Paul Dewar

[Honduras, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are deeply concerned about the sharp rise in violence in Honduras. We of course denounce the activities of the Honduran authorities and the undermining of the fundamental rights of their citizens and the rule of law in the Central American nation.

Honduran troops have besieged the Brazilian embassy where President Zelaya has taken refuge. The crisis echoes the horrors of previous military rule in Latin America and risks internationalizing the conflict. It is setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the democratic stability of the region as a whole.

Despite the worsening situation, the authorities have yet to sign on to the San José plan to solve the standoff. Basic rights and freedoms of the Honduran people are being threatened by the authorities. The United Nations General Assembly has already condemned the coup d'état in Honduras and called for the restoration of the democratically elected president and constitutional government.

As the crisis deepens, the United Nations Security Council must be called upon to hold an emergency meeting on the crisis and find an immediate solution that will return Honduras to constitutional normalcy and protect the human rights of the Honduran people.

In such a context Canada must take more decisive diplomatic action. The statement we heard from the minister is simply a report on the efforts that have been made by the government to date. Nothing new was in his statement. This is something that we have to be stronger on. This is not mission accomplished. Canadians and observers abroad would have hoped that the minister would take the opportunity to announce new Canadian initiatives that would increase diplomatic pressure on the Honduran authorities and get them to accept the San José proposal.

New Democrats call for the suspension of all military cooperation with Honduras immediately. Canada must put in place targeted sanctions and diplomatic sanctions against the coup perpetrators. Canada's support for the San José plan, which we welcome and applaud, needs to be backed up with more concrete action. It needs more diplomatic measures, not fewer, not the same number of them. The government has to make it crystal clear for the Honduran authorities that delaying action on the San José plan will carry diplomatic and economic consequences for them.

We hope that the minister of state will be carrying with him not just the same words that we heard from the minister, but in fact dedicated, directed, targeted sanctions so that the perpetrators of this coup d'état will get a message from Canada. We must speak out more strongly. We must act more strongly. To do less would be to abandon democracy in Honduras, would be to abandon the Honduran people.

Finally, as someone who has worked and travelled and spent time in Honduras, I say we do not want to go back to the dark days of the 1980s when dictators had their way with the people. We must stand strong. We must act strong. We must be there for the Honduran people.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is the defence critic for his party and has studied the issue of Canada's role in Afghanistan over the years. I would like his comment on what seems to be emerging in the debate in the United States, which of course is important to all of us because it will affect what we do, I would think, in terms of the present and post-2011.

There is the McChrystal view and the Biden view. The McChrystal view is a troop surge and the idea of clear, hold and develop. The Biden view is to take a step back and not do the troop surge, but treat this more like a different mission, doing the special ops and rooting out al Qaeda, and focusing on that.

I would like to get the hon. member's feedback on that. Does he think that one is better than the other? How might this affect Canada in the future?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Liberals, with whom I have had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan and be on the Afghanistan committee as well.

I have two very quick questions. One of the things we have raised during the debate and that all members have talked about with regard to what happens post-2011 is the role of training the Afghan military and police. I want to point to the recent publicity that was covering the police in particular and the fact that there had been an instance where the Afghan police had been handing over their arms in a very cordial manner. They were not cornered or taken hostage by the Taliban. If that is what is happening, we really need to look at what is going on here.

My second question is on human rights. He knows that I have raised this in committee. We have the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission documenting the abuse of citizens by law enforcement officials who we happened to train. If our role is training police after 2011, does he think that is a worthy thing, in light of these instances? What needs to change in light of what I have just mentioned?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I sit on both the Afghan committee and the foreign affairs committee.

She made one point that was extremely important, and that was sharing the burden. In my comments I tried to underline the importance of having those other countries in the region take responsibility for the conflict, the war in Afghanistan and certainly the challenges in Pakistan.

Does she not think it is time that Canada push as our primary focus right now, looking at post-2011 in policy terms, to have all those other countries in the neighbourhood, China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, et cetera, take responsibility for what is going on there?

The member quite rightly mentioned that Canada had been there a while. Our military is absolutely fatigued. In terms of changing things and doing something positive, should we not be pushing to have those countries seriously involved, particularly in the area of diplomacy and negotiations?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is the right of every parliamentarian to bring forward a concurrence motion on a committee report. He is impugning motive and that is unfortunate, but that should not be allowed. Mr. Speaker, you should be ruling in fact that this type of motion is allowed in Parliament.

For a member, whether he is on the government bench or not, to stand and suggest that we cannot do what we are doing I take issue with, and so should you, Mr. Speaker.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something with the government. If this is not a war we are in, I would like to know what it is. This is the first time I have heard the government say that this is not a war. I ask the parliamentary secretary, if this is not a war, then what in Heaven's name is it?

The NDP has taken the position that we need to change the direction of what we are doing in Afghanistan. If no one on that side of the House believes that we need to change direction, I think they are out of sync with most Canadians and the rest of the world.

This war is not going well; every indicator shows that. The elections have been called a fraud. There is drug proliferation. The parliamentary secretary talked about human rights. We heard at committee, and he heard it as well, that the human rights of women and others are not great and in fact are getting worse.

Does anyone want to go back to the Taliban? Of course not. I started off my speech by saying that we have reports from 1998-99 on the Taliban and they were dutifully ignored. It is time to change the way we do things.

If this is not a war, what does the government call what we are doing in Afghanistan? A tea party?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear that from someone who is at the cabinet table. Maybe we are hearing it from him first. I just heard about an extension beyond the deadline of 2011. I am not sure if that is what he was saying. That is what it sounded like to me. If he was trying to clarify, he has just confused.

The minister might want to tell his colleague, the Minister of National Defence and indeed the Prime Minister about that policy he just announced. However, if I cut through that, what he was getting at was how do we do development without security.

I was very clear. I have been to Afghanistan and I have talked to people on the ground. They want to see something change. If we cannot win a war militarily, as has been mentioned and he has heard that, then why do we continue with one option? Why are we not looking at other options? If he cannot think that one through, I would have to ask him to maybe debate--

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is more debate around Afghanistan, which is something I welcome. My concern, however, is that the reason we are hearing about Afghanistan again is because things are going so badly. There was an election that did not go well, to put it mildly, we have drug proliferation, corruption in government and recruitment in insurgency in another country across the border. Some have made the comparison to an unpopular war fought back in the sixties.

Canadians and members of Parliament need to ask, what are we doing there? What can we do better? What can we assure Canadians that we can achieve that is realistic and within our tradition?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's first question is extremely important. That is why I have said we need to have people who actually understand the region well. That is why I offered two names, Mr. Brahimi, and everyone on this file and the government's side will know who that is, and Mr. Lamani, a Canadian who is often brought to the White House in Washington to advise and who worked on this file back in 1998. These are the people from whom we need to find out to whom we can talk. The last thing we want to do is regress. We want to find people not only in Afghanistan but in the surrounding countries who are willing to be accountable for what is going on in the region as well.

That is the first step. We have to find and identify those people and start to set a table for dialogue, which then hopefully will lead to ending the war. I think it is pretty evident to everyone around that that is what is needed.

On his second question of what our party's position would be with regard to the military, we should get to the first point first, but we have always supported peacekeeping missions and ones where we are reinforcing what has been a peace negotiation. I could see us supporting that, just like we should be in the Congo and in Sudan.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was. I think what the parliamentary secretary forgets is it is very difficult to do development in a war. We have seen that and we have heard it from development workers who have been frustrated. They were able to do development in the beginning of this war, but presently they have given up.

That is not odd. If we think about it, in the middle of a war, how can we look at the success rate of the schools, for instance, which they herald. Often they have been targeted again by the insurgents. That is just a fact. What I am saying to the government is that it is time we took a different direction on this. We have what we always consider on this side as an imbalance between where our resources are and putting more resources into trying to end this war. I think most Canadians are ready for that.

We heard Vice-President Biden say that there needs to be a different take. It might not be exactly what everyone is saying in this place, but at least they are asking that question. That is my whole point.

Let us have a debate about changing things. We have not had that in this place, certainly not from the government. We have had report cards that are questionable in what they assess, the results of which are even more questionable.