House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 17th, 2007
Mr. Chair, I know the minister is aware of ITAR. ITAR is an American regulation that prevents Canadians who were born in certain countries from working on contracts that were paid for by Canadians through the Canadian government.
We heard reports that the federal government had signed a deal with the American government to exempt Canadians who work with the department. Is that accurate?
Afghanistan May 4th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the government to follow the proud example of our soldiers.
The Minister of National Defence has gone absent without leave and now we clearly know why.
Both the minister and the Prime Minister need to be told that denial is not a river in Afghanistan.
Is there anyone over there who is taking human rights seriously and the protection of our soldiers seriously?
Will someone finally tell the Minister of National Defence that his incompetence is just too much to bear and he must resign?
Afghanistan May 4th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Colonel Steve Noonan filed an affidavit confirming that at least one detainee was beaten while in the custody of the Afghan police.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his secretary of state or the Minister of National Defence now jump out of their seat and accuse Colonel Noonan of supporting the Taliban? I hope not.
Why did it take the Afghan government to begin the initiative for a new deal? When did the Minister of National Defence know about these allegations?
Human Rights April 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on all parliamentarians to join me in condemning all forms of hate speech. Unfortunately, occasionally we see hate and intolerance rear its ugly head among us.
On April 4 a small explosion outside a Jewish community centre in Montreal sent a chill as many Canadians celebrated Passover. Last week Professor Muriel Walker of McMaster University had hateful and racist slurs painted on her office door because she promoted understanding about Muslim Canadians. These acts of cowardice and hate disgust all Canadians.
As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the charter, I am proud that our laws and institutions stand firm against hate. Today my colleague from Etobicoke Centre will be tabling a motion to strengthen our hate laws by adding gender as an unacceptable basis for discrimination and hate.
I am calling on all parliamentarians to offer their unanimous consent to adopt this motion. Last Parliament some Conservative members refused to do so and I hope this time they will reconsider. We all must stand together against all forms of hate.
Business of Supply April 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is saying. Canada right now has a commitment until 2009. What Liberals will continue to do from now until then is urge the government to exercise wisdom in its decisions of how it conducts the mission and to focus on diplomacy and development as well as defence.
However, the motion talks about what we will do beyond 2009 and encourages the government to withdraw our troops after 2009.
Business of Supply April 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with veterans and with soldiers. There is no doubt that there is a difference of opinion among many soldiers and veterans about the conduct of the mission.
I would request the hon. member to ask the Prime Minister why he put the motion that the mission would only be extended to 2009.
Today we are asking what the government's plan is beyond 2009. Many of us are saying that we must pull out by 2009. Is the member telling us, are the Conservatives telling us that they want to stay beyond 2009? How long do they want to stay? What is it they want to accomplish? Is it to help the Afghani people or is it to go on a witch hunt, killing everybody around the rural areas of the Taliban? What do they want to accomplish? Tell us what they want to accomplish.
Business of Supply April 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.
As I stand here to debate this motion today, I want to first extend my deep sympathy to the families and friends of all the soldiers who paid the ultimate price and sacrificed their lives serving their country. I also want to wish all who have been injured a full and speedy recovery.
Today I am going to refrain from using any partisan finger pointing. Given the magnitude of this matter, I am hoping that by avoiding partisan accusations parliamentarians will actually debate the substance of this motion and not be distracted by one-upmanship in order to make a point. This discussion is not only critical for Canadians and our Canadian soldiers, but it is also very important for Afghanistan and our international partners.
Today many doubts persist about the future and success of our current mission in Afghanistan. The goals of the current mission in Kandahar appear to be ambiguous and uncertain. Canadians have many questions about our strategy in achieving our goals and about tangible signs of success. They have questions about the length of this mission. They have questions about the exit transition. Surely these questions deserve real discussion and responsible answers.
Canadians supported the initial deployment in Afghanistan. The original goals were to help the Afghani nation dispose of horrible, radical and destructive elements and to participate in helping establish a democratic system that would enable genuine progress. Recently though, Canadians have been observing a marked change in tone and scope when it comes to this mission.
It appears that the current approach is not working. It is unquestionable that the Taliban has gained popularity and support. It is undeniable that opium growth has more than doubled over the past year. It is a fact that our Canadian troops have been suffering more casualties.
I want to encourage all parliamentarians who are going to engage in this discussion to avoid the silly accusation we have already heard today that this debate offends our troops or represents a lack of support for their sincere work. Parliamentarians and Canadians are extremely proud of our soldiers and support them wholeheartedly.
This is exactly why we are having this debate and this is exactly why Canadians are watching this debate. Our support must be expressed by being responsible when making serious decisions about their future deployments. So for anyone who is thinking about it, please spare us the rhetoric and help us focus on a healthy, serious and effective debate that will honour the sacrifice of our soldiers and their keen willingness to serve our country.
I would also caution any parliamentarian who will spend most of their time describing the ruthlessness of the Taliban and its supporters. All Canadians are aware of the Taliban. This not about whether the Taliban is evil. What we need to examine is how effectively we are helping the Afghan people to progress and to prosper.
If our mission strategy is to chase Taliban elements around the rural areas of Afghanistan, it would be fair to assume that this would become an endless and counterproductive objective. This would only embolden the Taliban and stir resentment among villagers.
The best approach to defeat the Taliban is to marginalize it by offering hopeful alternatives to Afghans and shutting the door on its attempts to exploit frustrated and angry villagers. We must focus our efforts on creating a vibrant and rewarding environment where civil institutions are strong, job opportunities are growing, political expressions are encouraged and education is accessible.
If we make this mission into a pure military operation, no one wins. If we frame this mission as a form of retribution, it loses sight of its real intended objectives, and if we focus on engaging the Taliban in an arms race as the minister has said, it is bound to turn into an aimless and endless goal. Our soldiers have served honourably for five years in Afghanistan and by 2009 it will be seven years.
We must take a long, hard look at what we have accomplished to date, celebrate our successes and learn from our experience. It is unacceptable that we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well.
There are many real and serious questions. The government is making these questions more urgent by remaining ambiguous and unclear about the future of the mission.
Canadians are uncertain about the intention of the government in regard to the future of our deployment. We all know that Canada is committed until 2009. What we do not know is the intention of the government beyond that. The Conservatives insinuate that we could be there for an additional 10 to 15 years, but when they are asked direct questions, they avoid clear answers.
With this motion, we are hoping to send a clear message to all Canadians about what the House of Commons expects in the future for the mission. By voting to support the motion, we are making it clear that we want our troops to leave the southern part of Afghanistan by 2009. By voting against the motion, parliamentarians will further confuse Canadians and send mix messages about what are our goals. Canadians want answers to legitimate and fair questions. They expect these questions to be handled thoughtfully and openly. We do not want to lose our focus and get distracted by blind emotions or ideology.
The mission is multidimensional, complex and it deserves thoughtful deliberation. Simplistic and one dimensional slogans are not satisfactory. One need only examine history or current world affairs, including what is happening in Iraq, to see that even the most sincere intentions can end in failure if various cultural, humanitarian, military and economical aspects are not considered. Reflecting on these factors is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength. Ignoring these factors can only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and negligence.
Canadians want us to ensure that our brave troops are sent on peacekeeping missions with well defined goals, a clearly outlined strategy and a well defined time commitment. Canadians can also see that we need to re-examine our current strategy and clearly explain the horizons of our goal and scope.
That is exactly why I am supporting the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but be amazed by the speech that the parliamentary secretary has just given.
It took three months to get this opportunity to respond to a question that was asked on February 20. This is how urgently the Conservatives are treating this file.
The parliamentary secretary spent most of his time asking why the Liberals did not get it done. He seems to forget that he and his party are in government. He seems to forget that in the last campaign a year and a half ago, the Conservatives made an explicit promise that they would, in no uncertain terms, fix this problem.
Did members hear his speech? He said that they would do it, that they were working on it and that they were consulting. A year and a half after an explicit promise in the campaign, the Conservatives have yet to get it done.
The Liberals invested $300 million in the last budget compared to $18 million that the Conservative government has invested. I do not have any problem comparing numbers.
Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly urged the Conservative government to act on addressing the foreign credentials file, an issue it promised to resolve unequivocally in its last campaign.
Sadly, the Conservatives have explicitly broken their promise and have abandoned and frustrated Canadians.
This not only disappoints new Canadians who have been caught in limbo and are having difficulty applying their training and experience, but it also concerns all Canadians who realize that our country is being short changed on so much talent and skill that is urgently needed to maintain and increase our economic and social growth, and prosperity.
It is estimated that Canada is missing out on approximately $6 billion of economic activities by underutilizing a tremendous wealth of qualification and experience.
The Conservatives will not deny that fact. They have pretended that they recognize the magnitude of this serious challenge. They pretended they had a solution. They exploited the angst and frustration of many Canadians by claiming in no uncertain terms that they will solve these needs, and then used these sentiments of frustration for their own political expediency. Now, true to their style they continue to pretend that they have acted on this issue. They are pretending that they have solved this matter.
Many Canadians are bewildered by the Conservatives' inaction and how disparate it is from their rhetoric. So far the Conservatives have had two opportunities through two different budgets to fulfill their promise to fix the foreign credentials conundrum. Unfortunately, both budgets fell massively and miserably short from addressing this issue.
The previous Liberal government had started substantial investment into resolving this matter. The Liberals worked with various stakeholder groups, including provincial governments, professional associations, post-secondary institutions and immigration settlement organizations.
All the Conservatives have done to date is significantly reduce funds allocated previously to this file, create a storefront to pass the blame on to others, and leave Canadians and immigrants who are seeking help wanting and underwhelmed with the assistance provided.
The Conservatives' approach to the immigration file and the foreign credential recognition issue reveals that at best they have no plan or vision to seriously and substantively deal with the challenges our country is facing and at worst, they do not care about voters who consider this file to be crucial for the future success of Canada.
The Conservatives must learn that good policy and sound solutions are what will eventually attract voters any day over crass, short-sighted partisan politics. Canadians want a responsible government that will act, not posture.
When will the Conservatives honour their promise of delivering relief to people who took their word in good faith and at face value?
Minister of Public Safety March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I know why the minister is sensitive about this issue, but this is a serious matter and the minister must acknowledge its seriousness.
The only way to ensure that the RCMP is able to investigate this new evidence that has come forward is for its boss to step aside. If he believes in accountability, he must also practise it.
Will the minister step aside and remove any possible conflict of interest?