Paul Dewar

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, what the member is getting at is the arms trade treaty. We are still waiting for the government to formally respond as to whether it is going to sign the treaty. I note that all of our allies have done this, including the United States, the U.K., and Australia. I say that because it is related. The arms trade treaty was negotiated to deal with the trade of illegal arms and arms sales, particularly small arms. Small arms in Africa have been noted as the arms of mass destruction, because they have done so much damage. They have flooded into the region, particularly the Sahel but also the area we are talking about.

While I am on my feet, I will say that we should not only sign the arms trade treaty to send the right message that we are serious about armed conflict. A really smart idea, again coming from the crisis group, is the idea of establishing a contact group. We have seen this method used before. The AU would be part of it, the UN, the U.S., the U.K., Norway, the European Union, China, South Africa, and maybe even Canada. I think that would be supportive. I say maybe even Canada, because I think the government needs to start to take those leadership opportunities when they arise.

I am getting the sense from the other side, in the case of CAR and in the case of Sudan, and I heard it from one of the members earlier, that because we are not within the continent, and as was said before, it should be an African solution, we should not take part. Maybe we just happen to disagree. Clearly it is not about us dictating terms. I see my colleague shaking her head. I think she would agree that we need to be involved.

I would like it clarified by the government how we are involved. It is difficult to see the progress in terms of engagement in Africa when we have disbanded the Sudanese task force, when we have seen a lapse in funding, money Parliament appropriated to the Department of Foreign Affairs, to CIDA, that is not being invested.

This is not about saving money and good administration. This is about hundreds of millions of dollars that were entrusted to the government to invest in its priorities. That is how the process works.

There are ideas we are putting forward here tonight. The government will have its own ideas and consult within its own departments. We need to see our country step up in Africa right now, because there is crisis in the Sahel, in the Central African Republic, and in Sudan. It would be applauded by everyone in this House. It would be supported. It would also be something that would make a difference, clearly in the case of Sudan and clearly in the case of the Central African Republic. Finally, I think Canadians would want to see us do it.

For all those reasons, I plead with the government to look at their strategy in Africa. If it wants to do things differently, fine, but let us get going on this, because people are asking for our help, and we need to be there.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, that is a great question. What we need to do is provide support, as we have done with other countries. Guatemala comes to mind, when it was dealing with the horrific mass atrocities in the 1980s.

The AU Commission of Inquiry into human rights abuses will need adequate staff, adequate training, and resources to consult widely to get things functioning. That is something we can help with concretely, with all of the other partners the member mentioned.

Make no mistake. Canada is seen as a valid partner, a wanted partner. As I said, it is with some sadness, as a matter of fact, that we disbanded the Sudanese task force, the desk within foreign affairs. It was noted just recently at committee that the funding in the last couple of years has lapsed. I do not think it is a question of resources. I think it is a question of focusing and coordinating the resources and providing the support South Sudan needs.

We can work with all of the organizations she mentioned to provide, as I mentioned, to the AU Commission of Inquiry, something we did in Guatemala on justice and human rights protection. Our assistance would not only be welcomed but celebrated, because it is something we have done before. I gave the government credit for what it did before, as well as the previous government. It is just a matter of being consistent, carrying on, and showing that we can play a constructive role.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I think that, first of all, we have to communicate to all parties. This is not just Canada, of course. This is a collective responsibility in the international community. We have to effectively communicate to all parties that it is absolutely clear that their responsibility is to protect civilians. That is the first and immediate thing. The longer term will touch on what the member has mentioned.

I think there is a need to establish three separate negotiation tracks, focused on the SPLM, which would be one track, the armed groups, and communal conflict, tracks that are appropriately sequenced, and contribute to the broader piece of national political dialogue.

If we are able to kind of separate into three tracks the immediate protection and then the longer-term negotiations, looking at the role of the SPLM, the other armed groups, and the kind of communal conflicts that are happening, we can then get to the final stage, which is what the member has touched on, to look at some form of reconciliation.

This is something that will be more difficult, but important. It is something on which we can work with our partners after we have dealt with the short term, such as I have just laid out, the SPLM, the armed groups, and what is happening in some of these communal conflicts, which are the three tracks that are there. The international community must then focus on working together to look at reconciliation, which would provide the basis for South Sudan to be able to be truly independent, and not just in name but in governance.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I rise tonight to provide some input from the New Democratic Party on what we think is important for all of us to be seized with about South Sudan.

I remember very well my first year as a member of Parliament. Some of the most important debates we had here were around Afghanistan, but the other issue we were seized with was what was happening in Sudan. At the time, it was not divided into the two countries. I will never forget, as a new MP, being quite taken with the fact that there were things we were doing in Sudan at the time, but there was a deep crisis in Darfur, the situation in Darfur that many have said was like a genocide in slow motion.

We really pushed to have more done. At the time, we were pushing for more lift capacity, helicopters, to support the United Nations mission, and we wanted to have the government seized with the issue. In fact there was some good work done and the government did provide some resources, albeit we wanted more, but I must acknowledge that the Conservatives did support the mission and focused on Darfur at the time. We believed more lift capacity was available and they could have used it, but anyhow.

I say that because at the time we were all looking toward a resolution of the conflict and looked at the 2005 peace accord, to which Canada was a major contributor, and we had the development into a separate country. This was very exciting. There were many people concerned at the time that we would not see a successful partition and the creation of a new country.

However, as I just said in my question to my colleague across the way, at the time just before the creation of the new country of South Sudan, the foreign affairs committee—of which I was a member at the time, before the last Canadian election—had warned that there would be a need to stay with the Sudanese, to stay engaged, to make sure that, just because a new country had been created, it did not mean we could walk away.

We have been concerned that the Sudan task force that was set up to help in the Department of Foreign Affairs simply was dissolved at the very time when there was a need to stay with the South Sudanese and governance and making sure this new nascent country was going to be successful, to help it with economic development, to help it with basic governance, to make sure there would not be this kind of cleavage, ethnically speaking, or there would not be the external threats from Sudan in the north. Not that we predicted these exact events that just happened, but we did know and predict that there would be a need for support, and many other countries have noted that.

I have already mentioned the deep concern I and many of us have with what is happening in the region. Of course, there is CAR, the Central African Republic, and concerns about some of the reports coming out of Burundi, but what we heard this past week about the massacres in South Sudan clearly underlined and underscored the need for the world community to take action.

It is important and instructive to look at what some of the agencies are saying on the ground. Médecins Sans Frontières has been very clear about the need for additional support, and I know the parliamentary secretary stood in the House to acknowledge the loss of humanitarian workers. I thank her for that. In doing so, we need to acknowledge their loss but also what they are asking us to do. They are asking us to scale up humanitarian aid. Médecins Sans Frontières is very focused and does some extraordinarily good work in very dangerous, precarious situations. It wants us to scale up aid and make sure there is going to be support for that. In this take note debate forum, we want to talk about ideas, and it is a good idea to scale up the aid and look at how we can help.

We have to take a look at how the UN is working and how these agencies are co-ordinated on the ground. That is something it has pointed out. The humanitarian aid must remain independent and impartial, so that the humanitarian organizations can gain access at this point. This is a conflict, and in a conflict it is imperative that there are clear lines and avenues for aid to get to the people. That is why it believes it is important to have the aid go through these independent actors, so that it can get to the people who need it and that it will be impartial.

We also need to look at these recent crises that have happened and how the Government of Canada can assist the UN to restore credibility by calling for the establishment of an independent humanitarian coordinator. This is very important, because, as I mentioned before, South Sudan right now is not able to govern itself independently. Why? It is a nascent government. It does not have the infrastructure in place. It is a smart thing that Médecins Sans Frontières is saying, which is to have the humanitarian coordinator deal with what is happening on the ground, deal with capacities.

It also points out that the Government of Canada can demand that both parties of the conflict uphold their obligations under the international humanitarian law to directly provide or allow for the provision of humanitarian aid to all people during the conflict. This is really important, because then the international community is saying to both sides of the conflict that their role here is very clear under the international law and they must allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance. It is something we can do and we must do, and I would urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to engage in that light.

There is widespread hunger because of this conflict among people who have nothing to do with the conflict, who are not on either side but are affected by it. This, of course, breeds more misery. We have seen some of the estimates that have come out. An estimated 7 million people right now are at risk of food insecurity. We know how that can happen very quickly if left unattended. The United States is likely to keep up support in the Upper Nile, but we have problems in parts that we just cannot reach right now because of the conflict. We have to work with our partners in this. South Sudanese people should be planting right now, but they are not able to because of the conflict.

These are all things that we could be doing. Médecins Sans Frontières has been helpful in its very specific recommendations.

The other aspect of this that we have to look at is the neighbourhood. There are a lot of pressures on South Sudan. We know about the north. We have to see that there is going to be support that South Sudan will receive from people in the neighbourhood. That is going to be helpful. We have to see “do no harm” from those in the north who, in the past, have been belligerent in affecting people.

Right now, we need to support the UN mission. The United Nations mission in South Sudan is hosting about 70,000 civilians who are fleeing ethnic reprisals. Right now, it is very under-resourced. It needs more resources, frankly. The UN mission in South Sudan needs more support. This is something that Canada can consider supporting. I am not talking about troops for a peacekeeping mission, as I said today in the House, but certainly support that can help.

Let me give members a couple of ideas. This is from the International Crisis Group. I will maybe get into this in the questions and answers. It said:

To the UN Security Council:

1. Amend the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to ensure it is consistent across the country—

This is what I mentioned. There is a need for support in different places, because places are isolated. It goes on to say that the mandate should be amended so that it:

...emphasises protection of civilians, human rights reporting, support for the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediation process and logistical help for the African Union (AU) Commission of Inquiry.

This is to find out exactly what happened here.

I will quote one more bit before my time is up.

The second recommendation from the crisis group is:

2. Signal clearly that leaders will be held responsible for the actions of troops they command, and any interference with UNMISS and humanitarian operations may give rise to targeted sanctions.

I will finish with the third recommendation, which is:

3. Ensure that any support provided to an IGAD or other regional force is consistent with and does not undermine UNMISS’ ability to carry out its mandated tasks, particularly its protection of civilians responsibilities.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, along with the disturbing, horrific reports we have had just a week ago, we know that there are ethnic tensions. We know there has been a manipulation of ethnicity and that this is something that will only be dealt with if there is strong international support, not just what we have had in the past, but what is required clearly for the short and medium term.

I appreciate that my colleague is not the minister and he cannot speak for the government that way. I appreciate that and I am not trying to corner him. However, I get the impression after we have heard the really disturbing reports, which were difficult to watch if anyone saw the news reports recently, the kinds of things we are seeing are a much smaller scale of what happened 20 years ago in Rwanda. There is targeting of people and the use of violence in a very perverted way.

Would he not agree at least that we really need to have another look at what is happening right now, in real time, in South Sudan, in light of the fact that we have a historical past? The Government of Canada has done a lot of good work there, this government and previous governments. Would he not agree that we really need to look at some ways that we can deal with this most recent situation? I am just talking to him as a member across the way, a member of the foreign affairs committee. Perhaps we should look at some other recommendations to game up, as they say, to deal with the present situation, which is very dangerous.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, who sits on the foreign affairs committee, for his intervention.

It is with great alarm and sadness and with concern around the recent events in the whole area that we have been discussing, that I posed some questions on the Central African Republic, concerns about what we have been hearing in Burundi and of course South Sudan. We had done a study on South Sudan just before the elections, in the last Parliament. One of the things we underlined was the need for Canada to stay engaged. We had been involved in the 2005 peace agreement and accord but it was very clear at the time, before full independence, that South Sudan would need our support.

My question for my colleague across the way is this. At a time when things are so fragile and with a nascent country, the newest country that we have seen formed in the last number of years in the family of nations, would the member not agree with me that we really do need to game up, that we need to provide more support, both in governance and in security, and ensure that we do not take our eyes off? I am concerned, as many are, that we had a strong commitment before, but since we have seen the Sudan task force basically dissolve, there have been concerns about what our short-term and long-term commitments are. I would just like to get his comments on that.

[Foreign Affairs, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government was asked about contributing to the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic, a region torn apart by violence where over 600,000 people have been displaced already.

The reply was stunning and offensive. The government suggested Canadian taxpayers would object to paying for our troops to help stop mass slaughter. I respectfully ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to apologize for the offensive comments of his parliamentary secretary and to tell us and Canadians what his plans are to prevent a potential genocide in the Central African Republic.

[National Capital Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the bill in front of us, I would like to take the opportunity to provide condolences to the family of Marc Robert Nelson, whom people in the House will know as the worker who died recently at the Bank of Canada. This is a day of mourning for injured workers and those who have been killed on the job. I want to provide condolences on behalf of our party and Parliament to Marc Robert Nelson's family. It is a tragic loss, and something that reminds us of the need to look out for job safety everywhere.

The bill we have in front of us has a fairly long history. As has been noted by my colleague from across the way, there have been different iterations of the bill. They have been from me, from the government a couple of times, and now from my colleague.

One thing we should understand is the reason for having this bill in front of us. As has been noted by all members who have spoken to the bill, it is the need to protect a park that many people thought already had protections.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have gone there with your family, as others have. When people come to Ottawa, they do not only come to the House of Commons; they usually take the opportunity to visit the region. Gatineau Park is fundamental to the identity of the national capital region.

When we talked to people about Gatineau Park, it was a great surprise to many to find out that it is not a park, in essence, with protections. Rather, it is a park in name. When we think about all of the other parks—frankly, the government has done some good work in protecting parks and creating new parks—the fact that we have not protected Gatineau Park and given it the fundamental protections it needs is something most people find very surprising.

The good news for people who want to see Gatineau Park protected is that I do not see any contention at all with anyone that it should be a park, that it should be protected, and that we should have some legislation to protect it. When people look at Parliament, they often see that there is derision and that people cannot agree on the day of the week. When it comes to Gatineau Park, people agree, and we have heard agreement from the government side, that there should be protections.

In fact, Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 of previous Parliaments would have given just that. I worked with the government on Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 when they came before the House. They were government bills. As I mentioned, I also had a bill of my own. We actually worked together to try and move things forward to protect Gatineau Park for reasons that have been mentioned and are probably worthy of reiteration. It is a place of history. It is a place of biodiversity. It is a place for recreation. It is a place where people come to enjoy and to protect nature. It is a fundamental piece of history for first nations, who were the stewards of the land before there was European contact.

It embodies many of the values, symbols, and history of our country. That is why I am passionate about Gatineau Park. Yes, I am the member for Ottawa Centre, but for people in Ottawa and for those who have experienced the national capital region, Gatineau Park is a shared place. It is not one entity for only those people who live in and around the park. That is why it is so important.

As I said, there is consensus to protect the park.

It was interesting that back in 2008, we were looking at bringing forward legislation to protect the park. I worked with the government at the time. I had my own bill. The government then brought in its legislation. I had a campaign going to get public support behind this, as my colleague from Hull—Aylmer has done. It was then a matter of consulting the community and getting the park going.

Bill C-37 was brought forward. What was not mentioned by the government, just for the sake of facts, is that the reason Bill C-37 did not go forward was that Parliament was prorogued. Let us put that on the record. It could have been passed. We would now be talking about how great the Gatineau Park bill is and that all the things we want to see being done had been done.

Alas, as everyone knows, when Parliament is prorogued, government bills die. Fine, that was okay. We came back and worked with the government on Bill C-20, a government bill, to strengthen the bill, and it was a good experience. It was not a priority of the government. It finally brought it forward just before the 2011 election, and there was not time for it to make its way through. I had pleaded with my friend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to get it going and fast-track it, and we could have had it done. That is by way of background.

The government has picked out a couple of things it thinks is worthy of note to suggest that we should oppose the bill. I appeal to those who look at the role of backbenchers and individual members of Parliament to look at the bill and what the government is saying in its critique of it, particularly my friend from the Hamilton region. In his speech, he noted things that could be changed at committee. If the government wants to protect the greenbelt in Ottawa, there is nothing in the way of doing that.

With respect to my friend across the way and the government members who have been given their points as to why they should oppose the bill, they should actually reflect on the argument. Their argument is that the Gatineau Park bill is too restrictive and does not include the greenbelt here in Ottawa. It is a simple thing to amend it at committee. We could support that. We have no problem with that. In fact, that is what we did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-37.

Note that when private members' bills come forward, members want to make sure that there is a chance that a bill can be passed. They sometimes bring forward bills and the government will say that they are too big. My friend from Hull—Aylmer put this very specifically with respect to Gatineau Park. If the government wants to make the scope bigger, fine, we have no problem with that and will support that.

With regard to some of the other issues, they really are not worth killing the bill.

I know that there is a Conservative member bringing forward an initiative to allow members to have more say in legislation.

One of the things we should honour is that if a bill is not too controversial, we should allow it to at least get to second reading. After all, we only get one shot at this, whether we are on the government side or in opposition. Respectfully, if there is good intent, as there is in this bill, at least let us get it to committee. I plead to the government, because there will be a change of government sometime. Members will be in a position when they will want to bring their private members' bills forward, and we should remember that, because this is about how Parliament functions. The bill could be amended by bringing in best ideas.

I was recently at a conference with legislators from the U.K. and the U.S. When they bring forward legislation and members get behind bills, there is an opportunity to have debate and input. We do it at second reading. It gives life to an issue. I would plead with the government to think about this. This is about protecting the park, but it is also about protecting the integrity of our Parliament. If the bill is not up to the standard the government or backbenchers or frontbenchers or anyone wants, then that can be dealt with at committee.

Let me finish with the following. Everyone agrees that we should protect Gatineau Park. Let the bill get to committee. Let members of Parliament play their role as representatives of their constituents, and let good ideas go forward. Let us not get in the way of a good idea and the participation of everyday members of Parliament on the bill. People want to protect the park. Members agree on that. Let us get the bill to committee so Parliament can do its work, so MPs can do their work, and so citizens can see the value of the work we do here.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's overview. He has some posits on Canadian history, which I found interesting. I am not sure where he was going with it, though. I assume the next step he would say is that he would abide by Borden's rhetoric that there would be temporary income taxes. Maybe we have a new policy announcement from the Conservative Party that they are going to get rid of income tax.

Of course, that replaced the national policy, which was also hard on the western provinces of the day.

It was not always the shiny, happy kind of picture he is painting, but we can debate history and economics later, and I would love to do that any time.

On this particular bill we have in front of us, would the member not agree that the current government has continued this path of putting together budget bills that actually have very little to do with budgets? Would he not agree, as he used to when he was in opposition, that budget bills should be separated out, that we clearly need to be focused on the budget, separate from all these other initiatives, so we can actually have transparency, debate, and parliamentary oversight?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a couple of problems with her overview.

She talks about the investment by the government in infrastructure, et cetera. We see at a time when we need critical support for infrastructure that it is actually pulling back. The last time we saw significant spending was when we pushed the government, after the financial crisis, to invest, and of course, before that, in 2005, when our leader at the time, Mr. Layton, convinced the government to, instead of corporate taxes, put money into infrastructure and into cities and to help out with post-secondary education.

By the way, that money continued in the budgets of the Conservative government in 2006 and 2007. It is important to note that.

I want to ask her this. When we have a crisis in job training, why is it that the government cannot figure out how to deal with foreign trained workers and actually train Canadians and young Canadians to give them opportunities? All we have gotten from the government are ads.

Even in the budget bill they have put in front of us, it is going to be loans for people to train. We actually need to fast-track them and get Red Seal people into the job market now, not just give them more loans, which leads to more debt.

Clearly, I think the government has failed, and I would disagree with the ideas she has put forward, because Canadians deserve better.