Paul Dewar

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, because this is about investments. It is also about what those investments can do. We know the one-to-seven equation. We know that when we invest early in childhood development, one dollar saves us seven later. That study has been done and has been referenced many times before. It applies not only in developing countries but also domestically.

If we invest in family planning, we are looking at preventing about 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world. That is by preventing risky births that are too close together and allowing women to have power over their reproductive systems, which enables them to actually plan their families.

Those are the kinds of investments we can make. They give us a multiplier effect, because by investing in the present, we invest in the future. They alleviate costs in the health system. They substantially support women in terms of being involved in the economy, in which they play a key role in developing countries, as we know. There is a multiplier effect and that is why it is so important that we invest.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, here are some key statistics on maternal health. It is very important.

Every year, over 500,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications, and 9 million children die before the age of 5.

According to the World Health Organization, the first step for reducing the maternal death rate is to ensure that women have access to family planning and safe abortion.

Modern contraceptive options help fight the spread of HIV/AIDS, by allowing HIV-positive women to plan the timing of their pregnancies, so that they can recover from childbirth, and by providing access to health care in order to prevent transmitting the virus to their children.

Maternal mortality tends to be inversely proportional to women’s status in countries with similar levels of economic development.

We want the maternal health initiative to include a full range of family planning options. The government must make a firm commitment in terms of the funding, content and duration of the project.

The Prime Minister has come in late to the debate. Other countries have been interested in maternal health for years and have taken the lead in terms of funding—the facts are clear—while the Prime Minister is still playing catch-up.

The Conservatives have very little credibility when it comes to women's issues in developing countries. After all, their government was the one that banished the terms gender equality, gender-based violence, impunity and justice from its vocabulary when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Republic of Congo.

But maternal health problems continue because women cannot decide when and with whom to have a child, how many children they want, or how to space their pregnancies.

If we look at many of the indicators of maternal health, right across the board they prove that investing countries are successful when they have made sure the investments are adopted according to the needs of the countries they are trying to help. What is not successful is trying to tell those countries, those communities, those people they are trying to help when it comes to maternal health, how to do it.

I sincerely hope we are past this kind of social Conservative ideology when it comes to maternal health, when it comes to development in general terms, which we saw with previous administrations both here in Canada and elsewhere. What we need to see is not only the commitment in words but the commitment in deeds and understanding. If we look at where other countries have made commitments to the millennium goals and said not only would they support them in words but in actions, we will see tremendous success in the projects they have invested in when it comes to maternal health.

Look at other countries that have been deeply involved in the issue of maternal health over the past three years. Last year alone, other countries pledged $5 billion to a new global consensus for maternal, newborn and child health. In 2007, Norway and Holland pledged $1.2 billion over 10 years for maternal and child health. I said earlier that we are coming to this conversation late, and the statistics I just read into the record would show that. Other countries have not only said they are interested in this but they have actually said “here is the money down on the table to invest”.

What we need to see is not just someone who has come late to a debate and understanding of an issue, and make no mistake, we welcome and embrace that the government wants to deal with maternal health, but we need to see profound understanding of the issue. We cannot just come to the table and say we want to do something and walk away without putting money on the table. Some have concerns, which I share, with an idea that there are going to be tags on dollars that are sent to help with maternal health. If that is the case, if that is what we are looking at, that is not going to help women who need help the most right now. That is just an ideological game that is being played by the government.

What we would hope from the government is, and I would actually support this motion, that it would say we want to embrace maternal health, we want to deal with the statistics that repeat themselves year after year, that women are the ones who suffer the most. Why? Because they are the ones on the front lines when it comes to third world economies.

I referenced the Democratic Republic of Congo. Right now there is a war going on there. It is a gender war, and the ones who are on the front lines are not soldiers; they are women. Rape is used as a weapon of war right now in the DRC. It is happening in other locations. These women are having to raise children whilst they are being subjected to rape, to intimidate communities to move them out from where they live so mining companies can go in and get their coltan and other minerals that end up fueling the conflict.

If we do not understand the role of women and gender, then we will have abandoned women, then we will have just given lip service to an issue that is so profound. And I am not talking about just giving them some clean water and things will be fine. I am talking about centring women in the decision making, women who, as I said, are on the front lines of conflict in the third world, who are on the front lines of making sure kids have enough, who have always been on the front line throughout history to ensure that our species actually exists.

If we look at what the government stated recently of its intention to have maternal health as a key issue for the G8 and, presumably, G20 talks and then look at the budget, there is a bit of a gap here.

The government says, on one hand, that it wants to embrace maternal health and make sure we invest and help women in terms of development and to make sure they have all they need to help their children. On the other hand, we see what its intentions are with the budget. In the next couple of years we would have thought the government would be saying it would raise its contributions for foreign aid to make sure maternal health would be funded, not just this year but at least for the next five years, because 2015 is the end of the millennium goal agenda. However, what we see is a government that is cutting foreign aid.

What do people say if they are on the front lines dealing with maternal health issues and they want to see those women in the Congo be able to take initiative and power over their lives and to give them the tools they need, because they know how to turn things around, and they need the resources and help from us? Would they say there is an honest broker here, someone who actually wants to help, when they look at the budget and see it is being cut?

We embrace the idea of maternal health as a priority. We want to make sure it comes without tags on dollars and on the places this money is to be spent. We want to make sure it helps women around the world. We do not want ideological lenses put on this. We want to make sure the money is going to the people who need it. But to finally do that, our government has to commit to it, not just in words but in deeds, and when it comes to the budget, it has failed.

If the government is to embrace this, it needs to change its economic priorities. It needs to make sure we have money for this year, next year and the years following.

The NDP will support the motion, not just today, but as we always have, now and for continuing years to make sure women abroad who need the help will get it.

[Rights & Democracy, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs committee is trying to get to the bottom of the crisis at Rights & Democracy. Our work has been stalled by the government through filibuster, but today there was yet another stalling tactic.

The interim president and the board chair set to appear tomorrow have cancelled and have said that they are not available until April. These witnesses are giving Parliament the same evasive treatment they gave Rémy Beauregard before his untimely death.

Will the government ensure parliamentary accountability? Will it bring its appointees into line or will we have to send if a message that we will have to subpoena these individuals? Subpoena them or are we going to have to—

[Rights & Democracy, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to the act of Parliament governing Rights & Democracy, board members must act honestly and in its best interests. Unfortunately, the actions of the current board and its chairman have caused a crisis in the organization. The chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has accused the board of destroying the institution. Clearly the chairman and his allies are in violation of an act of Parliament.

Will the government take immediate action to address the abuses of the board, uphold the law and protect Canada's international reputation?

[Rights & Democracy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the foreign affairs minister regarding Rights & Democracy.

The president of the institute has died, managers were fired, PI and PR firms were hired without tender, board members quit in disgust due to the political meddling of Conservative appointees, and yet the minister expresses confidence in the board and its chair. To make matters worse, he has made a mockery of consultations in the appointing of a new president.

Will the minister ask the board to step aside until the foreign affairs committee has investigated matters and makes recommendations to the government to make matters better?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is important is that Parliament gets all the facts.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary, in questions and answers, asked if we were concerned about one of the prisoners being hit by a shoe. We know the evidence brought forward by the Chief of Defence Staff yesterday. One of our soldiers was able to save one of the prisoners from going to torture.

Does the parliamentary secretary believe in the evidence that was provided by one of our soldiers about torture, or does he think the detainee was just being hit by a shoe as if it was some commonplace thing? Does he believe our soldiers or does he believe his own rhetoric?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the government should do what, quite frankly, the Chief of the Defence Staff did yesterday. When one has a problem, instead of trying to lay talking points over it and build a wall of secrecy around it, one should deal with it.

The Military Police Complaints Commission has not been able to do its job because it was not getting the information it needed to do its job. We are not able to do our job in committee because the government keeps withholding information or the information that we get from the government is entirely blacked out.

We have a pattern of the government trying to deny the facts, withhold evidence, and block any kind of inquiry that will get to the bottom of what all of us are concerned about and hopefully the government as well, which is what is happening in the field. Are we living up to international law? Those are real concerns. They affect the men and women in the field and our reputation.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that sometimes rhetoric gets the better of us, but for the parliamentary secretary to say that there were some concerns about a prisoner only getting hit by a shoe undermines the actual notation by one of our soldiers. One of our soldiers, who reportedly the government supports, was very clear about the fact that there was concern about extrajudicial killings and torture, not about being hit by a shoe. I will put that aside, which is a big aside.

The ICRC said on three different occasions in meetings with ministers and officials that they were not doing their job. What the ICRC also said is that it does not tell Canadian Forces and officials what has been happening, that it only tells the host country. It is not mandated to. One of the ministers had to step aside and apologize because that was not clear.

On November 20, 2006, to specify the timeframe for the parliamentary secretary, officials drafted talking points based on the concerns of the ICRC. They drafted talking points. Does anyone know what the concerns were? The concerns were handing over detainees to probable torture. Instead of fixing the problem, the government was more concerned about talking points, spinning and trying to get the public onside rather than to fix the problem.

In 2006 that was happening. The member should know that. I know he does. This was not about someone being hit by a shoe. The field notes of that soldier were clear. There were beatings by police and that is why the soldiers made sure they rescued that prisoner and did the right thing. It does a disservice to our men and women in the field to say it was something else.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to start off by sharing with members of the House some of the information to which we have had access.

The debate today is around access to information, so that we can actually get to the bottom of what is happening, and perhaps is happening, with regard to the transfer of detainees from Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities.

One of the things that has been available to members of Parliament and the public is testimony from the Federal Court. I am going to be reading into the record some of the evidence that was provided during a testimony cross-examination of Kerry Buck, of course, a government official.

The questions were regarding what was happening on the ground in terms of investigation and follow-up. One of the challenges in this debate has been trying to figure out who is responsible for what, and most of the thrust of Mr. Colvin's message was trying to figure out what the roles of each of the institutions were: Canadian Forces, DFAIT, et cetera.

In this testimony, that is available and it is not censored, there was a question from the lawyer to Ms. Buck, asking:

In the next bullet he says [the detainee] that he was hit on the feet with a cable or a big wire and forced to stand for two days but that's all and he showed the Canadian officials a mark on the back of his ankle which he said is from the cable?

Ms. Buck answered:

Yes, that's the allegation.

The lawyer then asked:

Has that allegation been investigated? Do you know?

This is where it is important. Ms. Buck said that they really were not responsible for investigating.

We have heard time and time again from the government that there is not one scintilla of evidence that a detainee who was passed on from Canadian Forces to Afghan officials was tortured. The problem, and we see this in testimony here that I am reading into the record, is that there was no follow-up because the role was this. The Canadian Forces passed on detainees to the Afghan officials. After that, there was no investigation of allegations. In fact, it was reliant upon the Afghanistan independent human rights commission and the Red Cross to do that.

Here is where it gets interesting. When we have testimony of marks and individuals making allegations about being beaten, et cetera, there is an attempt to find out who is responsible. The government agrees that there are allegations and it claims that none of these allegations were ever proven, but it begs this question. If there were allegations, who was following up? If it was not a Canadian official, then obviously Canada will not know what is happening.

The question then is, who was doing it? We find out that there was no connection between the Canadian government and the follow-up to any investigations. I will just give a bit of the record to underline what I am saying.

Ms. Buck said:

Allegations are allegations. Some will be valid, some will not be valid.

At least she acknowledged that some of the allegations could be true. The question posed to Ms. Buck then was:

But we don't make any of our own independent assessment of the potential strength of the allegations?

Here is the answer. She said:

We don't. It's not our role. It's not our role.

The question then was:

It's not our role to determine whether there might be some kind of risk that detainees are being tortured?

The answer was:

No, it's our role to determine risk, but it is not our role to determine credibility of the allegations, to determine veracity of the allegations. We don't investigate those allegations. We record them.

The problem with that is the following. If we look at the evidence that we have available, we have the ICRC, and there have been articles written about this, having met with Canadian officials, saying, “You have a problem with the transfer process”.

It was not referring to the fact that detainees were passed over. It was what happened to them after, and the follow-up and the investigative procedure. We have Ms. Buck saying, for the record that they do not do that.

Mr. Colvin was saying at the same time that there was a problem, which he said in one of the memos that we did get, which was highly redacted and goes to April 2007. He said, “The position of the Red Cross is that each nation has international legal obligations regarding the transfer of detainees”.

What that means is not simply that we have a legal obligation to say we have handed them over, but to follow-up. This is where there has been a black hole. The government has always said there is no proof of any detainees being tortured. That was blown out of the water yesterday, but Conservatives continued down this path of basically saying that once we hand them over we are not responsible.

Some of the memos indicate that there was a debate, and this is reading the tea leaves, between DFAIT and Canadian Forces as to who was responsible once those detainees were handed over. I am reading a redacted memo from Mr. Colvin which said: “However, I would like to note that the ambassador remains strongly of the view that initial notification should be of handing over detainees should be by Canadian Forces and that secondly, notification of the Red Cross and the Afghan independent human rights commission should be sent as soon as an Afghan detainee is detained by Canadian Forces, not only in connection with his transfer to the government of Afghanistan custody. This would serve two important purposes. One is that it would underline DND's ownership of detention and DFAIT would assume responsibility for follow-up once a detainee is transferred to the government of Afghanistan”.

Here we have the debate Mr. Colvin has laid out of who was responsible. Was it Canadian Forces? Was it DFAIT? The generals and General Hillier, et cetera, all said that once they were handed over it was not their role any more. The soldiers who were writing in the field, and we heard from the Chief of the Defence Staff yesterday, said they were worried about handing them over because of what would happen. They said not only what would happen to this one particular detainee but it had happened before. So they did due diligence. They did their job. They took pictures. They wrote notes.

However, what we have here is the gap that there was no process to follow-up. The debate was saying whose role was it after a detainee had been handed over? Why were they concerned? Because as we have gone over many times, the Red Cross, the Afghan independent human rights commission, the state department, our own human rights reports done by DFAIT, all said there were problems with torture in Afghan jails. There were extrajudicial killings. The soldiers knew that. We had evidence yesterday from the Chief of the Defence Staff who said in the notes that were handed over: “Overhearing Afghan officials saying they were going to kill one of the detainees”.

The problem was obvious to everyone. The issue was, what did the government do about it? In this memo that was not highly redacted says there was a debate. Who was responsible? Colvin's note said that initially it was the Canadian Forces, after that it was the DFAIT officials. What we have though from Ms. Buck, what I already read into the record, is that we were not responsible for investigating after. There is a huge hole here.

Under international law, we are obligated to follow-up if there is a risk or a probability. That is very clear. So we need from the government all of the evidence.

It leads to my final statement on this and I will sum up, how can we trust the government with the present detainee transfer agreement, which I have concerns about in terms of investigation, et cetera? If we know before that the government was not investigating when it knew there was torture and there were international law obligations. From all the data in the redacted censored documents we have, there was a debate and a concern within departments, by the Red Cross and others. Conservatives seem to have ignored it.

Finally, we call on the government not only to bring forward these documents so we can have an actual overview of this without all the censoring but we need to obviously have an inquiry. If it is not able to do that, then it has lost the trust of this Parliament to actually be upfront and we remain concerned about the present agreement.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, one thing we know, as we have studied this file, and it goes back to 2006 for our party, is other countries did different things when it came to detainee transfers. It relates to the discussion today. There was much more transparency in the case of the U.K., and still is. In the case of the Dutch, every time there is a transfer of a detainee, their Parliament is informed.

The Conservative government is censoring documents on the numbers of detainees being transferred, as my colleague from St. John's East said, even back to 2006. It seems a little bizarre when the Canadian government says it cannot allow that information to be put out when our allies do it. In fact, back in 2006, our allies said to us that we needed to get a better process.

What does he think about our redaction and censoring versus our allies' sharing of information?