Paul Dewar

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to rebut the previous speaker, but I will not do that. As a son of a veteran who required help from the VIP and was turned down, sadly, I will not go there.

What does the member think about the fact that right now $1 billion in aid goes to the government of Pakistan and people have noted that the government of Pakistan has done very little? I want to quote very quickly a recently interview with Sarah Chayes. She said:

—we're paying a billion dollars a year to Pakistan, which is orchestrating the Taliban insurgency. So, it's actually US-taxpayer money that is paying for the insurgents, who are then killing, at the moment, Canadian troops. Now if I were the government of Germany or France, I'd have a hard time putting my troops in that kind of equation. I would demand from Washington, that Washington require a lot different behavior from Pakistan.

What would my colleague say about those comments?

[Food Products Labelling Act, February 15th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-510, An Act respecting the labelling of food products.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for seconding the bill.

I am tabling a bill to improve Canada's food labelling practices that would provide every day Canadians with full disclosure of ingredients in the food items they purchase.

The bill would require the mandatory labelling of the use of hormones, antibiotics and rendered slaughterhouse waste in meat and poultry products, and the use of pesticides or genetically modified organisms in all food products.

When Canadian families put food on their tables, they want to make sure the food is nourishing them and not making them sick. We want mandatory labelling on food products, so we know what is in our food.

Both the current and previous federal governments have refused to improve the laws in order to give full disclosure of food ingredients to Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Tackling Violent Crime Legislation, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for his precise analysis of this debate.

I would appreciate it if he would comment on where Bill C-16 fits into all this. Bill C-16 is about fixed election dates. I sat on the committee and the government said that it would never use it. At the committee, we tried to put in caveats around fixed election dates to ensure no government, this government or any other government, could use fixed election dates for its own benefit.

It seems to me the government is breaking that promise and using fixed election dates when it needs to. When the Conservatives do not like something, they will go outside and use the option of bringing down the House on their own.

I would appreciate hearing from my colleague on that.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's comments on the government's financial pathway. She talked about a bill of rights for taxpayers. I recently visited a housing project in my riding and met with some people who are doing their best with very little. It is not far from here, Mr. Speaker, and if you have the time I would love to take you there. The people in that housing project are deeply concerned about the government's priorities.

In particular, the six women I talked to all have families. Some of them are living in one bedroom apartments, five or six people living together as a family. They are paying 90% of their income on rent. This government has done absolutely nothing for them. They cannot eat the taxpayer bill of rights. It will not pay the rent and what is abhorrent is that most of the people I was talking to were actually newcomers. Two of them were from Afghanistan. They are living in abhorrent conditions here in Canada.

Their question to me, that I will pose to the member is: what is the government doing for them?

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York Centre for putting the motion before the House so we have a chance to discuss the issue going on in both Iran and Sudan.

The NDP has been extremely concerned about l would call the supreme humanitarian crisis occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan.

We have also voiced our concerns about the situation in Iran, the flagrant abuse of human rights, the crackdown of people's freedoms and the Iranian president's anti-semantic outbursts. The lack of a resolution in the case of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian who was killed at the hands of the Iranian authorities, is something we should all be seized with as well as the growing concern about the country's possible attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

Sudan and Iran pose two very different challenges to the international community. In the course of the debate, I hope the members of the House will develop an understanding of how to approach these two different cases.

I will start off with my comments on Sudan and Darfur.

The situation is a humanitarian crisis. Gerry Caplan has called it a genocide in slow motion. Pointing fingers at the inaction of others does not justify ours. That is why it is a valid proposition to look at divestment. It is not good enough for us to point to other nation states until we have dealt with our own backyard. That is why I think divestment is a plausible policy option for us to look at.

Others have mentioned the case of South Africa. I know members are aware of the history of what happened in South Africa vis-à-vis divestment and boycott.

Why should we be seized with the issue? Estimates show that about 450,000 people have been murdered or killed due to violence in Darfur and millions displaced, raped. There is destruction and ethnic cleansing with total impugnity.

I will describe our party's proposition with regard to the situation in Darfur.

What is of paramount importance, and what I would hope the government would be more able to support, is resolution 1769. As we know, this is the UN peacekeeping mission, a hybrid mission, which is still lacking resources and has had difficulties in getting the cooperation of the regime in Sudan. However, it needs resources, resources that we have.

We also believe we should invest in long term development of civil society in the peace process in Darfur. We believe we should divest all Canadian investment from Sudan. As was mentioned by my colleague from the Bloc, due to a motion of the NDP at the foreign affairs committee, we will study this issue in more detail. We look forward to that important study.

New Democrats believe Canada must take a leadership role in Darfur. We know resolutions in and of themselves do not protect vulnerable citizens, but peacekeeping actions and multilateral actions do. We believe Canada must provide personnel and resources to support the UN's vitally important mission. We have a clear chapter 7 mandate to protect civilians. We have the consent in words, and I mentioned the challenges of Sudan, and we have had four years of violence and devastation behind us. Doing nothing is not an option.

Canada talks about its role in being a global leader. We believe that looking at divestment as a way of effecting change in Sudan is one of the ways we can lead. As I mentioned, supporting the UN peacekeeping mission 1769 is another as is supporting civil society, peace efforts and peace building in Sudan. Sadly, we have not seen that commitment from the government.

I do not think most Canadians are aware that we have the resources to support the three things I just mentioned: the divestment, which we will be studying; the support to the peacekeeping mission; and the support to civil society and peace building.

Very recently I met with one of my constituents, who is in Darfur right now. He is a Somalian Canadian working under the UN auspices in Darfur. He will meet with local leaders in villages to see that when a peace agreement is reached, we will be able to carry it out.

When peace agreements come together, one of the problems we have had is often they are only understood at the top and not by communities and the grassroots. This has to be put on the table and understood. If we do not build capacity in peace building now, then any peace agreement reached in the coming months or next year might be for naught because we do not have the capacity on the ground to ensure it is followed.

With regard to Darfur, we should also be aware that when we talk about divestment, we must address direct and indirect investment. Corporations like Total, an energy company, have Canadian interests and shares and they sit on the boards. This should be put on the table.

The government has said in the case of Burma that we can only put in special economic measures for investment in the future and we cannot look at existing or past investments. That is not the case. If the government has the will, it can deal with existing investment in the case of Darfur and also Burma.

I mention that because as legislators we have to understand what our policy options are. We need to understand that Canada can, if it has the will, elicit special economic measures that will deal with existing investments in Sudan and Darfur, both direct and indirect Canadian investments.

Hopefully, the foreign affairs committee will get a better understanding as to the scope of Canadian investment, which is why the study is being done. Then we must do more than study; we must act. To do this, we must understand that indirect investment is as pertinent as direct investment.

In the case of Burma, some have estimated that there are up to $1.2 billion in Canadian pension plan investments presently in Burma. When we have asked department officials if they are aware of that, they have said that the Special Economic Measures Act does not pertain to indirect investment. This motion is extremely important to understand. What we do in our actions has to be indepth. We cannot simply pass a motion for future investments. It has to deal with existing investments and, indeed, investments in the future.

I want to turn to other measures that can be taken by the government.

Recently the International Criminal Court successfully charged and carried out actions on two people who were involved in humanitarian crimes in Sudan. It is important to underline that. For the charges to be followed through, they had to go through the Security Council. In the past both the United States and China have been a problem and a block at the Security Council.

With the issue of Darfur and Sudan, something magical happened. For the first time in the case of the United States, it supported and recognized the ICC. China abstained, which is the best we will get from China on the ICC. In the end, the rule of law was brought forward. Right now the ICC needs to follow up, do its job and bring those perpetrators to justice so we can see that international justice can be done, not only seem to be done.

The NDP looks forward to this debate and to opening up the policy options for the government to take more action both in Darfur and Iran.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to expand a bit more on his points about what should be done in Darfur and the region of Sudan. I am sure we would all like to hear his point of view.

[Black History Awards, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, black Canadians have long been at the forefront of Canada's success as a nation.

On February 1, I had the privilege of meeting the recipients of the Black History Ottawa Community Builder Awards.

The recipients included: Dr. Horace Alexis, a highly respected community member who raises money for disadvantaged university-bound black students; Stachen Frederick, a powerful campus organizer who is promoting achievement and leadership among her peers; and Joanne Robinson, whose tireless advocacy is improving the health of our community. I send my congratulations to them.

On another note, I welcome U.S. Congressman Michael Michaud to Ottawa. This morning my NDP colleagues and I met with Congressman Michaud to discuss the issue of free trade negotiations with Colombia. The U.S. Congress agrees with the NDP that these negotiations must be immediately halted in light of the ongoing human rights abuses in Colombia.

I call on all parties to stand up for human rights and fight the free trade negotiations in Colombia.

[Omar Khadr, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is standing idle as one of our citizens faces indefinite detention, a questionable legal process and inhumane conditions.

Omar Khadr is the only Canadian detained by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay facility. He has been languishing for almost six years without conviction.

Khadr was 15 years old when he was arrested in Afghanistan. That makes him a child soldier. Since the 18th century, the western world has not prosecuted a child soldier.

Other countries, including Britain, France and Australia, have repatriated their nationals from Guantanamo. Nothing less should be afforded to a Canadian.

In the absence of the Conservative government's leadership, Canadian human rights groups and organizations have been joined by the United Nations, members of the European Union and the international community calling for Khadr's return to Canada.

New Democrats call on the government to immediately repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right in saying there are problems with it in terms of those countries which are trying to withdraw. The irony is that initially this was to be an arrangement that was to benefit countries in the southern hemisphere. After World War II and Breton Woods, and the setting up of the IMF, the World Bank was supposed to do the same thing.

I do not want to leave people with the impression that the New Democratic Party does not support the idea of these institutions. The problem is what happened to these institutions. The problem is they are not working for people.

Fundamentally the difference we have with the other parties is we believe that these institutions, in fact government itself, should be working for people and not the other way around. Instead, what has happened over a period of time is that these institutions have been tailored not to help people, but they have put corporations ahead. It is very interesting in international law when we look at the rights of people versus the rights of corporations. Corporations are trumping people time and time again. The effects are devastating. They are anti-democratic.

Instead of saying we believe in these institutions and that we should reform these institutions so that we can have trade deals that are going to help people and be fair, we see people who are involved in the business of lobbying and international lawyers who look out for the best interests of corporations and certainly themselves being able to change how these institutions work. That is so very sad.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins for his point which needs to be underlined. The question is, whose side is being represented here?

One of the things that I did not include in my comments is that the ICSID administrative council meets each year in the fall, which is at the same time as the World Bank gets together and the IMF has its annual meeting. The council is chaired by the president of the World Bank.

I watched the sad saga of Mr. Wolfowitz, the person who came in to say that he would clean up the corruption that was rampant in the World Bank. It was strange and bizarre to watch Mr. Wolfowitz trying to in some way explain himself and what he was doing when he hired one his friends and got her a contract. It was shameless.

Here we have a matter of being told to trust them. Why should Canadians put their trust in an institution like the World Bank which has had problems in deciding who is in charge? When someone was found to be corrupt, it had a hard time getting rid of him.

I would suggest that Canadians would be better served dealing with things here in our own jurisdiction and, until the World Bank can get its act together, that we do not go that route, that we keep things here as much as we can. We cannot always do it but in this case we are being offered that.

I have one final thing to mention which might be interesting to my friends from Alberta. Why is Alberta not signing on to this? Maybe Alberta has received some intelligence from Washington that this is not something it wants to get into because it might hurt the oil industry in some way if it were to submit its sovereignty to Washington. I do not know if that is the case but it would be interesting for my colleagues, if they have a chance, to answer the question of why Alberta is one of the provinces that does not want to sign on to this protocol.