Peter Van Loan

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to hear the member opposite indicate that he and the Liberal Party will strongly support the new Norad agreement, which is a positive thing.

However I was very concerned to hear what I thought was a very shallow grasp of the law of treaties and how treaties are entered into. I thought perhaps in response the member could share with us whether he has an appreciation of the difference between the signing of a treaty and the ratification of a treaty.

Those who are familiar with international law are aware that obviously the people who sign treaties that are sent abroad by governments are not the same ones who ratify treaties and treaties do not come into force until ratification. The government has not yet ratified this treaty. We are having a debate tonight in the House and then a vote. Ratification comes at a later point and it is only with ratification that a treaty comes into force. It seems the hon. member has missed that point.

I wonder if the member appreciates that difference. If he does, would he like to share with Canadians that he does understand the difference between signing a treaty and ratifying it?

I was hoping he could also add for us a list of all the treaties, since he was a fan of openness, in the time the Liberals were in government that were subject to a debate and a vote in the House by the members of the House of Commons. That would show us how open the Liberal Party was with foreign treaties when it was in government.

[Lake Simcoe, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the numerous volunteer organizations that have committed their time and efforts to protecting and enhancing the health of Lake Simcoe's environment.

The Ladies of the Lake, in addition to an eye-catching calendar, have led the way on education efforts. The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition has brought diverse groups together to project a united voice calling for action to protect the lake.

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Foundation has undertaken real world projects to protect the lake's health. The South Lake Simcoe Naturalists' Club and the York-Simcoe Naturalists have also done good work. I have been proud to work with them all.

Yesterday the Lake Simcoe MPs from Barrie, Simcoe North, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and I joined forces to put the case to the Minister of Transport on the need for mandatory rules to protect our lakes from the invasive species threat. After 13 years of the Liberal government's refusal to act, it was refreshing to have a minister who cared and is prepared to act to protect the environment.

Working together with local volunteers, I am optimistic we will soon see real results for Lake Simcoe's environment.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, as most people know, the mission in Afghanistan is divided into different portions or different provincial reconstruction teams throughout. Currently, the Kandahar one, where Canada has taken on a leadership role, is one where we are going to have a lot of troops from different forces coming in.

My own ancestral homeland of Estonia is actually committing 150 troops that will be working under Canada there. Of course, I might add that people from Estonia appreciate the importance of democratic development and democracy promotion, having lived for a half a century under Soviet tyranny and having seen that suffering. That is why Estonia, this tiny country of just one million people, is giving a commitment so out of proportion to its population.

Obviously ISAF has development teams that are in charge of some of the provincial reconstruction. The U.S. has different elements. We keep moving between different portions with our commitment. We are confident that the progress is a positive one and that things are making satisfactory progress, but obviously the commitment of when we do what and what we will do will ultimately be in our national interest.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, there is a tremendous desire among some to distill democracy promotion or democratic development to simply winning a military struggle and having free and democratic elections. Obviously it is much more than that. In many places, it requires institution building, development of civilian law enforcement and education systems, the stabilization of an economy, and the building of local governments and national governments. All of these things are important parts of the package. Of course, every circumstance is different. Every occasion is different.

As the Soviet Union ended, we saw many countries where there were willing recipients looking to go quickly down the road to embrace reform of their judicial system, to learn how to run it the way that western democracies have been doing it for years. Then there are some countries, obviously, where democratic development is done in the face of hostile forces; there are countries and regimes that really are resisting it. As we know, we see that right now in some places, such as Belarus, where it is a big struggle.

Then we have a place such as Afghanistan, and there are others around the world that are similar, where it is something in between the two, where there are local populations and newly elected governments, where we have had the successful elections and we have people wanting to move toward that state of a stable, democratic and free country, but where there are forces within the country that are resisting it. They are fighting it and trying to destabilize the country militarily and through terrorist actions. Those are perhaps the most difficult ones, obviously, because the solution is different in every case.

In a case such as Afghanistan's, which has gone through such difficult times throughout the Taliban era and even before that, there obviously needs to be a large and comprehensive model that involves development on every front. That is what we are doing in Afghanistan. I believe it is the right model and I know this government believes it is the right one.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, through the Prime Minister's recent visit to Afghanistan, our new government spoke clearly and directly to Canadians and the world about how Canada will participate in world affairs and again provide leadership. For those of us who are believers in the importance of democracy and its promotion, it was good news.

First, the Prime Minister made clear that Canadian commitments would have weight. Our resolve in the face of challenges would be strong and our partners, allies and those counting on Canada could do so with trust and confidence. The building of confidence and trust is fundamental to restoring Canada to a leadership position in the world.

Second, the Prime Minister made clear that Canadian actions on the world's stage will be governed by our national interest. This may be old fashioned, realist school international relations. However , it ensures that our policies reflect Canada's concerns and that our commitments do not over-reach our capabilities. Canada, the confirmed multilateralist, would ensure an independent foreign policy in the context of working with our like minded partners to have maximum constructive impact.

That Canadian national interest is not a narrow and opportunistic seeking of mere advantage for ourselves. Rather, it is a broadly defined national interest, one that recognizes the interconnectiveness of the world today and that Canadian security and prosperity are enhanced and safeguarded when the world is a safer place where the rule of law is spread in partnership with the advance of human rights and democracy. It is a national interest that recognizes that Canada is not an island, but rather part of global humanity.

Third, the Prime Minister spoke clearly of Canada's intention to be a leader in world affairs. Some speak of our country as being a model nation, and it is true that Canada has much to commend it in that regard: a healthy, mature, functioning democracy; active civil society; tolerance of dissent and a respected judicial system with widely accepted rule of law. We have a healthy level of economic freedom, buttressed by a supportive social safety net. As such, Canada is a pretty good model. However leadership by example is not sufficient.

Leadership means duty. We have an obligation to help promote those values in the parts of the world that do not yet share our prosperous stability and freedom to move in that direction. That duty, which is part of leadership, requires sacrifice. In Afghanistan we see that leadership in numerous forms: from the so-called pointy end of military commitment, to the institution building efforts of provincial reconstruction teams and the simple but urgent delivery of humanitarian aid.

In Afghanistan and elsewhere, Canada will not be carping or hectoring from the sidelines. We will be providing leadership and working to make the world a safer, more secure and free place.

Which brings us to the fourth point the Prime Minister was making. We are in Afghanistan to help rebuild the country into a free, democratic and peaceful country. That objective is a legitimate and important Canadian objective. In fact, our work in Afghanistan confirms what is best about Canada on the world's stage and how much Canadians have to offer.

We are proud of the work our soldiers, diplomats and aid workers are doing. We are all grateful for their efforts. Canadians thank them and the Afghan people thank them.

Most Canadians will never see Afghanistan but they know of Kandahar. Canadians know and hear of the work that our people, who proudly wear the Canadian flag, are doing. They are uprooting the enemies of freedom. They are giving hope for a better life and Canadians are helping Afghans to rebuild their country.

For over four years now Canada has stood side by side with the international community, with 36 countries, in Afghanistan in fighting the campaign against terrorism. Achieving this requires the international community to adopt a multi-faceted approach, and Canada is doing just that.

I think I speak for all members of the House when I say that we are honoured and humbled by the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform and by diplomat Glynn Berry who gave their lives in a far away land for people they did not know. They gave it for a belief, for a principle, for freedom and for democracy.

While for some of us the idea of Canada playing a leading role in advancing democracy is self-evidently desirable, it is not a path without obstacles. Foremost is a strong isolationist impulse harboured by some. There are those who would prefer that we pull up the drawbridges and keep our prosperity and freedom to ourselves.

A recent caller I heard on CBC radio was critical of the Prime Minister's declarations in Afghanistan. She said, “All this talk about freedom, it's just not Canadian”. I like to think that freedom is a Canadian value. I think it should be a universal value.

As this country learned in the last century, safeguarding and advancing freedom often comes at a price; a price paid by thousands of Canadians in two world wars and Korea. Throughout her history, Canada has been a leader in advancing freedom across the world. That is what Canada is doing today.

[Income Trusts, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not be surprised if the Prime Minister's latest promises on cleaning up corruption have the life span of a fruit fly. After all, there is a lot rotten in the government.

The Minister of Finance created the uncertainty in the markets with ill-considered comments in the first place. Then, according to Al Rosen, who is among the most respected finance experts, there is evidence that some people had inside knowledge of the minister's new tax policy in advance of the public and profited.

Will the Minister of Finance take responsibility for this situation? Or is there still, in the words of Justice Gomery, a “refusal of ministers...to acknowledge their responsibility”?

[Income Trusts, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there once was a practice, long abandoned under the Liberal government, of the finance minister resigning if budget contents leaked, this on the principle that inside information should not allow those connected to government to profit. Now leaks are common, in part because budget-type announcements come almost weekly instead of yearly from a government that has abandoned normal prudent fiscal practice.

The Prime Minister has just proposed restoring traditional ministerial accountability as proof that he is going to clean up corruption. Will it apply in the case of the recent reports of insider trading on tax changes? Or was the Prime Minister just kidding when he announced the return of the ministerial accountability principle?

[Riding of Etobicoke--Lakeshore, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of an election, the Prime Minister has shown that the democratic deficit is alive in the Liberal Party of Canada.

It has been almost two decades since Etobicoke--Lakeshore Liberals have been permitted to democratically select a candidate. In 1993, Jean Chrétien appointed the current member to be a candidate, eliminating any democratic nomination process. Now, Liberal headquarters has rigged the nomination of a successor, installing a candidate in a process worthy of the worst corrupt third world dictatorship, according to local Liberals.

Yes, that is the same Michael Ignatieff who has lectured for years about the value of our western freedoms and democracy. Apparently, becoming a Liberal can be severely corrupting to one's principles. At least it took Pierre Trudeau two years to transform from the candidate of individual freedom to the War Measures Act prime minister. Michael Ignatieff has taken mere minutes to abandon democratic values.

Mr. Ignatieff is going to fit well into the Liberal Party. That is, until the voters of Etobicoke--Lakeshore stand up for democracy, freedom and Canada, and reject the Liberal Party's latest affront. That day is coming soon.

[Government Contracts, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of tonight's traditional CBC pre-election documentary, perhaps I will paraphrase that there is no Herle like an old entitled Liberal Herle.

On behalf of all Canadians, I plead with the Prime Minister. We know the Liberal Party is deeply in debt but will the government please stop using the public treasury as the Liberal campaign fund?

[Government Contracts, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery's main findings include a Liberal culture of entitlement using government contracts to pay “individuals who were, in effect, working on Liberal Party matters”. That culture of entitlement is alive and well under this Prime Minister, who gave campaign chair David Herle an untendered government contract to write the Liberal campaign platform just unveiled by the Minister of Finance.

Why, immediately following the sponsorship scandal, do we find that absolutely nothing has changed in how the Liberal government uses public-funded contracts to finance Liberal Party activity?