Laurie Hawn

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Liberal leader will be launching a book called True Patriot Love. I would like to know if true patriot love includes having someone who supports the creation of the Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador in the Liberal Party.

Senator Baker is even taking shots at the previous Liberal government, saying the creation of his Bloc is partly the result of Paul Martin's dealings with the province.

Now some of us like to take shots at former prime ministers, but taking shots at Canadian unity cannot be tolerated, but tolerating is exactly what the Liberal leader is doing.

On issue after issue, the Liberal leader is demonstrating a profound lack of leadership. First, he was for a carbon tax, now he claims to be against. First he signed his name to the coalition. Now he claims to be against it.

Will he stand up, show some leadership and actually take a stand on an issue as important as the unity of the country?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a really short question. It is the second part of my question. Has the NDP costed these measures?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I want to read a quote from David Dodge and then I have a couple of quick questions. He talked about the two weeks being earlier or later. He said, “That two weeks is there for a very good reason. Moreover, many of the people who are being laid off get some sort of bridge payment through that period, so that's not where the real issue is. The real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time...”

Let us relate that to the auto industry. We cannot go from over 17 million vehicles to less than 11 million vehicles on a permanent basis and not expect that some of that job loss is going to be permanent.

First, is there not some sense in giving people more time later to get retrained and get into the workforce in another position? Second, has the NDP costed all these measures?

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and anybody who is knowledgeable about the mission have been saying from the start that this is not a militarily winnable mission alone. There is a combination of military and diplomacy. It is giving the Afghans the power to manage their own affairs. That is what we have been doing from the start.

The simple fact is our priorities have not change, nor have our methods. The Prime Minister was talking about military alone solutions and nobody has ever said that is the ultimate solution.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our priorities and objectives in Afghanistan have been clear from the start, and that is to leave the country in the hands of the Afghans in a manner in which they can manage their own affairs. We have been doing that since we got there. We have been doing that with the other 59 members, or signatories, to the Afghanistan compact. We have been doing that with the other 49 or so allies on the ground there. That has not changed. It has been a transition from a military mission to a humanitarian governance and development mission. That will continue.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that we have been working with our allies for years on this mission: the 60 signatories to the Afghanistan Compact, of which Canada is one, and the up to now 50 or so allies working on the ground in Afghanistan. We are engaged with them militarily and diplomatically through humanitarian measures. We are engaged at all levels and our men and women at all levels have done an incredible job. That member should be proud of them.

In fact, this did not come out of left or right field. The Prime Minister has been hitting them straight down the middle all along.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I simply reject the premise of the question that other countries are doing so much more than Canada in terms of development.

If the member had been there, and I am not sure whether he has, he would have seen Canadian Forces members by the hundreds out there doing development. When people talk about $10 of military to $1 of development, it is absolutely a false statement because a lot of that $10 that they attribute to the military is in fact development.

The Prime Minister's position has not changed. This is a whole of government approach. It will transition more and more toward development and governance and less and less toward Canadian military involvement as we equip the Afghans to take care of that themselves.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member for “see how mad I can get” but nothing has changed. From the very start of the mission in Afghanistan, we have been taking a whole of government approach, which requires a strong military presence for a blanket of security over the other operations. More and more, as time goes by we are transitioning to humanitarian aid, governance and development, and that will continue after our military mission ends.

Once again, it is a mission that we all can be very proud of. Canadians are proud of the job the men and women over there have done and I know that member is also proud of them.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should not belittle the efforts of the Canadian Forces members like that when he says that they will be marking time. I have been there several times, as has he. They are doing exceptional work on the ground day to day under very tough circumstances and we all should be proud of that.

They will continue to do their jobs until 2011. Canada's role beyond that will undoubtedly be in the area of development in governments and humanitarian aid, but our soldiers will come home proudly in 2011 having done an exceptional job that all members, including that member, should be very proud of.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but our priorities are clear.

We are committed to Afghanistan militarily until 2011. Our soldiers have done an incredible job, along with our humanitarian workers and everyone else involved in the mission. We will probably continue in Afghanistan in a humanitarian way and in a development way beyond 2011, but the military mission will end in 2011 as per the motion that was passed in the House. That is the answer to the question.