Laurie Hawn

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

The mission that we are doing, quote Manley unquote.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to start. I will give the NDP members marks for being consistent. They consistently do not understand peacekeeping. They consistently do not understand that we have to equip and train the military forces to do the toughest job, and that makes them capable of doing any other job. But if we equip and train them to do the lowest common denominator when they have to do something else, we will simply lose lives and not accomplish the mission. The NDP members consistently misunderstand that. They consistently misunderstand the Taliban are not out there using pruning hooks and ploughshares. They are out there using weapons, weapons against Afghans, Canadians, Americans, Brits, Australians, Kiwis, and everybody else.

The NDP members trot out anecdotal evidence as, supposedly, justification for the fact that the war is not going well and they ignore the anecdotal evidence that they get from Canadian service men and women. Do they not believe the Canadian service men and women? Would they rather believe, for example, the people from the Senlis Council who come to the defence committee and grossly mislead the defence committee deliberately? Would they rather believe people like that or the men and women in uniform who are dying for the cause of Afghan freedom, who are dying for the cause of Canadian freedom? Ultimately, it is about Canadian freedom and it is about Canadian interests.

They talk about taking NATO out and putting in the UN. Who the heck do they think the UN is? Who do they think the UN would turn to if not the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Poland, Lithuania, and everybody else who is there? Who the heck do they think they would be replaced by except ourselves?

For crying out loud, the NDP, the new Pollyanna party, really needs to get real.

They talk about the UN solving regional conflicts. The UN has never done a very good job of solving regional conflicts.

It goes on and on. They talk about the path to peace. The path to peace is not strewn with pruning hooks and rose petals. The path to peace is there because of people like Canadians, people like Lester Pearson, who they hold out as the icon of peacekeeping, which he was. Lester Pearson was also part of a government that increased defence spending to 7% of GDP because Lester Pearson knew that we could not stare down our enemies through words of peace and love; we had to stare them down through resolve and through strength. He did that. We did that collectively with our allies, like the United States, Britain and so on.

I could go on and on, but I have one question for my hon. colleague. Is there anything in the world that members of the New Democratic Party would support taking up arms for? Is there anything at all, any cause at all? Or will they continually be, like J.S. Mills said, made and kept free by the exertions of better men, and I will add, and women, than themselves?

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about trust for just a minute and get my colleague's thoughts on that.

Trust is hard won and easily lost. One of the things that Canada has regained after a few years of losing it in the last few years is in fact trust, trust among our allies, trust in the international community, and trust in a perverse way from our enemies who know they can trust us to do the right thing, to their detriment but that is okay.

We talk about responsibility to protect. That was a phrase coined at the United Nations by a former prime minister and those are great words, but people have to be able to trust us to put those words into action.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments on what would happen to the trust that Canada is currently held in if we simply up and walk away from the mission in Afghanistan and abandon the Afghan people at this point?

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, people talk about what this mission is about. One of the things people forget is that it is actually about Canada's national interests. It is about many things, but people think that what happens in Afghanistan, whether we get it right or wrong, will not affect us in Canada.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments on this little hypothesis. We saw what happened to our markets and economy after 9/11. We saw what happened to our ability to travel freely across borders and have commerce move freely across borders. I would suggest to my colleague that what happens to our allies, most specifically what happens to the United States, has a direct impact on our economy, our prosperity, our security and our quality of life.

I would like his comments on that with respect to the meaning of the mission to Canada's national interests.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague has had a lot of contact with soldiers, with people who have been there and done it, and the sentiments that they expressed are obviously very meaningful and very touching.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on his impressions from those people or from his own studies about what would happen if in fact we did do what the NDP would have us do and pull out prematurely.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to my hon. colleague that we did in fact go into Afghanistan with the Americans as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

We have already accepted the Manley report, commissioned by this government. He had a lot of good information in it.

The member puts a lot of stock in reports of NGOs, like Senlis. He apparently does not put any stock in reports by the Canadian Forces, which I find remarkable, particularly since Senlis, as an NGO, misled the defence committee so blatantly that it could not have been accidental. It stretches the credibility of an outfit like Senlis when it has been so misleading in the past.

On the specific issue of poppies, there is no question that it is a big problem. There is no short term solution. A lot of things need to be done, such as altering the crops, as was mentioned, to potentially a medicine program.

I would like my hon. colleague's assessment on having a legitimate poppies for medicine program in that country or any other country. To have that, however, there needs to be a basic law and order and justice structure that will allow that kind of business to go on without being unduly influenced by drug lords and crime. I suggest we are not there yet and that it will be some time before we get there. Could he comment on that?

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

I was a stockbroker for 12 years and a branch manager and I can say that one of the frustrations of the business for retail clients and companies was their inability to deal with provinces without an incredible amount of difficulty.

I just do not buy the argument that this is in the best interests of the people of the province of Quebec because, frankly, it is not. They are investors like anybody else. They own companies like anybody else. They want to deal with the rest of the Canada like anybody else.

I put it to my colleague that, in my view, this is more about protecting turf than it is about actually serving the interests of investors and companies.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the Canadian economy, investors and businesses to have efficient and competitive capital markets, including securities exchanges. The TSX-MX merger highlighted the importance of that. These are private decisions in the best interests of shareholders, but they have recognized larger issues as well. Globally, exchanges are increasing their size to lower trading costs through mergers.

It has been described as an historic moment. Even Quebec's finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, recognized its importance when she said on December 11 in the Globe and Mail, “Politically it's good for Montreal, and if it's good for Montreal it's good for Quebec”.

Would the member for Markham—Unionville agree with the Quebec finance minister on that?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments very much. He mentioned the disproportionate number of Atlantic Canadians who are part of the Canadian Forces, and they should be very proud of that.

I would like to take a moment to mention Trooper Michael Hayakaze, who was the Canadian brought home last week to the loving arms of his family and the arms of a grateful nation. Trooper Hayakaze was from the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) from Edmonton, a unit with which I am forming a special bond. That unit's motto is “Perseverance”. I suggest that perseverance is what Canadians and Canada need to show in the mission in Afghanistan to get the job done and get it done right.

I would like to ask my colleague for his comments on not just the Atlantic Canadians but some of the Canadians of other origins. Trooper Hayakaze is a Japanese Canadian. I would like my colleague's comments on the contribution that Canadians of all ethnic origins are making in this current conflict and in the Canadian Forces and Canada in general.