areas because of the tremendous growth in recent history.

Provinces like Ontario, which would receive more MPs, have a better ratio of representation by population and it will have a higher representation in the House than it has now.

Would the member not recognize that the bill, as put forward, is very consistent with the way members throughout history have tried to balance and juggle these things and therefore change his position and support the bill?

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member now not only purports to speak for his own constituents in Mississauga—Erindale, but he is purporting that the bill is bad for all Canadians.

Maybe the member has heard of other provinces in the country, which have been growing like Ontario, such as British Columbia and Alberta, that have been under-represented for years under the old formula, even as Ontario is currently under-represented in the House.

I want to ask the member the question I asked his colleague a few minutes earlier. The Liberals are saying that Ontario is a big loser here. I want to repeat that under the current formula, Ontario has 34.4% of the seats in the House. Under the new formula, it would have 35.1%. It seems to me that is more than it used to be. The figures go from 121,000 constituents per member of Parliament currently from Ontario to 115,000 per member. That is about 6,000 less. That would be 10 more seats for Ontario in this House.

Therefore, Ontario would have a higher percentage of seats, fewer constituents per member, more members per population and 10 new seats in the House. That is win, win, win. What part of win does the member have a hard time understanding?

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put forward that somehow Ontario is being hurt by the legislation. He should do the math. He may have heard the parliamentary secretary say the average MP afterwards would have 115,000 constituents compared to 121,000 today. They currently have 106 out of 308 seats. That is roughly 34.4%. Under the new formula, they would have 35.1%. What part of that hurts the most?

[Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, visiting Parliament Hill today is the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus. This is the second annual visit by the caucus, which is comprised of rabbis from across Canada, men and women, from all streams of Judaism.

They are visiting Ottawa today to meet with parliamentarians and government officials, representing their various communities and bringing a rabbinical and spiritual point of view.

Noting that terrorism is rampant in the world, the rabbis will repeat their call to the leaders of all faith groups to denounce the killing of innocents in the name of God or of religion.

The Rabbinic Caucus carries the message once more to all Canadians that overseas conflicts and the resultant passionately held views should not be allowed to degenerate into uncivil discourse and antagonisms here at home.

This caucus has embraced a hope shared by many Canadians that Canada, as an open, pluralistic, democratic and diverse society, might aspire to be the country that offers guidance and inspiration to the world in these troubled times.

I hope all members will join me in welcoming the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus to Parliament Hill.

[Petitions, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from more than 380 people about natural health products. The petitioners note that Canadians support the use of natural health products to promote health and wellness. They note that improved access to natural health products will help Canadians to better manage their own health and relieve pressure on the Canadian health care system.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products by removing the GST from them and enacting Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (natural health products).