Mark Holland

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, on the question of the current peace agreement that is there, we know that it is not working and that it has failed in every possible way. The reality is that the African Union, which is there to enforce that agreement, is both poorly resourced and does not seem to have the will or ability to stop the genocide that is happening there.

I believe the only answer will be a United Nations peacekeeping force on the ground in Darfur to enforce peace and to ensure that human rights, human life and human dignity are protected in the area. That is the only option.

When we look at any other potentiality, it is simply apparent that the Sudanese government is not willing, on its own, to do anything. In fact, it is allowing this genocide to occur. It is becoming more and more apparent, in fact I think it is absolutely impossible to argue, that the African Union will do anything effective to stop it.

This debate comes down to one conclusion, and if that conclusion is that the United Nations peacekeeping force is needed, then we need to show the political will that Canada is willing step up to the plate and act, to go into this area and show that the terrible tragedy that is occurring there is not something that we will stand for or tolerate.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, my opinion is that we need to bring peace to the Sudan. We need to offer protection to its citizens. We have a moral obligation to intervene where genocide is occurring. The reality is that a horrible tragedy is unfolding there and I believe it is Canada's responsibility to step up and say that cannot occur.

We have intervened in many places. We have done so boldly and we have done so proudly, and oftentimes we have had a direct vested interest to do so. While it may be true that we do not have a vested interest in the Sudan, the human tragedy that is unfolding there should compel each and every one of us to say that we belong there. We need to offer the protection to those citizens, to those women, who are undergoing tremendous tragedy.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, after 1994 in Rwanda, the west tried to excuse its failure by saying that it simply did not know, that the genocide that occurred in Rwanda was something that was a surprise to it and therefore excused its actions.

While we can debate whether the west should have known or did know, the fact is that the situation in the Sudan is very different today. We do know that a human tragedy is unfolding in the Sudan.

While the facts have been stated many times, it bears referencing them again in light of this debate. We know that more than 200,000 people have died. We know that some estimate that the number is near 400,000. We also know that 2.5 million people are internally displaced and living in official camps or squatter areas. Thousands of women have been abducted and systematically raped. Thousands of children have been forced into conflict. Eleven aid workers have been killed in the last three months alone, all Sudanese nationals, and not one perpetrator of war crimes against humanity has been brought to justice.

It would seem that the world has forgotten Africa. Because there are no vested interests, one may argue, other than the interests of humanity, the entire sub-Saharan region has largely been ignored and not been the benefactor of western support in the way in which it deserves and so badly needs.

Canada cannot stand idly by and be spectators to atrocity, particularly when we know and fully understand the extent of what is happening in the Sudan and the extent of human tragedy that is there. Canada has a role to play.

Canada should be proud of the role that it has played to date. In fact, the previous Liberal government set aside $366 million for the Sudan. We are currently number three in the world in development assistance. The current government has added over $40 million to that assistance.

The reality is that the world lacks political will and it needs leadership. It needs Canada to step forward and take decisive action and to say that what is happening in the Sudan is not acceptable and that we will not just accept words, that we will not engage in rhetoric and talk away while thousands of people are living in unbelievable situations, thousands of people are dying and women are being raped. We must take action.

In that regard I would suggest that there are four things that need to be done, three of which in the immediate term, one of which over the longer term. The first is that Canada needs to be at the forefront, the vanguard of pushing for diplomacy in allowing UN peacekeeping forces to get on the ground in Darfur. It is clear by the situation that is there today that the African Union is simply not up to the task of protecting the public in the Sudan and that UN forces are badly needed.

We also know that the African Union, which leads me to my second point, is poorly resourced. It is running out of money, it is running out of time and it is running out of the ability to stay there. We need to, in the near term particularly, support those African Union forces with special tactical teams and with the resources they need to be successful in the Sudan.

The third point is that it is my opinion that we need to begin preparing our forces today for a mission in Sudan, a mission that must happen. That means we need to set aside the resources and the troops in order to make that possible and to begin training those forces today, not leaving it until later.

The fourth point is an extension of that third point. It is longer term but I hope it is not that much of a longer term proposition. We must enter the Sudan. UN peacekeeping forces must be on the ground and Canada should be at the front of that effort.

Even if the Sudanese government refuses UN peacekeeping force, we have a moral obligation to enter and to protect those who are there. The United Nations charter has two sections which are often contradictory: one that talks about the imperative to protect the individual right to self-determination, and the other says that we should not interfere with the affairs of other states. In my opinion the first one takes precedent. We do have the moral authority and, in fact, we have the legal authority.

I would point out the fact that under Security Council Resolution 1706 and the Axworthy Responsibility to Protect, R2P, doctrine adopted by the UN a year ago, we absolutely have the ability to go there.

We need to refocus. We need to ensure that our foreign policy is focused on peacekeeping, protecting citizens and playing the traditional role that Canada has so proudly played. It is time to act and we have the moral imperative to do so.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite promised to end patronage. It not only broke that promise, it became the king.

Mr. Andre's son-in-law was not only the riding president, but he was also the co-chair of the minister's election campaign, and his daughter a director of the riding association. There is a direct conflict here involving the minister, riding officials and an abuse of taxpayers' dollars and trust.

When is the Prime Minister going to end this embarrassment, finally demonstrate some accountability and tell his pork-barrelling apprentice, “You're fired”?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are more details about this contract, which actually ranged between $250,000 and $500,000, details the minister has not been offering to this House.

Let us be clear. This sole source contract is not just another case of Mulroney-esque pork. This goes beyond the normal hypocrisy of the government and flagrant abuse of its own sanctimonious preaching.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, is it not true that the daughter and son-in-law of Mr. Andre, the beneficiary of this patronage pork, are none other than the president and director of the minister's own riding association?

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, September 27th, 2006]

You are quite right, Mr. Speaker.

What the Prime Minister had called a controversial hypothesis and his former critic called a great socialist plot is in fact the greatest menace to this planet, something the government is turning its back on and systematically trying to pretend does not exist.

It gets worse.

Then we find out about the Friends of Science, a group much like the tobacco industry group formed to try to pretend that tobacco is not bad for us. When all the scientific evidence said that tobacco could kill us, Friends of Tobacco came forward and purported to have scientific evidence indicating that it was not bad for us.

In a similar fashion, this group, Friends of Science, was formed. Where did this group get its funding? The funding was set up by an individual by the name of Barry Cooper, a very close associate of the Prime Minister. The objective was to funnel oil money through a system of hiding where it came from to allow it to get to Friends of Science so they could try to create doubt among the population that climate change is real.

It does not end there.

This Friends of Science group has all kinds of connections to the Conservative Party of Canada, from Barry Cooper to Morten Paulsen, Tom Harris, and others. The Conservative Party and Friends of Science are one and the same. This group, which seeks to sell our planet down the river, which seeks to confuse and distort the facts, is closely tied to the Conservatives.

We have to look at what action we must take going forward. It struck me when David Suzuki made a statement saying that the planet does not care whether we continue to exist or we eradicate ourselves. The reality is that we are making our own decisions about whether or not we stay on this planet. It is up to us to find balance. It is up to us to lead the way and ensure that we strike a balance with our planet at a time when, within a generation, our oceans and our trees will be saturated with CO₂ emissions, at a time when permafrost is lifting at an unbelievable pace and releasing more and more CO₂ into the atmosphere, at a time when ice, which is 90% reflective of energy, is turning into water, which is 90% absorbent of energy, and at a time when Asia is booming and its CO₂ emissions are increasing day after day.

We do not have a lot of time. We certainly do not have time for a government that distorts the facts, tries to mislead Canadians and does not take action on the issue.

It is imperative that this motion pass. I would say it is imperative that we lead the way and ensure that we deal with the issue of climate change. Our very invitation to stay on this earth depends upon it.

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Honoré-Mercier on his excellent bill.

It is very much a pleasure for me to stand and speak to this issue. In fact, I cannot think of a more pressing or important issue, not only for this nation but for this world.

The fact of the matter is that we are at a tipping point. It is evident not only in our own country, in places like the Arctic, where oral traditions are being rendered useless by a landscape that is dramatically changing, but we also see it in extreme weather, in rapidly receding glaciers and in so many other ways. Mountains that have been snow-capped for incredibly long periods of time, thousands of years, are no longer.

In fact, just yesterday, I believe, a study pointed out that the earth is at its warmest point in 12,000 years. The Conservatives do not want to acknowledge this, but the reality is that climate change is real, it is impacting us today, and action is absolutely a necessity.

When we talk about Canada's role, we know that Canada actually uses more energy than the entire continent of Africa. We know that North America as a whole uses more energy than Africa, Asia and South America combined. When we look at this, it could not be clearer that Kyoto is needed, needed not just in our own context but in the world.

There is only one path to answering the problem of climate change. That path, without a doubt, is international agreements. Kyoto was an opportunity for all countries to come together and try to hash out the first agreement on climate change. If anybody doubts the effectiveness of Kyoto, they need only ask where the issue of climate change was before Kyoto came into effect. It was in the wilderness. The naysayers were dismissing it. People were pretending it was not a reality. Kyoto forced it onto the international stage, and for those who refused to take action and be signatories, there was domestic pressure, as in the case of the United States with states coming forward and taking action.

The previous federal government signed on to Kyoto. We put forward a series of recommendations to reduce our emissions and meet our Kyoto objectives. In the wake of all of this, when Canada's new government, as it calls itself, came into being, what action did it take? The reality is that it stepped back. Instead of moving forward with Kyoto and the recommendations, the government began slashing money.

The Conservatives took programs like the EnerGuide program, which allowed families to get subsidies to retrofit their homes to reduce the amount of energy they needed, and they scrapped them. Across the board, they scrapped environmental and climate change programs.

Worse than that, they walked away from their responsibilities in COP 11. COP 11 was an opportunity and a chance for Canada to lead the successor agreements that would follow Kyoto, to make sure that those nations that did not join on would join on. It was an opportunity for Canada to take a leadership role and the minister was missing in action.

The minister, whenever she is asked a question in the House about the Conservatives' environmental plan, will talk about what? Mercury. This could not be more evidence of how they do not understand this issue. Mercury has nothing to do with climate change. Zero. The minister of mercury talks about mercury every single time they are asked about climate change, when it does nothing. If she does not talk about mercury, the minister talks about smog, which also has nothing to do with climate change. Both are important issues. Of course it is important to reduce mercury and of course it is important to deal with smog, but neither of them have anything to do with climate change.

If that were all, it would be bad enough. Just simply slashing funding and ignoring the issue would be bad enough, but I fear there is a far greater menace afoot. I will read a quote for members, if I may. This is from U.S. pollster Frank Luntz, who recently met with the Prime Minister and gave him advice on how he should proceed. Mr. Luntz said:

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate....

This is who the Prime Minister decided to spend his time with and to take advice from, an individual who says to distort the facts. The reality is that the scientific evidence on climate change is irrefutable. We can see it in our day to day lives, but scientists have also proven it through their research. We know that no credible paper published in the last number of years has in any way disputed the fact that climate change is a reality.

The government set Mr. Luntz's words into action. The Conservatives made sure they took action. They started by removing the climate change website, a Government of Canada site that had been set up for information for teachers, students and Canadians about how they could reduce their emissions. The government killed this site. I received a call from a teacher who had been using this site in her class to talk to students about how they could reduce their emissions. She tried it one day and found out that it had been deleted.

The government went through the website and cleansed and erased any references to climate change. It tried to pretend climate change does not exist. The Conservative government listened to its Republican advisers and tried to hide the issue from reality.

What Harper had called previously a controversial--

[Political Financing, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. The Prime Minister muzzled the Commissioner of the RCMP. His Parliamentary Secretary spent last week misleading Parliament and Canadians. The Prime Minister and a Conservative MP violated election laws. The minister does not even know what the existing law is and their party is refusing to release basic information.

When will the Prime Minister stand in his place and apologize to Brian Mulroney for tarnishing the name of the Conservative Party of Canada?

[Political Financing, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should be less concerned about to whom he is going to be asking questions when he is in opposition and more concerned about actually answering questions and demonstrating some accountability.

Not only did the Prime Minister violate the Canada Elections Act by exceeding donation limits, but now it appears that a Conservative MP may have used a donation scam to make illegal contributions as well.

Today we learned that the Conservative member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington's hidden contributions breached the 2005 limit. All in all, there are $1.7 million in similar hidden illegal donations the Conservatives tried to slip past Elections Canada.

In the interests of ensuring the integrity of the Canada Elections Act, when will the Prime Minister release the names involved and pay back the $1.7 million?

[Political Financing, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, from the way he said desperate, we know who is desperate.

The Prime Minister of our country may well have been elected thanks to illegal donations that are blatantly contrary to Canada's election laws. The Prime Minister himself seems to have violated these same laws. These revelations shake the very foundation of this chamber.

When will the sanctimonious Conservative Party end this million dollar cover-up, repay any illegal money they snuck into their pockets and admit they are the biggest hypocrites in Canadian government history? Will they turn over the list of illegal donations, yes or no?