Laurie Hawn

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the masterful performance by my colleague across the way. It was worthy of The Young and the Restless, or in this case, the old and the ranting.

However, I want to pick up on one thing, and there are some others, and that is immigration and the comments he made.

Last year the government brought in 430,000 people to Canada, more than any government in history by a long shot. Yes, we want to get all those folks in with engineering degrees and so on, but we are faced with a constipated system. The former government went from a 50,000 person backlog to well over 800,000. Therefore, it has taken five or six years to get those people into the country.

We are making our best effort to do that. The new program we are bringing into force, with the help of the Liberals by the way, is going to improve that. This is going to be good for Canada because we are fixing the immigration system that they plugged up for 13 years.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that the member and I are a little fuzzy on, but I think we agree on most things.

My colleague talked about the House informing the government and so on. I would like to point out that we will have had 30 hours of debate on this issue, with more than 100 people debating. Nobody can say that we have not been open and transparent in allowing people to comment on the mission.

There have been 15 technical briefings on this mission since 2002, 14 by this government and one by the Liberals when they were government. Our ministers of national defence have made 17 appearances before parliamentary committees, so nobody can say we have not done that.

With respect to the military police complaints commission, it has been given access to everything, whether by subpoena or whether asked. There is no difference. This is the political agenda of somebody else and I think I know where it is coming from.

With respect to the tanks, they were sent there to save Canadian lives and Afghan lives, and they have done that. The original Leopards lacked cooling and lacked some other things. Those have been replaced by the tanks we have initially rented. These tanks are doing a great job. The longer term acquisition of tanks takes a while. It is a good program.

We are talking about changing the mission. We have been doing the training and development all the way along. It has been accelerating as we have gone along, but it needs to accelerate more. That is why we are doing that. Somebody else gets to vote on how that is conducted and that is the Taliban.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, how does he view the Taliban's participation in this whole project and the influence it will have on how we conduct our mission?

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

How many debates did you give us? Zero.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do have great personal respect for the hon. member. As the other member mentioned, he generally has words of wisdom. However, I would like to pick up on a couple of things that he said.

He cited great names in Canadian and military history, Vimy, Italy, and Normandy, and said that we had done the right thing in the past. Yes, we have, but now he seems to be suggesting that we should stop doing the right thing today simply because we have done the right thing in the past. That is pretty illogical.

Canada is the kind of country that continues to do the right thing because it is simply the right thing to do and that is who we are.

He expresses surprise that Canadians always step up when it is necessary. Again, I find it a little bit odd that he would be surprised when the people of Canada step up when it is necessary to do so. That, again, is who we are.

Given the NDP's history and approach to world affairs, I am not surprised that he would be surprised at that. That makes the point of why the NDP differs so greatly in its approach to world affairs than the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, both of whom have led Canada through periods of conflict very successfully with allies for the right reasons and accomplished the right things.

I have two quick questions for the hon. member.

[March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that this is the case. In fact, if we want to talk about openness and transparency, there have been 15 technical briefings on the mission in Afghanistan on this and other issues, 14 of them by this government.

The Ministers of National Defence, the current and the previous, have made 17 appearances before committees on this issue. If one wants to check the record in Hansard from the last two nights, one will see how much participation there was in the debate on Afghanistan, which the opposition parties called for, and one will see who actually participated in those debates and who did not.

With respect to this specific issue, we have spend $1.5 million since November in infrastructure improvements to the prison system in Afghanistan. We have trained guards. We have trained police forces. We have made more visits to the facilities.

My colleague talked about our trust in the Canadian Forces. We trust them implicitly. They are the ones on the ground. They know the situation. They are the ones who should be empowered to make the decisions. We trust them to make the right decision because they are, as he said, extremely professional, well trained and more qualified to make those decisions.

The other armed forces the member talked about release partial information some of the time. Their circumstances are completely different from ours. Their policy is not the same as ours, for very good reasons. We have a different circumstance. We choose to release information based on the wisdom of the Canadian Forces, and I trust the Canadian Forces.

[March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in Afghanistan as part of a UN-mandated mission, at the request of the democratically elected Afghan government and in company with our NATO and other allies.

We are playing a leadership role in Afghanistan and Canadian engagement is wide-ranging because we know that development and security go hand in hand. Without security, there can be no humanitarian assistance, no reconstruction and no democratic development.

We have deployed diplomats, development workers, troops and civilian police to help the Afghan government secure a better future for its people. We are training Afghan soldiers and police. We are mentoring public officials and helping the Afghans implement key national strategies. Canada is contributing to efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Afghanistan, including the appropriate treatment of prisoners, through support for comprehensive justice and security sector reform.

I can assure my colleague that Canadian officials are also in regular dialogue with Afghan officials at the most senior level in regard to this matter. That being said, the decision to transfer prisoners remains an operational matter and is the responsibility of the Canadian Forces, taking into account Canada's obligation under international law.

In assessing whether these obligations can be met, the Canadian Forces taken into information from a variety of sources, including other government departments. It is important to highlight that the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are fully trained and have clear and detailed instructions on all matters relating to prisoners, including the factors for determining their release or transfer.

As we all know, the military does not release information on how the Canadian Forces process prisoners. Such information could be used against the Canadian Forces by an enemy able to adapt its practices and instruct its fighters on how to better execute operations against Canadian soldiers, Afghan security forces and our allies.

The Government of Canada has an arrangement in place with the government of Afghanistan regarding the transfer of prisoners. This arrangement allows full access to Canadian officials to monitor the condition of prisoners turned over by the Canadian Forces.

As a result, we discovered one credible allegation last fall. The Canadian Forces responded quickly and in a manner consistent with Canada's obligations under international law upon learning of that credible allegation.

Since that time, actions taken by the government of Afghanistan and Canadian officials in Kandahar to address the commander's concerns have been carefully considered and the Canadian Forces are satisfied that based on the facts, transfers can resume. The decision to resume transfers reflects the commander's restored confidence that transfers can be made in accordance with our obligations under international law.

The Canadian Forces exercise discretion every time it transfers a prisoner. Clearly the transfer will not be authorized if the commander assesses that there are substantial grounds to believe there is a real risk that a prisoner would be tortured or mistreated if transferred. The transfer of prisoners remains an operational issue. Any future announcements will be made at the discretion of the Canadian Forces, in light of operational security considerations at the time.

As the government has signalled in the motion currently before the House, we are committed to greater openness. That being said, the Canadian Forces must always balance its commitment to transparency against the need to safeguard operational information and the security personnel.

Canada takes its legal obligations very seriously and I can assure members that the Canadian Forces treat all prisoners humanely. As a matter of policy, prisoners are treated in accordance with the standards of protection afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Canada has been and continues to be in regular dialogue with our NATO and ISAF allies on all aspects of ISAF's mission, including the treatment of prisoners transferred by allied forces.

Canadian officials have consistently underscored the need for Afghan authorities to treat prisoners humanely and in accordance with Afghan's international obligations. We will continue to work closely with the government of Afghanistan and the Human Rights Commission to ensure that treatment is proper.

[Afghanistan, March 12th, 2008]

Dark, sunless hours.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Fifteen.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a minute about the importance of this debate and then get my colleague's comments on it.

First, I have to say that I truly enjoyed his remarks. I wish more people could be present to hear them.

It was a little less than 18 years ago that I was in the gallery. I was in uniform at the time. I was here planning a potential deployment of CF-18s to “Gulf War I”, a deployment which eventually took place and liberated the people of Kuwait.

The debate that night, which was a little earlier than this one, was on whether Canada should participate in that mission. It was enlightening for me to sit in the gallery and listen to the debate. The House was certainly not full, but there were quite a number of people present from all parties. There was lively debate back and forth.

It was quite interesting for me as a military member and a Canadian to listen to the debate. The value of these kinds of things and those kinds of events in this place really struck me, never thinking for a minute in my wildest dreams that I would actually be here 18 years later participating in the same thing.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of debates like this as an expression of democracy and a commitment that this Prime Minister and this government made to allow parliamentarians from all parties to participate in hours and hours of debate on this very important question before Canada, the most important question that Canada has had to answer in a very long time.

I would like my hon. colleague's thoughts on the importance of the debate and the importance of all party participation in this event.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

I listened carefully to my hon. colleague.

I do thank my hon. colleague for her comments, and offer my condolences on the upcoming session with her mother.

I do appreciate my colleague's dedication to the debate, to come out late at night and speak her piece. That is commendable. She is obviously a very strong, independent women and I know she appreciates the value of women's rights and freedoms in a country like Afghanistan and in a country like Canada.

I agree with her that it is not just a military solution. No one has ever said that. It will be a whole-of-government solution, as we have said all along. I appreciate her appreciation of the military element of that.

The question I have goes along with the political side. We talk about the Taliban having a free haven in areas of Pakistan. In the recent elections in the northwest territorial province, the ANP Party recently ousted the Taliban-friendly party. I am wondering if she has a comment on what effect that might have in making it a little less easy for the Taliban to regroup back in Pakistan.