Jim Abbott

[Doping in Sport, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on Motion No. 466, which asks the government to continue to engage in the anti-doping movement and encourage other nations to ratify the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

The Government of Canada is determined to protect the integrity and values of sport, the athletes and the spirit of sport so athletes can compete fairly and equitably at all levels of competition.

Canada remains a leader in the global fight against doping. Our government is determined to support UNESCO in its efforts, in partnership with the World Anti-Doping Agency and other countries, in advancing the values of fair, ethical and doping free sport.

In Canada we support ethics in sport and continue the fight against doping through the Canadian policy on sport and the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport.

Canada has acquired these basic tools. Our government works in close cooperation with provincial and territorial governments and the Canadian sport community to implement the Canadian policy against doping in sport as well as as the Canadian strategy for ethical conduct in sport.

It goes without saying that the Canadian anti-doping program is respected around the world and serves as a model for nations undertaking to eliminate doping in sport.

The International Convention against Doping in Sport, developed under the UNESCO physical education and sport strategy and program, is the result of concerted efforts between countries and the sport movement, with the common objective of promoting the prevention of doping in sport and the fight against this phenomenon in order to put an end to it. The convention is a recognized international mechanism for harmonizing government anti-doping measures, in particular by supporting the World Anti-Doping Agency and recognizing the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code.

In November 2005 Canada became the second country to ratify the convention. Our country is proud to have played a leading role in its development and adoption. In fact, I can recall when I had the privilege of pairing with a Liberal as he went to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia when this agreement was being forged by the nations of the world and how impressed I was at the dedication of all the nations that were there to get this agreement together.

Since then, we have encouraged all countries to accept or ratify the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport and to give even greater impetus to international government participation in anti-doping. To date, it is encouraging that 79 countries have accepted or ratified the convention. I believe it our duty to encourage all countries to do so.

In 1983 Canada already had a UNESCO anti-doping policy. That policy evolved over the years to reflect the perspectives of partners in the national and international sport community. As the House knows, the Dubin Commission was established following several international doping cases involving Canadian athletes.

Prior to 1991, national sports organizations were responsible for conducting anti-doping analysis in accordance with standards laid down by the Preventive Medicine Council of Canada.

In 1991 the Government of Canada established the Canadian Anti-Doping Agency, an independent, non-profit agency responsible for directing Canadian efforts in the field. The agency was created in response to the recommendations of the Dubin Commission, its mandate to shed light on the use of drugs in sport.

Today the Canadian Centre for Ethics Conduct in Sport administers the Canadian anti-doping program. Canadian athletes who take part in college, university, national and international competitions, as well as the Canada Games must comply with the full provisions of the Canadian anti-doping program.

Our government funds nearly 85% of the centre's operating expenses. The difference is made up through the services the centre offers at Canadian sport competitions and to other anti-doping agencies.

In 2007-08, our government gave more than $4.6 million to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to carry out the Canadian anti-doping program. An additional $700,000 was granted to it under the true sport strategy.

Like UNESCO, Canada acknowledges the importance of continuing education for athletes, athlete supervisory personnel and society as a whole in order to prevent doping. The Canadian program attests to this.

In 1999 the International Olympic Committee, supported by a number of government agencies, governments including that of Canada, and public organizations established the World Anti-Doping Agency to promote and coordinate international anti-doping. In 2003 the agency and its partners, including Canada, developed the first world anti-doping code document containing a set of harmonized rules for anti-doping in sport.

Canada has supported the efforts of the World Anti-Doping Agency since its inception and proudly has had its headquarters in Montreal since 2002. The agency's work and credibility are helping make the most renowned and international competitions such as the Olympics and Paralympic Games examples of dope-free competitions.

Our government is proud that Canada recently renewed the partnership with the World Anti-Doping Agency, which will enable the agency to keep its headquarters in Montreal for another decade.

Canada is also proud to be home to one of the 33 laboratories around the world accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency. The laboratory of the Institut national de la recherche scientifique of the Université du Québec à Montréal conducts analysis and offers consulting services to anti-doping agencies, including the World Anti-Doping Agency, and major professional sports leagues.

Our government proudly provides $1 million in financial assistance to the World Anti-Doping Agency. In addition, our government, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, has allocated nearly $900,000 to the World Anti-Doping Agency's operating budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

The Olympic movement also pays the agency an amount equivalent to that provided by government authorities.

Canada's contribution to anti-doping and the UNESCO convention also included $90,000 in financial support to the UNESCO Secretariat for the convention's development. In addition, Canada was the first country to contribute to the voluntary funding created when the convention came into force. Canada has contributed nearly $149,000 to the fund in the past two years. The fund will make it possible to develop and implement anti-doping programs concerning, among other things, resource development, the sharing of knowledge and best practices, and international education.

Thirteen countries have followed Canada's example, as a result of which the fund now contains nearly $1.2 million to assist in developing the less developed countries. For Canada this is an act of solidarity that reinforces anti-doping in sport.

The convention also confirms the common practice of funding the World Anti-Doping Agency through equal funding from governments and the Olympic movement. Canada contributes annually, and its contribution is one of the biggest of any country.

In conclusion, through its programs and sustained financial support, Canada is clearly showing its commitment to anti-doping in sport. UNESCO can rely on Canada's full cooperation so that the largest number of countries in the world accepts the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. Even though 79 countries have accepted or ratified the convention to date, we must continue our efforts to encourage non-signatory countries to accept or ratify the convention soon and to implement it without delay.

Canada is resolved to use every available opportunity, all means at its disposal and its influence to ensure that the use of prohibited substances and methods in sport at last becomes a thing of the past.

I am exceptionally proud of the position that our nation has taken on this issue. This truly is a non-partisan statement. The commitment of the current government to continue to support this program is unshakeable. I congratulate my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, on bringing this motion forward.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

On Canada's mission in Afghanistan, our government places a very high value on having non-partisan support from this Parliament on the way forward. I would gently make note that this morning when I was in the House I found it rather perplexing that the mover of the motion got into the level of partisan rhetoric that he did.

However, the Prime Minister appointed a panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, commonly known as the Manley panel. The independent panel was tasked with considering the options available to Canada after the existing parliamentary mandate for our mission expired in February 2009.

It was no small task. The panel had barely three months in which to report and hundreds of perspectives to consider. It travelled to Afghanistan to see for itself what was going on, not only in Kandahar but in other parts of the country. It had the heavy responsibility of identifying ways of ensuring that the good work we could do would be worth the cost.

As the House knows, the independent panel did an exemplary job. It filled its mandate in every respect and it did it on time. It recommended that Canada remain in Kandahar to finish the job that we had volunteered to do. It did not say that it should be an open-ended commitment or one that Canada should undertake alone. It recommended that very specific conditions be met in order for the mission to continue.

I think the hon. members are familiar with the key recommendations that the panel made. To start with, it recommended not only that Canada's mission in Kandahar should continue but that it should be contingent on support from our allies in NATO and ISAF and, furthermore, that we assert even stronger diplomatic leadership on this file internationally so that civilian and military efforts are joined up and mutually reinforcing.

The Prime Minister announced shortly after the panel's report was issued that he broadly accepted its recommendations. Since then, we have seen a number of important actions that demonstrate the government's commitment to following through.

The panel report called for a new cabinet committee on Afghanistan. In early February, the Prime Minister announced the creation of such a committee, composed of all the key ministers, Foreign Affairs, National Defence, International Cooperation and Public Safety, under the capable stewardship of the Minister of International Trade. The panel called for the creation of a coordinating task force to bring together the work of these departments. The Prime Minister created a new Afghanistan task force in the Privy Council Office to support the work of the cabinet committee.

The panel recommendations were not limited to the Canadian government, however. It also dealt with our relations with our partners abroad, most notably the United Nations and NATO, as well as the need for greater coordination on the ground in Afghanistan.

For example, the Manley panel called for Canada to press for the appointment of a new special representative for the United Nation Secretary General for Afghanistan to lead and coordinate the wide ranging UN efforts there, as well as to strengthen the UN's relationship with the rest of the international community in Afghanistan.

We followed through on this. Just weeks ago, we were pleased congratulate Kai Eide on his appointment as the new UN special envoy to Afghanistan. The Minister of Foreign Affairs met with Mr. Eide in Bucharest. We look forward to working closely with him in Kabul.

We also responded to the panel's recommendation for greater coordination of our Canadian civilian-led efforts in Kandahar. To meet this need, we have deployed a senior representative of Canada to Kandahar who is charged with ensuring the coherence of our work in development, police training, engagement with the corrections and justice sectors and so on. She is the second most senior Canadian civilian in Afghanistan reporting directly to the ambassador or Kabul.

Finally, what is also of far-reaching importance is the government's efforts in renewing NATO's commitment to Afghanistan and its commitment to sharing the burden among allies in the most dangerous parts of the country.

The world was watching when Canada's Parliament agreed to extend our mission in southern Afghanistan through to 2011. The world was watching when the House expressly stipulated that this extension was conditional on getting help from our partners.

I believe that Canadians should be proud that we were able to arrive at a broadly supported position in the House so that the Afghanistan mission was neither a Liberal nor a Conservative mission, but a Canadian one.

I firmly believe that this display of national solidarity was instrumental in convincing other allies to step forward to meet our conditions as passed by the House.

As we all know, the government asked for a partner to deploy an additional battle group to Kandahar to augment the Canadian presence there, to provide the stability to enable reconstruction development and the Afghan government's authority and capability to take root.

We also asked for the provision of helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and recognizance to protect the lives of Canadian soldiers on the ground.

At the NATO summit in Bucharest, France announced that it would send a battalion to eastern Afghanistan, an area of the country where insurgent attacks are, sadly, still not rare. As a result, the United States, which is currently the major troop contributor in the east, announced that it would deploy a battalion south to Kandahar.

On helicopters and UAVs, we have already made considerable progress with our allies in getting offers for what we need.

The government commissioned the independent panel because we knew that a clear, national consensus was necessary for Canada to find its way forward in Afghanistan. Then we endorsed the panel's recommendations and made them the centrepiece of a bipartisan motion in the House for exactly the same reason.

I am pleased to note today the clear results we have already obtained in just a few months to strengthen both the political and military aspects of the mission. Thanks to our determined action, Canadians in Afghanistan will be better supported than every before and they will have an even greater ability to help the people of Afghanistan to achieve a free, secure and peaceful nation of their own.

I note in closing something that happened in the House on the night that we had the vote, and it was so quintessentially Canadian. Many members in the House tonight will recall when we had the vote that when it was the Liberals' turn to rise and vote, up in the corner of the House were some demonstrators who stood and had their say.

I must admit that it was one of the first times in the 15 years that I have had the privilege of being in the House that I have ever had that happen. I found it a little disconcerting. I wondered what would happen here. “End it; don't extend it”, was their cry.

What happened was quintessentially Canadian. As they were very well ushered out of this place by the guards who do such a tremendous job for us around this entire precinct, a couple of the older folks could not get their jackets on and the guards helped them to get their jackets on as they were leaving the House still chanting, “End it; don't extend it”.

That is quintessentially Canadians. It is something that we can all be so proud of. It is our heritage. It is who we are. It is the democracy that we have.

What we are doing in Afghanistan is simply giving to the people of Afghanistan the same possibility of having what we have in Canada, which is so quintessentially Canadian, that we can agree to disagree. We can even vehemently disagree with each other, but we do so with respect and we do so within the civility of our great Canadian society.

I am very proud of the House and I am even proud of those demonstrators.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully ask the member how he would square up his comments that we are there for the wrong reasons or that we should not be conducting ourselves in a military way.

With the military, 83% of Afghans now have medical access. Without the military, only 9% had access. With the military, because of its protection of the Afghan people, the infant mortality rate is down 22% since 2001 and 40,000 more babies survive every year. With the protection of the Canadian army, 4,000 new medical facilities have opened nationwide since 2004. The number of tuberculosis cases resulting in death declined by 50% annually. Over 103 tuberculosis cases were diagnosed and treated between 2001 to 2006.

None of those things would have happened if there was no security. I wonder how he can possibly square the position of the NDP of pulling the military out when it is the military that provides the security which gives these results.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, would the member care to comment on the fact that the government tried and tried, unsuccessfully, to get the Liberals and the other opposition parties to have committee hearings leading up to the actual vote in the House? It was deeply regrettable, in my judgment and certainly in the judgment of the Prime Minister, that the Liberals, in particular, were unwilling to take information before we actually got to a vote.

Would he care to comment on that?

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important debate and it would do our House well if members asked questions about the debate at hand. I would question the relevance of the intervention of the person who spoke before me.

[Juno Awards, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Calgary, comedian Russell Peters hosted the 37th annual Juno Awards. This annual event celebrates the best in Canadian music, and do we ever have a lot to celebrate.

Whether an emerging artist or an international superstar, from this year's Hall of Fame inductees, Triumph, to last night's big winners, the artists honoured have one thing in common: they are talent we are proud to call Canadian.

The gathering of all these talented people on the same stage is eloquent testimony to the excellence of their work. The trophies awarded to these artists are undeniable proof of the public's appreciation of them.

I ask members to please join me in congratulating all Juno award winners, nominees and performers. May our Canadian music stars continue to shine brightly both at home and on the international scene.

[Canadian Heritage, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member that the bill passed with his party's support. What is he saying? Is he regretting the fact that he passed it?

The bill is now before the Senate. The minister appeared before the Senate banking and trade committee on April 2. The minister has said that we are reaching out to the industry to work with us on this issue. We are trying to work cooperatively with the industry. That member is attempting to sow the seeds of discord.

[Canadian Heritage, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would really love to answer the member's question, but I do not have a clue what he is talking about. He said “these measures” without defining what he is talking about. If he could give me the topic, I will be very happy to respond.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I hope she will bring a new voting pattern to her colleagues.

She has spoken very forcefully about the immigration section of the budget. I choose to be in total disagreement with her, but I am will not discuss the content of that issue. However, because she feels so strongly, will she be on her feet to vote against the budget, because that provision is a part of the budget, or will she continue to follow the sheepish aspects of her colleagues, who have chosen to sit on their hands through these confidence motions?

[Komagata Maru Incident, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should officially apologize to the Indo-Canadian community and to the individuals impacted in the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, in which passengers were prevented from landing in Canada.

The motion that she has presented reflects our 2008 societal values as a nation. Canada is a multicultural nation that is proud to have the privilege of benefiting from diverse backgrounds and heritages. We value the many cultures that make up the fabric of our society.

Today's motion also serves as a comment on the societal values of 1908. That is exactly one hundred years ago. Then, as now, MPs in government reflected the values of their time in words and in their actions. It is important to look back a hundred years to understand how this incident ever came about.

In 1908, during the tenure of prime minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a government regulation amended Canada's Immigration Act to include a continuous journey clause. The clause prohibited immigrants from India and Asia from landing in Canada if they did not come by a continuous journey from India. This was intentional, because it was well known that there was no way for a person travelling from India to Canada to make a continuous journey, but it was reflective of Canadian society's views as expressed by MPs in 1908.

Liberal prime minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier said on March 24, 1908:

The situation with regard to the Hindus at the present time can be easily explained. The regulations of the Department of the Interior provide that all undesirables, idiots, insane or incapables for instance, can be and ought to be excluded. But it was found that certain parties were coming in not from the country of their origin but from other countries, and therefore they could not be sent back to the country of their origin.

Laurier said:

Therefore, the Minister of the Interior, in order to have the machinery under his hand to send back to the country of origin any man who did not come up to our regulations, physically, mentally or otherwise, passed a regulation whereby no one would be admitted unless he came through a ticket from the country of his origin.

It was interesting that Conservative Robert Borden asked:

Does it make any difference how long the immigrant has been in the country from which he comes? For instance, if a German has resided for three or four years in England before coming to Canada, would you refuse him admission on that account?

Laurier answered:

This question has not been looked into and I think it not likely to arise. If a German were coming from Great Britain after being there some years, I do not know what we should do as the situation has never arisen; but we are looking to what actually has arisen. Steamship companies, in their anxiety to bring people here, might take them all over the globe, and we should not be able to send the undesirables to their countries of their nationalities. Therefore, to make sure we pass regulations whereby no one would be permitted to land unless he came from the country of his origin, the Hindus who have been deported or excluded come under that regulation. The regulation is not directed against the Hindus or any other nationality, but it is a regulation that applies to all nationalities and was deemed essential in order to control the character of immigrants who were admitted to this country.

It was not only the prime minister. Liberal Mr. MacPherson on April 8, 1908 also said:

I think the object of the amendment brought in by the minister is quite plain.

Mr. Sam Hughes, identified as a liberal Conservative, said:

To exclude Hindus, that is all.

Mr. MacPherson of the Liberals said:

Yes, to exclude Hindus and all kinds of Asiatics, and all kinds of undesirable people.

In 1914 the Komagata Maru incident occurred. On May 23, 1914, 376 east Indians, 22 of whom were returning Canadian residents, arrived in Vancouver harbour on board the Japanese steamer, the Komagata Maru. The steamer met with a very hostile reception. For weeks the vessel lay in harbour, its human cargo deprived of food and water by Canadian authorities who thought to weaken their resolve.

Finally, on June 20, 1914, in the face of impending starvation, a passengers committee agreed to the Canadian government's demand that a test case go before an immigration board of inquiry.

A week later, the case of Munshi Singh, a young Sikh farmer, was heard, and he was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that he had violated three orders in council, in particular the continuous journey regulation.

When the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the decision, the way was paved for the passengers to be deported. This happened exactly two months after the arrival of the doomed ship in the Vancouver harbour.

With the local citizenry cheering on the docks, a Canadian gunship escorted the Komagata Maru to international waters. Unfortunately, upon their return to India, 20 passengers were killed by British soldiers after being shot during a riot.

The only thing that changed from the time that Laurier brought in this act in 1908 and 1914 was the increased tension in Europe brought on by an arms race among major powers that exhibited a challenge to the British Empire. In 1914 some Canadians felt that that added incidental justification for the continuation of the continuous journey clause.

Laurier, having been prime minister in 1908 when the clause came into being, felt compelled to say something again in 1914. His remarks were, “The question” of why other British subjects also do not want the people of the Komagata Maru to immigrate to their counties “is not altogether a racial one: the basis of the objection is not wholly antipathy to the yellow races”.

Laurier said, “When members of the Asiatic races go to South Africa, to the Straits Settlements, to British Columbia, to California, to Australia, or anywhere, the moment they come into contact with white labour and white working men, there is conflict. The reason is altogether an economic one. These men of Asiatic races have been accustomed for ages to a standard of civilization entirely different from ours. They live more cheaply than we do; they accept a lower rate of wage. That is the commencement of trouble. So long as this is so, you will have the same trouble wherever Asiatics come into contact with men of the Caucasian race”.

What I find really astounding is that this was the former prime minister of Canada in this chamber using these words. He went on to say, “These men have been taught by a certain school of politics that they are the equals of British subjects; unfortunately, they are brought face to face with the hard facts only when it is too late”.

Laurier said, “In my humble judgment, while the Government will do well to keep them out, the best method is to resort, not to law, but, if possible, to diplomacy. Let arrangements be made with the Government of India whereby they will do as the Japanese Government have done: try to keep their own people home. They may say: The white people come to our country; why should not the people of our country go to yours? That is logical, but, unfortunately, this is a matter in which such logic will not count; and we shall have trouble until the remedy which I venture humbly to submit is applied by this Government”.

Thankfully, our society has evolved, but it has taken a long time. Although Canadian values have evolved, we note that during the second world war our nation faced a similar historic failure. On May 13, 1939, the S.S. St. Louis departed from Hamburg, Germany with 937 Jewish refugees aboard.

Canada again faced a dark moment in its history when, a month later, the Liberal prime minister, Mackenzie King, stated he was “emphatically opposed to the admission of the St. Louis passengers”.

Unbelievably, previous to that, the prime minister of Canada had stated, “The admission of refugees perhaps posed a greater menace to Canada in 1938 than did Hitler”. This is really quite amazing stuff.

I do not think I have to take any lessons from the Liberals on this issue. I am proud to say that successive Conservative governments have boldly addressed historic wrongs of our great nation.

On September 22, 1988, prime minister Brian Mulroney formally announced the Japanese redress to right the wrongs committed against Japanese Canadians during World War II.

On June 22, 2006, our current Prime Minister formally announced the Chinese head tax redress with ex gratia symbolic payments of $20,000.

On the specific issue of the Komagata Maru incident, our Prime Minister stated in his speech in August 2006:

We haven't always lived up to our own highest ideals. The events of 1914 serve as a particularly stark example of this.

Our government is working very diligently at this point on community and national historic recognition programs. We are going to be bringing them forward very quickly.

Let me say again, while the Liberals talk, the Conservatives take action.