Peter MacKay

[Canada-U.S. Border, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the leader of the NDP was not listening and he has taken the usual approach of ready, fire, aim.

I have said that the exercises are not taking place while the consultation is under way. In fact, there will be three public consultations, one taking place in Minneapolis and the others in Detroit and Buffalo. They are currently under way.

In April 2003 both countries agreed to an interpretation of an age-old contract, the Rush Bagot contract. We are pursuing this with the Americans. We have made our views known. We will continue to monitor the situation.

[Canada-U.S. Border, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was actually in 2003 that the previous government affirmed a treaty that had been in place since 1817 and permitted this type of exercise. It is currently under review. There has been a suspension of all activities of live fire exercises until November. There will be a public consultation. Canada has made its views known to the United States. Clearly, we will follow these consultations in the United States to make those views further known on the environmental side and the security side to see that we get a proper resolution.

[Forest Industry, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on September 19 the Parliament of Canada overwhelmingly supported the ways and means motion to implement the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.

Time and time again, we have seen the Minister of Industry consulting broadly across the country, being extremely inclusive and consultative when it came to the softwood lumber industry, bringing the companies aboard, bringing the unions aboard, and speaking broadly about the long term lasting benefits to having this deal finally settled after this was botched for years by the party opposite.

That is what is happening. It is going to be in the best interests of industry. It will save billions of dollars and promote softwood in the United States and around the country.

[Foreign Affairs, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, North Korea, as we know, has made recent statements and engaged in an attempt to conduct a nuclear test in the future. It is seen as very provocative. It undermines regional peace and stability. It is unacceptable to Canada, as it is to the entire international community.

Canada has repeatedly urged North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and refrain from proliferation, or risk further international isolation and condemnation.

The government remains in close contact with our allies on this issue. We will raise our objections with North Korea every opportunity we get and we will, again, strongly urge North Korea to return to the six party talks.

[Sudan, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that Canada is doing an incredible job supporting the people of Darfur. We are contributing over $320 million.

Let me say to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I will do him one better. I will tell him exactly what he said last night, “Yes, we should get troops into Darfur. If the member wants to call it an invasion, then it is an invasion”. Those are his words.

[Sudan, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there was a very fulsome debate last night here in the chamber. We discussed in great detail the need for Canada and other countries to do more with the United Nations to see that the transition between the African Union and the United Nations mission takes place.

We need to continue to work diplomatically to see that this happens, not embark on some kind of a unilateral invasion, which is what the member opposite advocated.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I want to commend all of my colleagues who have taken part in this debate tonight. It is exactly the type of constructive and informed discussion that should take place on such an important issue. Although there were times when the discussion was sprinkled with some sanctimony about how there might be simple solutions, I think we can all agree that our country is fully engaged.

Our government, as previous governments, has come forward with the best of intent. Canadians themselves have demonstrated extraordinary generosity, as my colleague has alluded to, and will continue to do so. The human effort that is being put forth by numerous countries, from the diplomatic efforts of children in schools raising money in this country to international organizations where Canadians have always been prominent, shows extraordinary generosity.

We are going to continue to soldier on, figuratively and literally, in our effort to end the suffering. I know that all members, certainly members on this side of the House, will continue in that diligent regard.

I want to commend my colleagues, the parliamentary secretaries who are here, and those who have participated fully in the debate tonight.

My genuine hope, and the hope that has been expressed by others, is that these will not just be words, but this will be a rallying cry, that there will be further action that will bring about the type of transition and the type of shouldering of the load that is going to be required to address this most serious of humanitarian crises.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the opposition members have been presenting a plan for Canada's participation in this mission; it happens to be exactly the approach our government advocates.

We have made numerous and rigorous interventions at international gatherings, including at the United Nations. Just a short time ago at the Francophonie, the Prime Minister similarly outlined an approach that is completely consistent, in all force, with the suggestions made by the member opposite, including engaging directly with Sudan and its foreign minister and president, which we have done.

We have certainly endorsed the idea that we have to continue the efforts to pressure the Sudanese government to accept the re-hatting or redeployment of United Nations forces to supplement the efforts of the African Union, which will essentially assume that responsibility in conjunction with the notable and important work being done currently.

Again, however, I will repeat this. I want to set the record straight because of the misrepresentation made by the member for Halifax in somehow suggesting that we are opposed to a unilateral invasion. Nobody is suggesting that whatsoever. In fact, what we are saying is, consistent with the wording of the resolution itself, that the country of Sudan must invite the consent, that the national unity government by its very nature must invite the consent to have this transition take place.

This is what the international community has been seized with. It continues to pressure, as we will, at every opportunity, at every occasion that this can be raised and the pressure can be brought to bear, but to take direction from the member for Halifax and the NDP, who somehow seem anxious to bring troops home from Afghanistan and deploy them unilaterally in some form or another to Darfur, is simply madness. It is an irreconcilable double standard.

Again I ask the hon. member opposite, does she not agree that Canada is pursuing the same set approach taken by the European Union and by the G-8 countries, of which we are a member, and of the United Nations itself? Even the great man himself, and I say this with the most sincere compliment that I can, Kofi Annan, has not suggested that there be a unilateral intervention from the United Nations in this matter. How can she suggest that somehow Canada is abdicating its responsibility, turning a blind eye or doing less than other countries?

In fact, I would suggest that we are doing more when it comes to the contribution of aid, humanitarian relief and our support for the African Union, which is doing noble work. How can she stand in this chamber and somehow suggest that Canada has abdicated responsibility and turned a blind eye? That is simply untrue and false and it denigrates the country of which her province is very much a prominent part.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, some of the very useful suggestions that the hon. member has put forward are exactly what this debate should be about. It should very much be about a constructive engagement on the part of parliamentarians to offer solutions.

We have heard a recitation of the atrocities taking place inside Sudan, particularly, in Darfur. We have heard about the slaughter, the gender based violence, in many cases, that has targeted young girls. We have heard with horror about farmers being afraid to go out and plant in their fields or individuals being targeted. The hon. member has cited numerous examples of what is happening on the ground.

Yet there appears to be one irreconcilable truth, and that is, without the cooperation, or at least the acknowledgement, of the Sudanese government of the need for the United Nations force to go in and assume this responsibility, the important humanitarian aid work, the protection and the responsibility to protect cannot be given force and cannot become a reality beyond the abstract notion.

Would the hon. member not agree that the most focused and laser-guided efforts that Canada can embark on are on the diplomatic side, to encourage and to keep the pressure upon the Sudanese government, as he has said?

Other hon. members may disagree, but to suggest somehow a unilateral intervention will occur or that a UN force can go in, which would immediately encounter resistance from the Sudanese army itself, the Janjaweed, the militia, will not be the type of constructive result that will alleviate the suffering.

I embrace his idea of having further efforts to bring about responsibility at the International Criminal Court. Canada is doing that. Canada supports that. Canada contributes to that particular cause, as we do on so many others on a myriad of issues that we have discussed here tonight. Is it not the hon. member's contention that the diplomatic pressure is that which will bring about the arrival of the United Nations forces that can get on with doing the important work of responsibility to protect?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I have listened with great interest to the member for Halifax. On this and numerous occasions, she has used high-sounding language like peace is not achieved at the end of a gun barrel. She and her fearless leader believe that we should talk to the Taliban, that we should be engaged in further peace activities.

Peacemaking is what has to happen, because the fighting that is going on and the genocide, as she calls it, that is happening in Africa is not going to simply end by negotiations, clearly.

If she is saying that we need a robust, which means an active, military force that is prepared to engage in military activity, which is exactly what is going on in Afghanistan, in order for development to occur, in order for schools to be built so that children can attend, in order for women to be prevented from being raped and abused and in order for them to be permitted to participate in democratic activity and participate in normal life, there have to be people prepared to go in and fight for those values. That is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan.

I have a very direct question. I am addressing the hon. member for Halifax who released a press release just a few short days ago on the mission in Afghanistan in which she said:

Our Canadian Forces deserve to be sent only on missions consistent with Canadian values, where the objectives are clear and where victory is attainable.

Canadians are in Afghanistan after having been invited by the Afghan government, in a UN backed mission with 37 other counties from NATO, yet Sudanese President al-Bashir has categorically refused to allow the transfer from the African Union to the United Nations operation. We are not wanted there. How does she square that circle from high on mount hypocrisy given her statements in the House today?