Paul Dewar

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, the best way to understand the government's approach to Africa is to remember a very historic foreign affairs committee meeting when African ambassadors came to our committee. This was very unusual. They came because they had not been consulted when their countries' budgets had been cut. It was a basic communication. I know the government would say that it did not cut as much as they were suggesting, but it was a matter of just understanding that to have a relationship and a respectful they had to be engaged. The fact that right now we have a government that is more focused on trade deals in Africa than dealing with the present crisis underlines it all.

Finally, we also have to understand that this is about how our country is represented not just in Africa. What is Japan contributing? Over $100 million when we contributed $13 million. In case members of the government side did not understand, Japan does not have the same historic relationship we have had with the region or the country.

It is a matter of does the government want to deal with the situation in a historic Canadian way or will it just do it on the seat of its pants? As I said, it seems to be a government that is guided by drift.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the member mentioned Niger. I did underline the point that we were retreating from Africa in development and diplomatically. We have closed embassies.

I want to enlighten my friend about the fact that the government has retreated from peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Canada is 53rd now in contributions to the UN when it comes to that.

A significant document just came out in January from the UN, which lays out what peacekeeping and peacebuilding is about. I will share that with him later. It is about ensuring that we resolve conflict, that we use resources not just troops and that it goes through the UN. I welcome him to look at that.

The problem the government has is that it cannot deal with the facts. It is basic arithmetic. We will be cutting $377 million from the CIDA budget. That is the government's numbers. This means that disproportionately we will be hurting Africa. What is the government's response when we ask it what it is doing there? It tells us that it has sent our trade minister there and he is in Nigeria trying to negotiate free trade agreements. I am sorry, but when the house is burning, one does not try to get a better mortgage.

The situation at hand has to be dealt with. The government does not understand that we have to be present, that we have to commit resources, that at the last minute we cannot pretend that we are contributing, because that just does not work.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I am honoured to take part in this important debate on Canada's role in the conflict in Mali.

This debate helps us provide much-needed oversight of Canada's actions with regard to Mali. From the outset, the government's position on this situation has been inconsistent. Ministers have sent mixed messages. One said there would be military trainers on the ground in Mali, and then another said there would not be.

The Prime Minister announced the contribution of a C-17 aircraft for a week, and then it was a month. The government said it was giving additional aid, and then it said it was not, and then it said it was. This is a government whose foreign policy is guided by drift.

This approach of deny and delay is not good policy, nor is it strong leadership. The government must be clear about both the purpose and the level of our commitment. Canadians deserve to learn about Canadian foreign policy from their own government, not from the Twitter feeds of foreign leaders.

That is why the official opposition New Democrats decided that parliamentary oversight of the Mali mission was urgently needed through debate in the House and study at the foreign affairs committee.

The Government of Canada needs to be honest with Canadians. It is as simple as that.

When we take part in a conflict, when we put our people and resources on the line, we must take every step with our eyes wide open. From the beginning, on this side of the House, we were taking the advice of the United Nations. On October 12, 2012, the UN Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for international peace and security, adopted resolution 2070 on Mali.

The resolution talks about a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly deteriorating.

It talks of widespread and serious human rights abuses against civilians: killing, rape, hostage taking, pillaging, theft, destruction of cultural and religious sites, recruitment of child soldiers, the very worst of crimes.

The situation in Mali poses a threat to international peace and security.

For that reason, New Democrats were steadfast in our support for an international coordinated response to the crisis in Mali. While the Conservatives were dithering, we called on the government to support these international efforts. The role of the international community in Mali is evolving and Canada needs to be engaged and involved.

Most immediately, Canada needs to support the ongoing transfer of command to the African-led AFISMA force. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised internationally to help AFISMA. Not a single dollar of it was Canadian.

Canada must also monitor and engage with the growing possibility of a substantial UN peacekeeping force in Mali. Sadly, Canada will not be at the table when the subject comes before the Security Council. The government's alternation between disengagement and divisiveness has weakened Canada's voice on the world stage, but that should not stop us from engaging in peacekeeping and peace-building.

The political situation in Mali is complex and constantly developing. We are encouraged that the interim government agreed to a road map for political renormalization, but long-term peace and development in Mali will require negotiation and peace-building with the groups and individuals holding local power in the rural north.

This is the fourth time the Tuareg minority has rebelled against the central government. Peace cannot be maintained if the minority's grievances are not addressed.

When we take a look at the situation on the ground, it is important that we differentiate between the diverse groups involved.

Tenuous links last year between the main Tuareg rebel group, the MNLA, and the radical Islamic group, the Ansar Dine, have long since dissolved. The two groups do not share ideological or political goals. The Tuareg population has been campaigning for an independent territory in northern Mali ever since Malian independence in 1960. Radical Islamist groups are a more recent phenomenon. For instance, the group known as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was first developed in response to the Algerian military's secularization of the country in the 1990s. It is an example of how events in one country can easily spill over into another, just as weapons from Gadhafi's Libya spilled into Mali, enabling the rebellion that sent this country into crisis. Small arms that were unleashed before and during the Libya conflict have played a significant role in fuelling this conflict.

I call upon the Conservatives to stop playing a spoiler role in negotiations for arms trade treaties so that we can prevent future crises.

Despite the MNLA's support for the international intervention and its rejection of terrorism, there are worrying reports of continued vengeance attacks against Tuaregs by Malian soldiers and civilians.

Social reconciliation in Mali will be a long-term challenge. Any action taken in that regard cannot be effective without the development of democracy.

In 2007, the government supported the creation of a new agency tasked with promoting international democratic development. What a great contribution that agency would have made, at this time, in the Middle East and Africa. However, the promise was not kept.

Then the government promised it in 2008. The promise was not kept. Then it promised it in 2009. The promise was not kept. Then the government stopped talking about it.

In the years that followed, Rights and Democracy, the closest thing we had to a democratic development institute, was systematically dismantled and destroyed—an obvious mistake at the time, a historic blunder in retrospect.

While the radical Islamists controlled the northern part of Mali, they committed numerous and egregious human rights abuses, including amputations and killings under Sharia law.

At the same time, we are all concerned by recent allegations by human rights groups of abuses by the Malian army, including summary executions and tortures. These allegations demand investigations.

Canada must be standing against all violations of human rights, and we must build capacity in countries like Mali to end human rights violations committed by armed forces.

In addition to serious abuses, chronic problems persist. The Sahel region is facing a huge food crisis. Half of Mali's population is living on $1.25 a day. The need for humanitarian assistance is urgent.

Some 390,000 people have been displaced from northern Mali.

The UNHCR has reported that displaced people are already beginning to return to some parts of the country previously controlled by the extremists. Swift action is needed to monitor and secure the flow of people and ensure that everyone can return home safely, soon.

However, we cannot confine ourselves just to Mali's borders. Weak governance throughout much of West Africa creates a serious risk that conflict and crises could spill over. A whole of region approach is needed to achieve long-term peace and security and development.

Canada has the experience and the ability to take a leading role in this capacity-building effort. Unfortunately, this is made far more difficult by the government's political and financial withdrawal from the region. By closing our embassy in Niger and by disproportionately cutting development assistance to Africa, the government has weakened Canada's ability to lead.

Canada should be a leader in resolving the current crisis and in helping the Malian people build a better future. We are not doing that yet. We have not come up with what the world expects of us, and we have not come up with what Malians need.

We can do better. We must do better.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, there is an analysis I think is important when it comes to the situation in Mali right now. It is that this is a regional situation; it is not just about Mali. I think the parliamentary secretary mentioned that.

There has been some concern on our side in that, unfortunately, the government is actually retreating from Africa, particularly this part of Africa. I note that this year, there will be $377 million in cuts. Disproportionately, 62% of those cuts will come out of Africa. We have shut four embassies in Africa. The countries of focus we had have been reduced by eight.

My colleague said that we supported the road map, which is great. I support that as well. The EU was instrumental in that and supported it. The problem, though, is that we have not put our money on the table when it comes to the road map, separate from the $13 million. We have about $18 million or more for the C-17.

I would ask my colleague if the government intends to financially support the road map, and if so, when and with how much.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. He has acknowledged some points. I think everyone would agree that there is a requirement for action, that there is a concern. I am glad to see he had a more balanced assessment than the previous speaker, his colleague, the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary seemed to suggest that we do not need really government involved at all. His mindset is to just let the market decide. However, the member did lay out where he thinks government has a role. I want to get from him the concerns, though, we have had about this process. If we go back to 2007, I think it was—the member might correct me—his government talked about a wait and see approach, that we would try to kind of work things out.

We now have a bill in front of us acknowledging that it did not work.

Would he comment not only on what he thinks should be in the bill but also on the oversight in the bill—that is, to make sure that all the parties involved are going to live up to their commitment? Would he explain to us a bit more about the enforcement of the legislation and how we could actually ensure that products get to where they need to be, for everyone's benefit?

[National Defence, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our closest allies have delivered a stinging rebuke to the Conservative government for its security lapses and failures.

In the aftermath of Jeffrey Delisle's espionage, which went undetected for four years, our closest allies are thinking twice about sharing their intelligence with us. This is a real threat to our national security and our relationship with countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

I have a simple question. What is the government doing to address this situation?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member's background, as we know, was in foreign affairs before she was elected as a member of Parliament. One of the issues that we need to be seized with is around governance. I would like to get her opinion.

In light of the fact that we are obviously seeing a state come apart because of the conflict, what does she think Canada can do when we reach the point that we all know is coming, which is when the regime is no more and the war is over?

Many Syrian Canadians as well as everyday Canadians want to know that Canada has a plan for helping to re-establish stability in Syria. With her background in diplomacy, what does she think we could offer in terms of helping Syria deal with the governance question when the conflict ends?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions.

One is around the fast-tracking of claimants who have family members here but are presently in refugee camps in the bordering regions, which she underlined, around Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. We still have not heard from the government as to whether it will commit to that. This is different from what the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism announced, which was to simply deal with the files that they had.

Are they going to in fact get going on the fast-tracking of those who wish to join family members here in Canada? That is what we have done in the past, in Haiti and other places where there have been crises.

Second, just to clarify, there have been news reports today of comments by the Minister of Foreign Affairs about supporting the initiatives in Marrakesh, but there has not been a full endorsement of the opposition. I just want to get a sense from the parliamentary secretary about exactly what the government's policy is. It is joining 100 other countries in recognition, but there seems to be some qualifiers as to whether we are fully recognizing the opposition in Syria.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. Maybe he can elaborate on some of the things he wanted to say in response to my questions.

I want to underline the fact that we are debating this subject in light of the report from the foreign affairs committee and a motion that was passed asking the government to do three things. The first was to provide more aid and assistance. There was an announcement today from the Minister of Foreign Affairs on that. However, I underline the point made at committee, which was that it should have included Turkey. It would be helpful to understand why Turkey was not one of the recipients in that announcement today.

Second was to fast-track those who have family members here in Canada so that the refugees presently in camps in the border regions of Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon might be able to come to Canada. I did not hear an announcement on that from the government. It was in our motion from the committee. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could tell us where the government stands on that. It was certainly something that was prioritized in the motion we passed at committee.

Finally, part of the committee report and the motion was that we support Mr. Brahimi's mission. Mr. Brahimi is the special UN envoy who is in Damascus trying to find some sort of agreement among all the parties.

If the member could explain that for us, it would be most helpful.

[Income Tax Act, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, you have heard numerous times from us that we actually call the question. You looked and asked three or four times. The member was not in his place and was not ready. You heard us. I am wondering why you did not call the question.