Paul Dewar

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I attempted earlier to read into the record a quote in the Policy Options magazine but I did not do it in the right manner, so I will keep that in mind.

The quote simply states that the present “government--”, as opposed to the nomenclature I gave it earlier:

--takes no steps whatsoever to address the real weaknesses: the misguided US command and control effort; chaos and corruption in the Western-sponsored Karzai regime;....

The reason I read that for comment is because it is a quote, not from a New Democrat, but from someone who actually ran for the Conservative Party, and the member will probably know him, Arthur Kent. His point was that what is being proposed in this motion, with the Liberal Party supporting the government, is 1,000 more troops.

Whose command and control will those troops be under? If it is, as we believe, American troops, we should also know that they will not be under the command and control of any other country. What will happen to the command structure of the 1,000 troops, which we will get and I think everyone knows that, if they come from the United States? Will they be under American command and control? What will happen in that scenario?

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let me take a quick second to apologize for not listening to you more carefully in your point of order.

I want to read into the record a critique that has been brought forward, and I would like to hear the hon. member's response. It is talking about the thousand more troops that have been focused on. The quote states: “Meanwhile the Harper government takes no steps whatsoever to address the real weaknesses: the misguided US--”.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. I have a couple of points to make and then a question.

First, it seems to me that the Liberal Party's position, which it held strenuously before, notwithstanding that it helped to extend this mission to 2009, was that there had to be a withdrawal from the combat mission. Now it has entirely flipped and flopped and caved to supporting what everyone knows is an extension of the combat mission.

Everything in the motion shows that. Having a special committee, I am sorry, does not guarantee a 3D approach. Money in the bank dedicated to the mission will. Therefore, the Liberal Party cannot hide behind words. There have to be actions. A thousand troops, more helicopters and drones do not add to the other two Ds that need help.

I want to ask the member if she would agree with the following. Canadians, for example, are led to believe the biggest urgency revealed by the Manley report is the need to muster another 1,000 troops. Meanwhile the Harper government takes no steps whatsoever to—

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague down the way. I have been listening carefully to the government's and Liberals' support of the extension of the mission. To be clear about my party's position, it is not to abandon Afghanistan, as they will have everyone believe, but how to do things differently.

What is occurring now is clearly not working. On the extension of the war, as the government and Liberals believe, in a nutshell, it is that we add 1,000 troops, some helicopters and drones and that will take care of the problem. This is not credible when we listen to testimony by generals who say 1,000 troops will not do it. They want more and more and that will increase the conflict.

If my colleague truly believes that Canada is there to make a difference, then can he at least acknowledge the fact that right now civilian deaths are up, security is down and Afghanistan has one of the most corrupt regimes around? That is not dealt with.

Finally, will he at least acknowledge, as some of his colleagues will not, that there are negotiations going on right now with the Taliban, and they have been for quite a long time, negotiations with the Taliban that everyone says we should never negotiate with?

It is time to take off the ideological blinkers and acknowledge that if this is not working, it is time to do something else.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from constituents and Canadians calling upon the government to prohibit the use of hormones, antibiotics, rendered slaughterhouse waste, genetically modified organisms and pesticides in food production.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.

The first petition is from constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast who call upon the government to reinvigorate its support for the anti-nuclear movement and asks that the government actually establish itself as a global peace-builder that will call on and recommit our nation to the abolition of nuclear weapons as a top priority.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting the government's case to Parliament. There is the question of what is actual, reliable, honest-to-goodness foreign policy and what the government seems to have put forward. On the ground, security is down, civilian deaths are up, poppy production is up and corruption is up. It seems the government believes the prescription for that is more troops, drones and helicopters.

The government is probably going to get its 1,000 troops. I think it knew that before it came to the House, with the Liberals, to extend the war to 2011. If those troops come from the United States, whose command and control will those soldiers be under? Will they be under Canadian command and control or will they be under American command and control and will it be Operation Enduring Freedom or will it be part of ISAF?

[Science and Technology, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get an answer from the industry minister, let us try the foreign affairs minister.

The sale of RADARSAT-2 to Alliant Techsystems is against Canada's national security interests. The U.S. company may be planning to use the RADARSAT-2 technology for weapons control. This same company also builds landmines banned by Canada and the UN. It also builds cluster bombs. Canadian law requires the minister to make his decision with “regard to national security and the defence of Canada”.

Will the foreign affairs minister exercise his statutory authority and stand up for Canadian sovereignty by refusing to approve the transfer of RADARSAT-2's licensing authority?

[Science and Technology, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the sale of Canada's largest space company, MacDonald Dettwiler, and the Canadian RADARSAT-2 satellite will give unprecedented control of Canadian technology, bought and paid for by Canadians, to an American firm, Alliant Techsystems. First built by the Canadian Space Agency, Canada has spent $524 million for the promise of “priority access” to the satellite in cases of emergency, including oil spills and suspect vessels entering Canada's north.

The final say on the sale rests with the industry minister. Will he meet the March 22 deadline to stop the sale?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative budget is a failure when it comes to health care. Today we learned that almost 20% of hospital beds in Ontario are occupied by patients who cannot find home care or long term care. The result is hallway medicine and the cancellation of life-saving surgery. Here in Ottawa almost 200 patients cannot go home to their families. Why? Because there is no home care available.

Does the government understand that to end hallway medicine and excessive wait times, we must invest in long term care and home care? That is why we will not be voting for the budget.