Kevin Sorenson

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have sat in the House this afternoon, and to be quite frank, I have been very disappointed with the response from the members of the Bloc and now, unfortunately, from the Liberal Party as well. I was listening to a speech by my hon. friend, who was segueing. He talked about the importance of negotiations, getting along and dealing with Quebec. Time after time he was interrupted, not because of doing something that is not commonly done in the House but rather simply for the sake of interruption.

Regarding that last hon. member who stood up raised a point of order on the question, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in nine years in the House I have seen a remarkable amount of latitude given to the answering of questions.

The answer our colleague gave was a good, forthright one in regard to negotiation and the direction that the other parties are taking, compared to what this party is taking, on the harmonization of taxes. I would just suggest that rather than having members of the opposition jump up time after time simply to interrupt this colleague, they apologize and give this colleague the opportunity to answer those questions.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the comments by my colleague across the way. I look forward to the discussion here today in the House on this issue.

Canada runs a trade deficit with every country in the world with the exception of our closest neighbour, the United States. Except for the powerful economy of the United States, we have a trade surplus. Our trade with the United States amounts to $380 billion, or over $1 billion a day. Canada is fortunate to have a consumer like the United States with its huge economy.

My question to the member is not designed to pit one side against the other. The Canada-U.S. border is one of the longest undefended borders in the world. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about a common continental security system. Would the member share with the House his opinion on a continental security system that would alleviate a lot of the concerns that the Americans have in regard to trade and people entering from countries all around the world?

[Juno Awards, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the boys from Hanna, Alberta, constituents of mine, really rocked the place at this year's Juno Awards.

Since 1995, Chad, Mike and Brandon Kroeger and Ryan Peake, Daniel Adair and Ryan Vikedal have been known as Nickelback. These local boys have rocked and rolled around the world.

At the Juno Awards, they won Best Album, Best Group and the Fan Choice Award.

I encourage all members to get a copy of Nickelback's Dark Horse album, the best album in Canada in 2008.

With Alberta know-how and musical talent honed in a small town, these boys have been rocking since they were in middle school together. They are living the dream of many aspiring young musicians in Canada and around the world.

These Canadians have made us proud and entertained us over the years with their albums All the Right Reasons, The Long Road, Silver Side Up and the State.

We wish them all the best on their North American tour and through 2009.

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, the Liberal Party plan is to not help the auto industry, but in Ontario the Liberals have a different plan. One day the Liberal Party plan is to champion the job-killing carbon tax, claiming it must be implemented immediately. The next day the Liberal plan is to distance itself from the tax.

The Liberal Party pretends to defend the seal hunt, yet at the same time the Liberals' plan is to introduce a bill that would ban the seal hunt.

While the Liberal Party pretends to appeal to forestry workers in one province, the Liberal plan is to now call the industry a “basement” industry in another province.

It is clear that the Liberal plan is no plan at all. In these times, Canadians need real leadership with a real plan. They need the Conservative government's economic action plan.

[Foreign Affairs, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, recent reports have stated that Canada has changed its position regarding the disputed Kashmir region. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please clarify Canada's position on this very important and sensitive issue?

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I note that although the report was filed by the subcommittee on human rights, there was a dissenting report. It was not a unanimous report.

Let us all understand the dynamics of a minority government. The makeup of committees is similar. I note that in the dissenting opinion provided by the subcommittee on human rights, members very much believed that there was a disconnect when it came to many of the witnesses who were called. There were a lot of difficulties that came out of that study. However, the numbers in the subcommittee are reflective of the numbers in the House. The opposition was out numbered.

As a government, we did not accept that report. We do not accept it today. We believe there were many obvious holes in that report and our dissenting report tried to make that clear.

Let me quote from the dissenting report. It states, “Mr. Khadr could become a litmus test on Canada’s commitment to impeding global terrorism and the results of our actions today”.

We do not, in any way, prejudge Mr. Khadr's innocence or guilt. In fact, he is viewed as being innocent until proven guilty. Our frustration is that he is presently under the jurisdiction of the United States. President Obama has been clear that there will be an ongoing review of this case. We will honour that jurisdiction and we will wait for that review to be completed.

We will, in the meantime, continue to intervene on behalf of Mr. Khadr. We will continue to be certain that his health issues are addressed, that his ability to communicate with family is addressed, that every aspect is addressed. Indeed, it has already made a difference, which is evident by his transfer from maximum security to more minimal communal security in Guantanamo.

It should not be a surprise to the member. We do not accept the subcommittee's report on the repatriation of Omar Khadr.

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the concurrence motion moved by the NDP and also to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which deals with the subject of Omar Khadr.

Let me be very clear from the very beginning. The government did not agree with the recommendation of the subcommittee's report when it was issued, and it does not agree with them today. Mr. Khadr faces serious charges and we believe the approach taken by the opposition downplays the alleged crimes committed by Mr. Khadr, besides the terrorism.

I will be splitting my time today, Madam Speaker, with the member for Calgary East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The NDP brought forward the motion in regard to Mr. Khadr and in regard to terrorism. It is consistent with the NDP and with the Bloc. They have been asking for repeal and for Mr. Khadr to come home for a long time now. It is very consistent, I believe, with their approach to terrorism and to organized crime.

I believe the motion has been brought forward to prevent our government from coming forward with its anti-crime bill. The motion was brought forward on this day specifically, in spite of the fact that we are trying to bring forward justice bills to deal with the wave of crime we are seeing in British Columbia. They chose this day to bring forward a motion that could be debated any day in the House. To be very clear, there is consistency among the opposition parties.

As all members of the House are undoubtedly aware, in 2002 Omar Khadr was arrested by the United States Forces in the context of his alleged involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan, following his alleged recruitment and use as a combatant by al-Qaeda.

Although there have been recent developments in the United States regarding Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Khadr continues to face charges pursuant to U.S. legislation. As such, it is up to the United States authorities to make determinations regarding the administration of justice in the United States as related to individuals within its jurisdiction. As Mr. Khadr was, and remains today, in U.S. control, it is up to the United States to make determinations regarding certain dispositions of this case.

There have been significant developments since the subcommittee on human rights brought forward its report. We have a new president in the United States. President Obama has also issued executive orders related to Guantanamo Bay detainees. Those orders are reflective of the fact that the new United States administration is actively engaged with examining issues related to Guantanamo Bay and the cases of those individuals who are being held in Guantanamo. Indeed, the issuance of the orders is indicative of the importance being given to exploring possible ways to move forward in addressing these related issues.

For that reason, it is imperative that this process be allowed to run its course and that Canada not speculate on hypothetical scenarios in this regard. Rather we are closely monitoring all developments in Mr. Khadr's case and stand ready to receive information from the United States when a review of his file has been completed. Until such time as that has been done, it is simply premature and speculative to address requests for Mr. Khadr's repatriation.

President Obama has ordered that the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay be closed as soon as practicable and no later than one year. A review of the status of each and every individual detained in Guantanamo has commenced and a review is being conducted to determine whether detainees should return to their own home, or be released, or transferred to a third country or prosecuted before a court established pursuant to article 3 of the United States Constitution.

It is important to be clear on the effect of the relevant executive order. It does not mean that Mr. Khadr is no longer subject to the United States criminal justice system. Although proceedings against Mr. Khadr before the military commission are presently halted, given the prosecution's request for an adjournment of 120 days was granted by the military judge on January 21, a review must now be undertaken. This will determine how the United States authorities will deal with the case of each and every Guantanamo detainee, including Mr. Khadr. We are not in a position to predict the outcome of this review. It is a United States review.

The Canadian government was, however, very instrumental in ensuring that Mr. Khadr would not be subject to the death penalty and, indeed, the result are the charges brought forward against Mr. Khadr have been on a non-capital basis. Canada has also sought to ensure that Mr. Khadr receives the benefit of due process, including access to Canadian counsel of his choice. Further, Mr. Khadr's case has been raised on several occasions at the ministerial level with the U.S. authorities.

Canadian officials have been present at every one of his hearings before the military commission in Guantanamo Bay and the court of military commission review in Washington, D.C., as well as for all court appearances related to his habeas application in Washington. Departmental officials have also been in regular contact with both Mr. Khadr's defence counsel and prosecutors in this case. As indicated, we will continue to make ourselves available for any further discussions.

Regular ongoing welfare visits have been carried out by Canadian officials in Guantanamo Bay. Just because the military commission process has been halted, does not mean that welfare visits will be halted. It does not mean that no longer will he be given proper attention. Canadians officials have carried out regular visits with Mr. Khadr. The goal of these visits has been to assess his condition and provide him with a measure of support and comfort items. Through these visits, we have sought to have Mr. Khadr's detention conditions improved and have made requests for medical treatment and educational support.

Interventions by Canadian officials have resulted in Mr. Khadr's move from a maximum security facility at Guantanamo to a communal minimum security facility within Guantanamo Bay. It has also meant that Omar Khadr, because of Canadian intervention, has been given very much improved medical treatment.

The Canadian government has also facilitated access to him by Canadian defence counsel. We have made arrangements for telephone calls between Mr. Khadr and his family, indeed he has been in touch with his family. He has been able to communicate with his family. These efforts will continue. We will continue for as long as Mr. Khadr remains in U.S. security, advocating for his well-being and making certain that it is a priority.

We take very seriously our responsibility for the safety and security of Canadians. However, we do not control judicial processes outside our borders. Our government is acting responsibly. We are acting prudently in allowing the United States to make decisions regarding the way forward vis-a-vis Guantanamo Bay. Canada will address decisions that are made in that process once they have been taken.

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled, “Report on the Baha'i Community in Iran”.

[Seal Hunt, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is continuing its attack on Canadian sealers.

Yesterday on Tom Clark's Power Play, one of the Liberal leader's senators called the seal hunt an “embarrassment to Canadians” and called it “bad trade”. Is this is his idea of standing up for a great tradition in Canadian industry, by buckling to European demands that want to destroy the livelihood of Canadian sealers?

Let us take a closer look at some of the other priorities the Liberal leader has for Canadians.

We must remember that he is the father of the Liberal carbon tax. During his first run at the Liberal leadership, he promised to impose a carbon tax on all Canadians, driving up the cost of everything. He even claimed that it would be good for the economy. The Liberal leader is so out of touch that he actually believes that driving up the cost of everything would be good for our country.

Canadian sealers cannot afford the Liberal Party. In fact, no Canadian can afford the Liberal Party. It is time the Liberals stood up for Canada and stopped their--

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, given the time and the fact that we want to make certain that we have private members' business, I wonder if we could see the clock at 5:30 p.m.