Mauril Bélanger

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since I see that another three minutes remain in the debate, I will proceed quickly.

I am pleased to speak here today, because the issue of the court challenges program is of enormous concern to minority language rights in Canada. As the member for the riding that is home to the Montfort Hospital, it is understandable how upset and disappointed the people of my riding were—as were most Canadians—when they learned that this new government was going to cancel the court challenges program. Afterwards, we were told not to worry, because the government would not introduce any unconstitutional legislation.

Since that time, however, we know that two provinces have challenged the constitutionality of proposed legislation. We were also told that this would apply only to new legislation. That is not the case, since the entire legal structure built since 1867 is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, Canadians have the right to verify if existing legislation applies and if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does indeed ensure that these laws are set aside. In certain cases, this also means all provincial laws.

By telling us not to worry, the government is denying the existence of the whole legislative system of this country and the provinces. We have a problem with that. Earlier, a Conservative member from the Quebec City area asked what the loss of the program meant to francophone minorities and minority communities. My answer is that thanks to the charter of rights and freedoms and the court challenges program, Prince Edward Island was able to get French-language schools and Ottawa was able to keep a hospital in part. That is how the program helped minority communities.

The court challenges program proved its effectiveness time and time again, and linguistic minorities across the country were able to assert and win their rights under the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is supremely ironic that the government has just announced that it will pay $22 million to fund the operating costs of the Museum of Human Rights, when it has done away with the court challenges program, which cost $2.7 million annually.

I do not begrudge what the government will spend on the Museum of Human Rights, but the signs indicate that the court challenges program was cancelled for ideological rather than financial reasons. I know that the government will have to live with this decision and that the next time Canada goes to the polls, the government will pay for denying the least fortunate in our society access to a world-renowned program that recognized their rights.

[Workplace Health and Safety, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, April 28 is the National Day of Mourning. It is a day during which Canadians and people from 80 other countries take time to remember those who have been injured or who have lost their lives in the workplace.

The statistics are worrisome. In Canada, three people die in workplace accidents every day and even more workers die of work-related illnesses. We must lower the incidence of illness and death and protect our fellow citizens' health and lives. We must make an effort every day to make our workplaces safer.

The National Day of Mourning recognizes the urgent need to improve health and safety standards in the workplace.

On this day, I ask all members of Parliament to join me in calling on the government to take workplace safety more seriously and see to a better enforcement of the Canada Labour Code.

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, earlier you agreed with the member who just spoke about being interrupted. I would like to disagree because when one colleague accuses another of yapping, I do not believe that the Speaker should say that it is all right.

[21st Awards Ceremony of Coalition of National Capital Region Businesspeople, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to congratulate those honoured at the 21st awards ceremony of the Regroupement des gens d'affaires de la Capitale nationale held on April 14.

The award recipients, in order of presentation, are as follows: the Prix Coup de Coeur 2007 for outstanding service, Jocelyne Beauchamp and Mireille Campeau, co-owners of Cora's Ottawa Saint-Laurent; manager of the year, private sector, Patrice Basille, executive vice-president, Brookstreet Hotel; manager of the year, parapublic sector, Victoria Henry, director of the Art Bank of the Canada Council for the Arts—particularly special considering it is the 50th anniversary of the Canada Council; SME of the year, Le Nordik - Nature Spa; self-employed worker of the year, Jimmy Blackburn, president of Rebuts Débarras Québec; micro-business of the year, Oproma Inc.; big business of the year, S&S Bolton Electric and its president Robert Sanscartier, who has also received previous awards from the RGA; and lastly entrepreneur of the year, Jacques Bertrand from La Relance Outaouais.

Congratulations to all the award winners. I hope that the RGA will continue its great work for years to come.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we will not know the situation in Kandahar in 2009. I cannot speak for the NATO leadership or what actions will be agreed upon in two years' time.

We are saying our country, through the current government, gave a commitment to be there, and we believe that commitment has to be respected. Once that commitment is over, we believe it should be ended. Canada will have done its part in assuming the current leadership in Kandahar. That should be shared with other members of NATO.

When we took over the leadership role in Kabul for a year, one thing we did was ensure that there would be another NATO nation member assuming that leadership after us. The current government does not seem to want to have any discussions as to who would replace Canada in Kandahar, if that is still necessary, in February 2009.

We believe the will of the House should insist that the government signify to NATO that we want our role there to be taken over by someone else, if it is still required at that time, which NATO will determine, but the government is refusing. I quoted the Prime Minister. He is looking to February 2009 “and beyond”, and we are not prepared to give that commitment.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is incorrect: he forgets that our presence in Afghanistan is an intrinsic part of a broader mission that relies on more than the participation of our country alone. We are there because the United Nations and NATO are there.

As far as the multilateral forces are concerned, the will of the previous government, just like—I hope—that of the current government, was to participate in multilateral missions. The responsibilities are shared by a number of countries. After seven years, including three in Kandahar, Canada will have done its share, in our opinion. It will therefore be time for another member of the NATO sponsored multilateral mission or of the UN to replace Canada in Kandahar, if the presence of a force is still necessary.

No one on our side is talking about leaving Afghanistan. However, being the only ones in charge in Kandahar for an undetermined number of years, we believe the duration of the mission should be limited to February 2009.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Labrador.

First of all, like all my colleagues on both sides of the House today, I want to pay tribute to the men and women in the Canadian Forces for serving their country and their government in such an exemplary manner.

I will draw primarily on the first half of the speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave in February, in order to give some background and explain how we have reached the point we are at today.

First came Operation APOLLO. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, of which Canada is a founding member, invoked article 5 of its charter, which declares that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all. This marked the first time in the history of NATO article 5 had been invoked. The principle underlying article 5, collective security, is one for which Canada will always stand.

In 2002, therefore, Canada went to Afghanistan under a UN mandate with 31 of our allies. For six months, roughly 800 Canadian soldiers joined the international coalition in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. This mission had a clearly defined purpose and a clear exit strategy.

After the Taliban was overthrown, the international community had an obligation to remain in Afghanistan to help stabilize and rebuild the country, one of the poorest countries in the world devastated by 30 years of foreign invasions and civil wars, and thus came Operation ATHENA.

In February 2003 Prime Minister Chrétien decided that Canada would lead the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, in Kabul for one year. This was a multinational force, involving many countries, whose mission was to provide security in the capital to assist the newly created Afghan transitional authority and to help set the appropriate conditions for presidential and parliamentary elections. The Afghan elections took place successfully and peacefully, thanks in part to the assistance provided by Canada, and resulted in the election of President Hamid Karzai.

With 2,000 Canadian troops on the ground and General Hillier commanding the 6,000 strong ISAF force, Canada's effort was at the time our most significant mission in decades. Our soldiers did an outstanding job earning the praise and respect of our allies and of all Canadians.

From the outset, the Chrétien government worked hard to secure a replacement nation for Canada once the one year ISAF mission ended. Consequently, in 2004 Turkey replaced Canada as the lead nation in ISAF. We were able to reduce our presence on the ground, remaining engaged with about 750 troops as well as a major development assistance contribution. At this time, Canada's commitment to Afghanistan became our largest bilateral development program in our history.

Also in 2003, with the support of the Afghan government, UN-NATO assumed responsibility for the ISAF mission. Shortly thereafter, NATO again, with the full support of the Afghan government, decided to expand its presence outside of Kabul and gradually expanded its involvement for reconstruction and security throughout all Afghanistan. Thus were born the provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs.

As part of the NATO expansion, the previous government, led by the member for LaSalle—Émard, decided to establish a provincial reconstruction team of roughly 250 personnel in Kandahar province. Many countries have PRTs throughout Afghanistan. Their mandate is to establish the authority of the Afghan government throughout the country and to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

In addition to the PRT, the previous government committed a task force of about 1,000 troops to Kandahar for one year, from February 2006 to February 2007, to work with our allies to provide security in this dangerous region and to facilitate the transition from a U.S.-led mission to a NATO-led one.

The key objective of this mission was first and foremost reconstruction and establishing security, recognizing that we would be undertaking this crucial work in a dangerous region. The government was under no illusion this mission would be more dangerous than our previous engagements in Afghanistan, as was said repeatedly by the then ministers of defence and foreign affairs.

However, Canada, NATO and the Americans had not anticipated how violent and dangerous Kandahar would become in 2006. Between January and May 2006, eight soldiers and one diplomat were killed. That contrasted sharply with the seven fatalities the Canadian Forces sustained in Afghanistan over the previous four years.

By May, a mere three months after Canada's combat force went into Kandahar, the current government knew that we were facing a significant and violent insurgency, well beyond anything NATO had experienced in the past or for which it had planned. Before too long we saw that the Canadian effort in Kandahar had shifted from the original overriding objective of reconstruction to fighting a violent insurgency.

Faced with a rapidly deteriorating security environment, the Conservative government did not take the time to determine whether and how our mission could still achieve the goals we had set up. Instead, the Prime Minister extended the mission by two years without having obtained commitments from our allies to help us cope with the changed situation.

The Conservative government made no prior effort to obtain assurances from the government of Pakistan, for instance, to secure its border with Afghanistan, across which the insurgents move with impunity. It received no assurances from our NATO allies to replace Canada at the end of our mission.

In addition, the Prime Minister said that this mission would not hinder Canada's ability to undertake peace support missions elsewhere, such as in Darfur or Haiti. However, within a few weeks of the vote in Parliament in May last year, the defence minister made it clear that Canada no longer had any such troop capacity. General Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, has more recently confirmed this.

Let me quote the Prime Minister during that May 17, 2006, debate before the vote later that evening as to why, perhaps, we are doing what we are doing today. I am quoting from Hansard. He said:

We are asking Parliament to make a commitment in three areas: diplomacy, development and defence.

All three are inextricably linked. In a moment I want to go through what we are asking Parliament specifically to support over the next couple of years.

I think I also need to be clear, given the events over the last 24 hours or so, of what the consequences would be if there were a No vote. Let me be clear on this. This would be a surprise to this government. In debates in this chamber up until last month and in private meetings until very recently, we had every reason to believe that three of four parties, which have consistently supported this action, would continue to do so.

Should that turn out not to be the case, this government is not in a position to simply walk away or to run away. What the government will do, if we do not get a clear mandate, the clear will of Parliament to extend for two years and beyond, is proceed cautiously with a one year extension.

I put it to the House that the mindset of the Prime Minister, and it has been demonstrated by the responses and comments from the Minister of Defence, may very well be of the government pursuing this beyond February 2009. The Prime Minister said that in his speech in the House in May of last year. It is therefore important that we make this quite clear. The will of Parliament, and we will determine that with a vote on this, is that after February 2009 another member of NATO will do what Canada has done since last year in Kandahar.

It is not walking away, cutting and running. It is ensuring that NATO, which is the lead agency in this endeavour, ensures that the load is shared by its members and not carried punitively by one member of NATO. That is the intent of the clarity of this motion. I sure hope my colleagues understand this is the extent, nothing else, and none of the imaginings we have heard today.

In closing—and I do not necessarily blame the government for this—the main objective of our mission in Afghanistan, which is the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan, is being neglected and is not being met.

When we as the government make decisions on behalf of Canadians, we have to consider what Canadians want. Canadians do not want to be in Afghanistan indefinitely, and they certainly do not want to be there for military reasons alone. Defence must be balanced by development and diplomacy, and this government does not seem to want to respect that balance.

With the adoption of a motion such as the one before us today, we hope that the government can refocus Canada's mission in Afghanistan, at least until February 2009.

[Message from the Senate, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I want to advise the House to be cautious in usurping the method of voting that this House has instituted for private members' business. I did not object because I can sense the mood of people wanting to get out of here, but I think we should be careful in the future.

I may object in the future because this House has gone through tremendous struggles to ensure that private members' business gets voted in a certain way and respected in that fashion and we are slipping away from that. I just want to say that I for one am concerned and I may not grant unanimous consent in the future.

[Denise Beauchamp and Grant Toole, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9, the Ottawa regional council of the Ontario French-Canadian association awarded the 2006 Grandmaître prize to Denise Beauchamp. Following her 35-year teaching career, Ms. Beauchamp dedicated herself to volunteer work. In addition to her involvement with young people and her parish, she also became the chair of the regional section of FAFO, the Ontario federation of francophone seniors and retirees, a job she has carried out brilliantly. Bravo, Denise, and thank you.

For his part, Grant Toole received the francophile of the year award from the French language Catholic school board of eastern and central Ontario. As program director for the Focus Vanier community organization since 2000, he is very involved in his community. He was also one of the five claimants in legal action that led to control over the management of French language schools in Ontario. As this is Francophonie Week, on behalf of the residents of Ottawa—Vanier, especially the residents of Vanier, I would like to thank Denise and Grant for their outstanding contributions.

[Africa, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the 1950s and 1960s brought about significant changes to Africa when many countries established their independence.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the first of these events started in the early months of 1957. As the result of a UN-sponsored plebiscite, a new country was formed in West Africa by the merger of the British colony Gold Coast and the British Togoland trust territory. On March 6, 1957, this territory became Ghana, and this month, March 2007, marks the 50th anniversary of its independence.

With a vibrant population of approximately 21 million, Ghana is a country known for its effervescence and is a model for political and economic reform in Africa.

On behalf of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, I wish Ghana and its population peace and prosperity. I also take this opportunity to convey my best wishes to Canadians of Ghanaian origin who add, by their very presence, to Canada's socio-economic fabric.