Peter MacKay

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made a number of interesting points, not the least of which is that bringing new processes into play do often cause a little consternation. The Charter is a perfect example. That, in and of itself, was not something that was particularly in line with the British North America Act and the Westminster system which we have followed for years in this country.

However, my colleague opposite neglected to answer the very straightforward question posed by the Parliament Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was: In the last session of the last Parliament did the government, in which he was a member, partake of this type of openness? Did his government allow the Parliament to engage in a debate and have a vote?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alberta. I know that he has a very strong interest in support of our armed forces and an interest in this subject matter.

I am glad he asked the question because it does allow for a further explanation. While this agreement will, in principle, come again before the House potentially in four years, both parties, the United States and Canada, have the opportunity, should they desire such a debate at that time and should circumstances require, to bring it back before their respective houses or simply exchange the type of diplomatic letters that are often used to renew this agreement.

However, it does put in place a more permanent agreement. It does allow for review. It does allow, in fact, for either party to pull out of the agreement, giving 12 months notice. To that extent, this Norad agreement is on much more stable footing today and will be when it passes through this House.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the House has pronounced itself. This country has made it clear that we have no intention of being part of this system of which the hon. member is referring.

I would tell the member that this amendment reinforced the Canadian and U.S. commitment to preserve the existing functions of the binational command that has served both countries for well over 50 years.

Norad is not about ballistic missiles. I would suggest it is not involved in a U.S. missile defence system. The U.S. northern command is charged, however, with a ballistic missile defence mission for the continental U.S. and Alaska, of which we are not a part.

We may share information. We may in fact share the type of information necessary to make important decisions in the future, but this new Norad agreement does in no way alter the existing relationship that we have had in place for many years, nor has it given the authority for the Americans to override our sovereignty in any way, shape or form.

I hope that answers the hon. member's questions. I look forward to his participation in the debate this evening.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it raises an important issue of why the addition of maritime security. Suffice it to say that in recent years we have come to recognize in Canada, as I would suggest the Americans have as well, that one of the largest vulnerabilities of the continent right now is on the water. Currently, there is a lack of surveillance at our ports and there are challenges that exist in terms of the amount of container traffic coming in to both countries right now. The water is an enormous, vast expanse of territory to cover.

Having the Norad capacity and ability to oversee incoming threats on the water is a great advantage and great security to our country. As for the source of those threats, I need not list them but only say that the terrorist threat is ever present. Sadly, we know of the existence of al-Qaeda operations on the continent and the source of terrorism can come from many corners of the globe.

I would suggest that having this added dimension of maritime security, coupled with the importance and the stress that we place on surveillance of any incoming ballistic missile, is the type of agreement that we need to be a part of. We need to be at the table. We need to be able to give input on important decisions that affect our national security.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

moved

That this House support the government's ratification of the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Agreement.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this special debate this evening, and support this motion.

I should indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills, the very able Minister of National Defence. I urge all members to support the government's ratification of the North American Aerospace Defense Agreement, commonly known as Norad, which is before the House for debate.

Canada is indeed a fortunate country. We have met many challenges over the years to remain united, and we are prosperous and free. Much of our success can be traced back to one overwhelmingly important fact of national life, and that is for 60 years Canadians have enjoyed a level of security unparalleled in the modern world. Yet comfort cannot give way to complacency on security matters.

Not only has this security protected us against direct threats to our physical well-being, but it has given us personally and politically the freedom to construct our democracy, to expand our economy, to welcome new citizens here and to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to grow and develop in this extraordinary country of ours.

National security is multi-faceted. As circumstances change, we are often obliged to consider the relative importance we accord to each of the many priorities in this area. That said, there remains one incontrovertible responsibility. A country not prepared to protect itself against outside threats will certainly have to face them one day.

The government will stand up for Canada. We will deliver on our promises to provide a strong Canadian military, aided and with the leadership of our very capable Minister of National Defence who has exceptional personal career experience in this field. We will deliver on our promise to provide a strong Canadian military with the resources to protect us at home and meet our obligations abroad.

Our greatest resource is all of the dedication and skill of the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces. They are outstanding people, doing a superb job and working for Canadians at home and around the globe.

All members will agree that, with an enormous country, a small population and the ability to defend Canada properly, we need to work with others. This is why we place such importance on our military alliances with other countries such as Australia, as the Pacific Rim takes on increased importance in the modern world.

Our membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Aerospace Defense Command have been more than just a bedrock of Canadian defence. They have also been the pillars of our foreign policy.

Our membership in NATO has always been for us the primary way of working with Europe in response to shared security concerns. For decades, NATO has stood as a bulwark against threats by the Soviet empire, threats directed not only at western Europe but at us all.

Today, the political landscape in Europe has changed forever, and Canada was at the forefront of the successful efforts to redefine the role of NATO in the world, as we can see in southern Afghanistan, where we head a multinational force and are preparing the way for handing over powers to NATO in the coming months.

Our Norad commitment is closer to home. Since 1958, Canada and the United States have jointly managed this military organization that monitors and defends North American air space. Norad is responsible for detecting and warning of attacks against North America from aircraft and missiles.

As part of its mandate, Norad participates with civil authorities in the surveillance and control of Canadian and U.S. airspace. In August 2004 Canada and the United States also reinforced their commitment to this binational command's existing functions by amending the Norad agreement to allow its missile warning function, which it has carried out for nearly 30 years, to be made available to U.S. commands responsible for missile defence.

Norad is not however involved in the U.S. missile defence system. While Norad shares its missile warning function with the United States commands, it has neither the authority nor the capability to act on the information. As a binational command, Norad is a unique defence alliance. It is a place where men and women of the Canadian and U.S. armed forces come together as equals in a common cause.

The benefits to Canada have been substantial. First, Norad has been central in protecting us from any direct military attack. Second, it has ensured that Canada has a strong and permanent influence on U.S. decisions that engage Canadian interests. Third, Canadian Forces have developed a level of cooperation and coordination with American forces that have served us well, not only in Norad but also in NATO and other multinational operations. Fourth, Norad has given generations of Canadian policy makers invaluable access and understanding of U.S. military thinking.

The Norad agreement has been renewed nine times since 1958 with substantial revisions to the agreement on four of those occasions, in 1975, 1981, 1996 and in 2006.

As was the case with NATO, the strategic environment in which Norad operates has shifted dramatically and so these latest revisions are among the most substantial ever. The most important change is the expansion of Norad's role to include maritime warning. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, will discuss these operational details in more detail in his remarks to the House this evening.

Another change to the Norad renewal is that it has become a permanent agreement. Until now, each Norad renewal has been for a limited time and if the two sides did not renew the agreement before a specified expiry date then the agreement would lapse and that is in fact the case today. If we were not to pass this by May 12, the agreement would lapse.

There is a suggestion that Canada and the United States would get together for a limited time to cooperate in countering specific threats. By implication, this way of proceeding suggests that if those threats were to recede or even disappear, then the alliance could disappear. Surely, as we all know, the threats that we face today, I would suggest, will be with us sadly for many years to come. As we saw in the attacks on the World Trade Centre, we can never be certain of what the next threat might be or from where it might come.

Defence is different than policing where much of the work begins after the crime has been committed. We do not maintain our security or military forces in order to deploy them after an attack, to say the least. We have them to prevent the attack from taking place at all, to deter, to intercept or to eliminate that threat if possible before it eliminates us.

The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney tackled the need for permanent commitment to the bilateral issue when it signed the free trade agreement with the United States. There were many predictions at that time that Canada would disappear and that our economy would be left in tatters. Is there any respected commentator in the world today who would make that argument now? Are we not the country running a substantial bilateral trade surplus, I ask rhetorically?

The simple truth is that North America is our region. Geography is destiny and our destiny as a country is grounded ultimately in how we manage this enormous continent in cooperation with our neighbours. Canada will continue to look after its own affairs as the United States will do within its own borders, but increasingly, how we manage our affairs at home depends on how we manage our responsibilities toward one another. We see this in the environment, energy, water quality and coastal fisheries, among other examples. It is a long list and growing.

We can either retreat or react as each new challenge arises or we can look ahead and try to anticipate where that bilateral management challenge will arise, so that we have the procedures and policies in place to deal with them before they become difficult.

I will conclude now by suggesting that the Norad agreement is yet another important step in the evolution of a sovereign and free Canada. I urge the House and all members present to give its unanimous support for this important pillar of Canadian society.

[Norad, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the debate that will take place tomorrow night on the subject of Norad, which has been expanded to include maritime defence and, as the Prime Minister has referenced, will take place for the very first time, allowing both a vote and the participation of Parliament, is not after the fact.

In fact, we will be signing letters of intent after the debate takes place, so there is no suggestion whatsoever that it preempts the debate. The hon. member is fully capable of putting her very well known objections on the record then and we are very anxious to receive them.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, first I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for her interest and participation in tonight's debate. I want to reference the comment she made at the outset regarding genocide. I know that some members, including the former minister of justice who is present here, have referenced this in such a way.

I would just state emphatically that it does not matter what we call it, it has to stop. As for the focus around the use of the word, albeit it may be a final determination that it constitutes genocide and this is of course a definition that comes about from proceedings that are still ongoing, it is something that the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide has stated and has given and provided commentary on. Yet I think it is the real situation and the people who are suffering that has to be the focal point.

This brings me to the question. I believe that the premise put forward by the hon. member is factually incorrect. I do not believe that it is in fact the case that Canada has reduced its aid to the region, as she has referred to it. The minister of CIDA will be here to talk about the international contribution that Canada has made and continues to make. Bearing witness to what we are seeing here, to the interest within our country, and to the ongoing commitment that we have made to the people of Sudan, clearly Canada can and will do more and will continue to keep faith and solidarity with the people of Sudan.

I am most encouraged by the level of interest and participation that we are seeing throughout the country in debates such as this. We must move on and move forward together with our international partners to see that we do not in any way waver in our commitment to the people of Sudan at this critical hour.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, a very big thank you to my dear colleague. He has provided a profound and very personal perspective to the debate this evening. I wish to congratulate him for his contribution.

Canada is also working to promote stability, although it is a slow process, and the reconstruction of Sudan by helping establish new government institutions and promoting federalism in the country.

We are also helping civilian organizations and providing resources to community organizations working at the local level for projects that promote human rights and good governance, access to justice and conflict resolution.

Our government is working with international partners. This evening provides an opportunity for all members present to express their thoughts about and visions for the future of the region and Canada's future participation.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, let me first thank the hon. leader of the official opposition for his intervention, and of course for his commitment and previous involvement in the effort in the Sudan.

Simply put, the request has not been made, nor do I believe that we should speculate at this point on troops being deployed from this country. I believe, as far as capacity is concerned, that this is an issue we can examine. It is an issue more appropriately put to the Minister of National Defence.

However, the Government of Canada will certainly continue to commit all efforts, first and foremost, to pursue the diplomatic means that we have been pursuing to date. We believe that we are so close with respect to the peace process. We are hearing very encouraging things, although clearly, this is volatile and changes almost hourly, based on recent reports.

The Prime Minister said very clearly that there has been no final decision taken, nor will a decision be taken with respect to troops. Canada currently supports aims through the provision of a small number of Canadian Forces who are there in a supportive role, as are civilian police. We will be relying upon advice that we will receive this evening and ongoing monitoring on the ground in Darfur. Canada is committed to continue to play as supportive a role as we can throughout the region.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we very much appreciate you presiding over this important debate this evening. While we will miss your interventions in this place, we know that you are making a great contribution through your activities in the chair.

On behalf of the government, I want to begin the debate by stating emphatically the government's position in doing all we can to help achieve peace in Sudan and continue to ensure that this is a major policy initiative and priority for Canada.

I have just returned from the NATO foreign ministers gathering that took place in Sofia, Bulgaria, where the tragic and pressing situation in Darfur was discussed at length. All my international colleagues in the world community clearly understand that we have to work together, collectively, to help stop this conflict now.

It is critical that we continue to support African efforts to resolve this conflict and to bring whatever leverage the international community can muster to put pressure on all the various parties fighting in Darfur to take responsibility themselves for the violence being perpetrated against the most vulnerable of Sudan's citizens. Canada has been an active and important player in this international effort.

Tonight the government is listening to Canadians. We are listening to the voices of those who demonstrated in support of the people of Darfur over the weekend. We are encouraged by the fact that Canadians are engaged and in some cases enraged, as they pay attention to the plight of the almost 2 million people who have been forced from their homes by this conflict. Student organization such as STAND, Students Taking Action Now: Darfur, and many others in our country are putting pressure and bringing forward helpful suggestions.

I note the presence in the gallery of David Kilgour, who for many years championed this cause. We are pleased to see him back in the nation's capital.

It is important, and we wish to hear the voices and ideas of hon. members present who represent their constituents from around the country. We should be doing so in concert with our partners in the African Union and those in the United Nations and other international organizations.

This is the cut and thrust of this evening's debate. The government is listening to the collective wisdom of Parliament. Canada is not only ready to play an important role in these efforts. As hon. members know, we presently are engaged and are prepared to do more. My colleagues, on behalf of the government, will speak to this in greater detail this evening, including the minister responsible for CIDA and my parliamentary secretary, the member for Calgary East.

The pursuit of peace in Sudan and its region represents huge challenges for all. To provide context to the situation that we are considering tonight, I will say a few words about the region, its history and the current situation.

Sudan is the largest African country and has the sixth largest population. This country has been the theatre of civil wars and has suffered chronic instability for the greater part of the past 50 years. Sudan is located in what is historically the poorest area of the world and the most inclined to conflict. Establishing peace in the area requires addressing and resolving the various conflicts that are tearing Sudan apart. The impact of the conflicts does not stop at the national borders. It must also be addressed and resolved in the context of the region and the continent.

It was only a year ago that Sudan's long-standing north-south civil war was brought to a conclusion. This conflict had a devastating toll, taking an estimated two million lives and displacing upward of four million. The impact of the north-south conflict continues to be felt and requires a massive Sudanese and international effort to build the necessary infrastructure to support the long term development of the region and to ensure that it does not again lapse into conflict.

However, the fragile peace agreement between north and south, called the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, may be jeopardized by the continuing conflict in northern Uganda and the recent incursions by the Lord's Resistance Army in southern Sudan. I have recently instructed officials to step up Canada's diplomatic efforts with partner countries to address the root causes of the Ugandan humanitarian crisis, efforts which we hope will also help Sudan.

Canada is proud to have played an important role in the peace process that ended the north-south war and we are continuing this role, including through our participation in the United Nations peacekeeping force, which has been deployed to oversee the agreement.

The reason I am taking time to talk about the north-south agreement tonight, in the context of our debate on Darfur, is that we cannot hope to address the tragic plight of the people of Darfur out of the context of peace in the whole of the Sudan. The regions and, more important, governments impact very directly on one another in Africa, as the members know.

Let me now turn to Darfur, a conflict which erupted in early 2003 due greatly to the fear of the people of Darfur that their communities would continue to be marginalized and denied essential services in the wake of a north-south peace agreement which was touted as comprehensive, but did not take into account their needs.

Today the conflict continues, despite a humanitarian ceasefire agreement voluntarily entered into by the warring parties in the spring of 2004. Who are these warring parties? The conflict in Darfur is one which has pitted community against community. The population is predominantly Muslim, but divided upon ethnic and tribal lines, as well as being pastoral and nomadic livelihoods.

The United Nations estimates that violence in Darfur, in western Sudan, has displaced roughly 2 million people. Today, 200,000 refugees are living in camps in Chad in disastrous conditions. Canada remains deeply concerned by the continuing violence and the persistent culture of impunity in Darfur, and especially by the attacks on civilians.

Violence continues in Darfur because parties are not abiding by their own agreements. However, the latest reports from the African Union-led Darfur peace talks in Abuja are ongoing. While they may be encouraging, the next days will be critical. All parties, working through the agreement, have decided to extend the talks by 48 hours. This was granted on Sunday.

I spoke with Canadian officials as recently as moments before this debate began this evening. They are doing tremendous work to assist the process both in Africa and, as they have previously, at the United Nations in New York. We commend those officials for their work.

I have written as well to all participants encouraging the acceptance of the peace agreement. Although imperfect, it provides a political framework and an ongoing process to follow. All international parties are calling for the agreement to go forward and be accepted. It makes significant progress on the issues that are important: political participation; bringing rebel factions into the Sudan army; democracy building; recognizing parties, things that we take for granted; wealth sharing; humanitarian and development and infrastructure needs; compensation and help to those people who have been displaced; and most importantly, an end to the violence. Canada has done a great deal. We have been consistent and generous.

We all need to encourage other international parties to do the same and to honour their commitments. Canada's continued presence at the talks and our financial support to the African Union has facilitated the process. I mentioned the letters that were sent, at the urging of our officials there, to the various rebel leaders and the government of Sudan urging them to reach an agreement that all parties could uphold.

This international community has supported the talks for some time and the time has come for an agreement. The people of Darfur and indeed the international community expect nothing less. Canada again commends the tireless efforts of the African Union mediation team which has been instrumental in the progress achieved thus far.

However, this political settlement is long overdue when considered against the backdrop of the continued violence and suffering in Darfur. Reaching an agreement is only the first step, and implementation and reconciliation must follow quickly. Canada will be there to support both.

I would like to tell the House more about what Canada has done to date to help the people of Darfur and assist in resolving the conflict itself. The African Union has stepped up to the plate to lead international efforts to resolve the conflict. It has deployed a multinational force of over 7,700 military police and civilian personnel. The African Union's mission in Sudan, AMIS as it is known, is to encourage the parties to live up to their agreements, cease attacks on civilians, and establish the conditions necessary for the success of any peaceful agreement.

Canada has assumed an internationally recognized leadership role in support of the African Union's peacekeeping mission. We are currently one of the mission's top donors. Our contributions to AMIS total $170 million in logistic, financial and equipment support necessary to allow the mission to fulfill its mandate. We have supplied helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, armoured personnel carriers to provide the mobility necessary for the force's effectiveness, and we are continuing to provide military police and civilian experts to assist in the carrying out of their operations.

The AU mission has achieved much under exceptionally difficult circumstances. Those circumstances would have taxed even the most experienced and well equipped international forces, but both the AU and the wider global community recognized that the time is here, and the time is right for a new phase of international engagement, particularly in the hope that things will be settled at the Abuja peace talks.

This situation demands a new level of international engagement and has led to a request from the African Union to the United Nations to begin planning for the transition of the AU mission to a UN mission. That will integrate the peacekeeping force with an ongoing humanitarian, political, and development and peacekeeping effort into one cohesive fold. The UN planning effort is well engaged and Canada hopes for a transition to the UN mission by early fall.

We welcome the AU's request to the UN. We will continue to work closely with both and encourage them and others to provide the necessary support to succeed in the process. While assisting the AU mission, we will also engage in other programs to help build the conditions necessary for lasting peace. Through my department's role and the Global Peace and Security Fund, we are providing support for a community arms control and disarmament program led by the United Nations.

We work with civilian police, help to ensure the safety of communities, and provide assistance to train police and military forces on international human rights and humanitarian law.

I want to restate that Canada has been involved in the international effort to prevent the escalation and instability within the region, and to improve the humanitarian situation in Sudan. Canada will continue to monitor the situation in the future. We recognize the need to get these peace talks finished and then get on with the important job, the heavy lifting that will be expected.

We encourage all members to make their contributions here this evening. We are looking forward to hearing their advice and input. The peace agreement is hanging in the balance this evening and we know that the time is now. We emphatically encourage all participants in the peace talks to come to an agreement. Vigorous diplomatic efforts will continue in order to end the violence in a comprehensive ceasefire that will allow the entire region to get back to bringing people home and ending the suffering in the Sudan.