Rick Dykstra

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a pointed one in the sense that sometimes we do forget after time the purpose of the mission.

As recommended in the Manley report itself, we indeed must continue with a much stronger and more open style of communication within our country so that people understand and know why we are in Afghanistan.

Perhaps we did not even think about this, but while nations slept, we hoped that Afghanistan would simply take care of itself and that if we ignored the issues with respect to the tyranny that the Taliban brought to that country, or let it pass us by, that somehow it would have no impact. We saw the impact. We see the impact that it has today.

The member mentioned the issues around travel. I cannot think of an airport in North America where there has not been heightened security, heightened inspection, heightened investigation. Every person who gets on a plane to travel anywhere in North America or the world is subjected to a different type of security check than they were prior to 9/11.

We think about that event which happened years ago. I cannot think of anyone who does not understand clearly that the world is a large place, but no matter where events such as that occur, everyone is impacted. I cannot think of any other reason than what happened on 9/11 that we as Canadians would not have taken up our responsibilities, not just for those people who were in the twin towers in the United States, not just on behalf of our good friends to the south, but on behalf of Afghanistan, and certainly on behalf of Canadians. We have been impacted by that devastation.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very important, considering that this is only the second time with respect to the Afghanistan mission that we have actually had a vote here in the House of Commons.

This is a minority Parliament. It is unwieldy and not easy to work with at best, but there have been times in the two years that I have been here where I have seen diplomacy and partisanship separated. Diplomacy and doing what is right in this country become two common themes.

I would submit that it is not what was suggested by the member from the NDP, that there has been some sort of collusion. That makes no sense. Quite frankly, what we have seen is a consensus on an issue that impacts us as a country and impacts Afghanistan. Therefore, the issue has come before the members of the House on behalf of people of this country. Indeed we can say, as we have said in the number of wars that we have been involved in, that we have come together in support of our soldiers. We will support those who need our assistance. We will support a motion that is built on consensus, and that is a motion that will carry the day in this House.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this motion and to follow the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, especially his response to the last question, which certainly hits home for all of us who understand what it is and recognize what our responsibilities are as Canadians.

The government motion makes a simple but serious request. It asks the House to say that our country is one that recognizes and honours the obligations that we owe to our allies and the international community. It asks the House to say that Canada keeps its word. I am proud to stand in my place today and speak in its favour.

Our work in Afghanistan is just. We are there to uphold and preserve the rule of law in the global arena. Canada is in Afghanistan at the invitation of its democratically elected government. We are there as part of an international contingent, working side by side with 37 other countries, among them our oldest and truest friends. Our presence was requested and is sanctioned by the United Nations, and our presence was requested and is sanctioned by NATO.

I will quote John Manley from the forward of the independent panel report. He states:

But our presence in that distant land does matter.

Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan matters because it concerns global and Canadian security, Canada’s international reputation, and the well-being of some of the world’s most impoverished and vulnerable people. Our commitment is important because it has already involved the sacrifice of Canadian lives.

Our commitment in Afghanistan has not and will not be easy but if everything important were easy, it would have already been accomplished.

When we look down the road, we see the potential potholes and, yes, the work will be hard, but we should not let the challenges ahead conceal how far we have actually come. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, girls and women were forbidden from working or attending school after the age of eight. Stadiums, once used for soccer, played host to public executions.

This is a rough list from the New York Times of some of the things banned under the Taliban: anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, any equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, tapes, computers, VCRs, televisions, anything that talks about music, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogues, pictures and even Christmas cards.

For five long years the Taliban waged systematic war on Afghanistan society, destroying its social, economical and physical capital in pursuit of a perverted utopia. It is not easy to fix a society so thoroughly dismantled but great strides have been made. Twentieth century conflicts were measured in yards and miles. In the 21st century, the metrics are different: hospitals and wells, roads and bridges, ballots, ballot boxes and book bags.

Since 2002, more than five million refugees have returned to Afghanistan eager to begin rebuilding the shattered lives that they have left behind. That is progress. In the last five years, Afghanistan's economy has grown at a rate of 10% per year. The average income has doubled. That is progress.

Four million children are enrolled in school for the first time and more than 40% of these newly enrolled students are female. In total, there are now six million children in school in Afghanistan. That is progress.

Ten million Afghans are registered to vote. In fact, in the parliamentary elections of 2005, 28% of those elected to govern were women. Here in Canada it is only 21%. In its first elected Parliament, it has 7% more than we have here in Canada.

These are victories in progress in a developing democracy. The progress we have made is substantial. The victories we have won are real. If we refuse to consolidate that progress, if we refuse to defend our gains, then all of our sacrifices will indeed have been in vain.

Our mission in Afghanistan rests on three Ds, which are in the introduction of the Manley report: defence, diplomacy and development assistance. Like a stool, it requires three legs to stand, and like a stool, the mission will collapse if we remove one of any of the three.

Security and development must proceed in tandem. Canadian troops must defend what Canadian development funds have built. That is not to say that Canada must shoulder this burden alone. The government motion asks that Canada extend its commitment to 2011, but we will only extend that commitment if we can secure a partner that will expand the ISAF's capacity by 1,000 troops by the end of February 2009.

Canada's allies share our stake in Afghanistan's success. They should share more fairly in the cost of that success. But no one has a greater stake in Afghanistan's success than its own people. It is only right, therefore, that responsibility for security is increasingly transferred to the Afghan national security forces as their capabilities steadily increase.

Today, the Afghan national army is approximately 50,000 strong. By the end of 2010, it is projected to reach 70,000, the target identified by the Afghanistan Compact. Its members are becoming better trained and they are gaining more discipline.

As the capabilities of these NATO forces expand, they will depend less and less on foreign support. Together with our allies, we in time will achieve our aim: an Afghanistan secured and governed by Afghans.

I would like to conclude with a word about the sacrifices made by our brave Canadian soldiers. In 2007 we lost 12 soldiers to improvised explosive devices. We lost 11 soldiers to roadside bombs and landmines. We saw deaths from suicide bombings, truck and helicopter crashes. Each was, is and remains a terrible tragedy, but in 2007 we did not lose a single soldier in the combat component of this mission. The last combat deaths came in September 2006, in the last days of Operation Medusa.

In conventional combat the Taliban is impotent in the face of Canadian might. When we take the fight to our enemy, we win. As long as we are in Afghanistan in any capacity, Canadian lives will be at risk, but it is, quite frankly, sophistry of the lowest kind to suggest that an end to the combat component of this mission and a retreat to our bunkers would somehow make Canadians safer. This motion recognizes that reality.

When the cold war ended, the world forgot about Afghanistan and the price for the people living there was immediate: civil war followed by tyrannical rule. In September 2001 the west learned that we, too, could be endangered by the failure of a state half a world away.

The lesson is clear. We owe it to ourselves and to the people of Afghanistan to finish the job that we have started and leave behind a stable, functioning state that threatens neither its citizens nor ours. I believe the policy laid out by this government will in fact do just that. In less than 48 hours we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the motion.

I can only submit, I can only suggest and I can only hope that all members of the House, regardless of party affiliation, will see that the support for our soldiers, for our mission, for our country and the outcomes that it provides for us and for the Afghan people will indeed be followed and supported.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the previous speech. I certainly want to compliment the member for the quotes that he did pull out of the Manley report, but I also want to read a quote for him and get his interpretation of it. He has quoted the former minister on a number of occasions, both in his speech and in his responses, at great length.

Mr. Manley says in his opening letter:

To achieve these objectives, much still needs to be done.

Institutions that are respected need to be built and the Afghan National Army and Police need to be further recruited and trained.

Agricultural districts need to be reclaimed from land mines and poppy fields, so that traditional crops can once again flourish where they have in the past.

Both the reality and the perception of corruption in the Government of Afghanistan must be rooted out. They are undermining not only the hope for an Afghan solution but also support for the Western forces sacrificing their lives to help secure the situation.

What Mr. Manley says in his report is very clear. He says that our work there is not done. It is not done with respect to the three things that we stand for: defence, diplomacy, and development assistance. We cannot have two without having the third.

I think what the member has suggested is that there is the potential to do this without defence. I want to get a very clear understanding, based on the report authored by Mr. Manley, of what the member is suggesting with respect to that issue.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain or certainly defend my colleague from Saskatchewan who stood up to make that point so vigorously. There is a reason that he got so carried away and mentioned the finance minister's name.

He is so excited about a single securities regulator in this country that he just cannot stand not mentioning the finance minister's name, because he knows that we finally have a finance minister in this country who is bound and determined to deliver a single securities regulator for us. With this, we can get things done. We can make sure, as provinces, territories and a country, that when we are approached by other countries, by investors and by businesses, we can make the right decisions, timely decisions, and we can make sure that our economy stays strong in this country.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Yellowhead. Over the last number of months, he has taken over the responsibility of chairing the finance committee.

I want to take a moment to compliment him for the work he has done in chairing the committee. It is a very important committee here in the House. He has done an excellent job of making sure that we stay on track with respect to government business. I think he is doing a very good job in a very non-partisan way.

We have already heard today about how the government is taking steps to improve the fragmented, inefficient system of securities regulation currently in place in our country. We have outlined an approach that will reduce costs and boost efficiency while giving all regions of our country a meaningful voice along the way.

It is important to note, however, that while the government is working to strengthen securities regulation in our country, this is only one aspect of what we are doing to create a competitive advantage in a global marketplace. Allow me to briefly describe in more detail the government's long term strategy to achieve just that.

We heard the previous speaker mention the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund concluded a month ago in its financial sector assessment program update that Canada boasts one of the most highly developed and sophisticated financial sectors in the world. It noted that our financial system is solid and that Canadian banks and other financial institutions are sound and well capitalized.

The IMF pointed this out in their report and noted that, while the Canadian banking system appears sound, we face some challenges ahead in the midst of global financial turmoil. I note that the IMF has strongly recommended a single securities regulator as a way to make Canada's system better.

Indeed, the former managing director of the IMF has been quite public in his support of the government's call for securities regulation reform. Last June, he said:

Given that Canada is playing in the highest league, you should equip yourself with the best instrument. I think that on financial issues you still have to provide your customers--your investors and savers of your country--with better tools....

The design of markets and the flexibility of markets and the competition of markets is a very important element of public policy. Canada is currently the only G7 country without a common securities regulator, and Canada's investors deserve better.

Our government recognized very early on that to encourage a stronger and more prosperous economy we must improve Canada's capital markets at the same time. That is why in our long term economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, we emphasize the need to create a competitive advantage in global capital markets.

In budget 2007 we announced the blueprint to achieve this in the “Creating a Canadian Advantage in Global Capital Markets” plan. This plan offers increased protection in opportunities for investors, better jobs, more investment and greater prosperity.

It is based on four fundamental building blocks.

First, it proposes a modernization of the fragmented and complex laws that govern our securities markets. It proposes a new principles-based approach to securities regulation, tailored to the unique makeup of Canada's capital markets.

Second, it recognizes the need to protect the investments of Canadians by providing the highest standards of corporate governance, enforcing our laws vigorously, and tackling white collar crime. It is important that strong enforcement be visible to investors, as this perception reinforces investor confidence and encourages increased participation in our markets.

Third, there is a recognition of the need for better access to investment opportunities. Competition and choice for businesses and investors will be enhanced by measures that improve access to global capital markets and complement the effective functioning of domestic securities markets.

Finally, the government is working to ensure that Canadians have the financial literacy and information they need to make sound financial decisions for their companies and their families.

It is an ambitious plan, and it is less than a year old, but this government, as it is in so many other areas, is already delivering results.

On enhancing regulatory efficiency, the government has launched the expert panel on securities regulation, of course, but we have also revised Canadian insolvency legislation to better protect “securities financing agreements” in case of insolvency. In addition, we have taken the time to take a step back and we have consulted with the provinces on security transfer laws.

On strengthening market integrity, the government appointed a senior expert adviser to assess the effectiveness of the RCMP-led Integrated Market Enforcement Teams. The report was published in December. The RCMP and other federal partners have already begun implementing its recommendations. We have also participated in the federal-provincial-territorial securities fraud working group of police, security regulators and prosecutors.

On creating greater opportunity for businesses and investors, a great deal has already been achieved. We have adopted measures that will reduce borrowing costs for Canadian businesses and make cross-border capital flows much more efficient, including the signing of a new protocol amending the Canada-U.S. tax treaty and changing tax rules to remove the withholding tax on arm's-length interest payments made to non-residents.

We have also amended tax rules for investments in securities listed on prescribed stock exchanges. This will improve responsiveness to market and regulatory developments.

Finally, we are pursuing a number of initiatives to improve the information available to investors. This includes working with British Columbia to adapt its high school financial literacy program into a web-based instrument available across our great country.

Our government has also supported the work of the Financial Consumer Agency to improve financial literacy in Canada.

We have no intention of abandoning any efforts to make Canada's capital market systems work better and to give Canadians greater investment choice, increased market access and improved investor protection by doing so.

Even the Toronto Star has underlined the importance of securities reform in our country, stating in a pointed editorial that Canada's current system was “fragmented”, leaving investors with “no assurance their rights will be enforced on a consistent and fair basis wherever they invest”.

Allow me to go on. The current system, the Star contends, has made it “harder and more expensive for firms to raise needed investment capital here at home”. Because Canadian companies can go elsewhere to raise capital more cheaply and with less fuss, they do.

The Star report goes on to say:

And that means Canada is losing opportunities and business to financial centres like New York and London, all because there is no place for provincial parochialism in today's global capital market.

Canada needs a single, national securities regulator...Corporate Canada knows it. Investors know it. It is high time [with all due respect] the provinces caught on.

We have the right plan to make that happen and the determination to follow through on that plan.

This motion is simply wrong. It has no place in our country's economy and it has no place passing here in the House of Commons.

[The Budget, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is making responsible decisions that help Canadians save their hard-earned money.

The tax-free savings account unveiled in budget 2008 is a great new way for individuals to save tax free. To help make university or college more affordable for Canadian families, we have made major improvements to the registered education savings plan.

The changes made are fiscally responsible, unlike the Liberal plan that would send Canada into deficit.

Could the Minister of Finance inform how this will protect Canada from a Liberal deficit?

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his attention to my speech and I appreciate his question. The answer falls along the same lines as the answer to the previous question.

The fact is that this government is not interested in funding lobbying efforts. What we are interested in is funding programs that work, and in this specific circumstance, programs for women.

The member asked for a couple of examples. There are a number: the funding under the official languages program for linguistic minorities, the aboriginal representative organizations program, the multiculturalism program, the crime prevention program at Justice Canada, and the programs funded by Health Canada.

Our government has funded and is implementing a program that makes sense, that actually can be implemented and used by women and organizations across this country within their communities, not to go to offices to meet with staff, to determine lobbying efforts and to travel to Ottawa to try to convince the government to give them more money to fund more lobbying. Those days are over and they are not coming back.

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for London West is here on behalf of women and certainly to advocate for them. I might say though that the word “advocacy” itself, if used in the proper context, is not a bad word, but the fact is in the context of this program, it represented lobbying.

The one important component of what the program is offering in its present state after we changed it is the fact that it will go to programs that actually are implemented, that actually allow women to use the funding for its intended purpose, and that is to deliver programs.

To simply fund organizations with taxpayers' money, regardless of what those organizations may be, to simply lobby the government is not an appropriate expenditure of funds. It is not an appropriate expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. It is obvious because we have been able to take the money that was used for lobbying and invest it in programs where we are seeing sustainable and great benefits for women in this country.

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the opposition day motion suggesting that the government should amend the criteria of the women's program of Status of Women Canada to give access to groups engaging in research, defending rights, or simply lobbying government.

First, permit me to make one thing clear. The Government of Canada does not make funding decisions based on who an organization is; it does so based on what the organization actually does. This is certainly the case with the women's program of Status of Women Canada. The program provides funding for projects by not for profit and for profit organizations, and the projects must provide a direct benefit to women and their specific communities.

As a result of these funded initiatives, our government is increasing equality for women and their families by improving their economic and social conditions and their participation in the democratic life of our country.

The women's program and regional operations directorate takes the lead within Status of Women Canada for funding community based action that addresses issues directly related to equality for women.

The women's program was established in 1973. Since that time it has provided funding to women's organizations and other equality seeking organizations in our country.

Over the past several years the women's program has experienced a number of changes. Those changes were based on a move toward an increased focus on accountability and seeking quantifiable results for the funding projects.

The program has undergone reviews, renewals and various changes. They have been implemented to improve the operations of the program itself, as well as its capacity for results focused action and accountability.

The women's program is working effectively for women in all their diversity and in every corner of our country.

The program's mandate is to advance the equality of women across Canada through the improvement of their economic and social conditions and their equal participation in democratic life. Similarly, the program's objective is to “achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada”.

The women's program does this by providing assistance to organizations to carry out projects at local, regional and national levels in key areas, such as women's economic status, women in leadership, violence against women and girls, and programs that directly impact the lives of women from multicultural and first nations communities. This work must be done in an accountable and transparent way.

Our government is proud of our support and our work for the women's program. I do, however, find it ironic that the party opposite chose such a motion for today's topic. On the one hand it provides us with the opportunity to highlight the great work that we are doing for women in this country. On the other hand, and perhaps those members have forgotten, it was the Liberals who chose to vote against our budget in 2007.

The Liberals voted to take away the $100 child care benefit. They voted against more money for Status of Women Canada. It was members opposite who gutted gun crime legislation, weakening its specific intent. And they say that they stand up for women in this country?

It is this government that has increased the budget of the women's program to $20 million, an increase of 76%, the highest level of funding it has ever received. The increased grants and contributions are making a real difference in the lives of Canadian women facing challenges. As a result, the women's program is now better funded. It is stronger, more relevant, and more accountable than ever.

This government has also given the program the flexibility it needs to address issues of concern to women from coast to coast to coast. That is important because the concerns of women are as diverse as the women of Canada themselves.

These concerns can be very different and very specific, depending on the community and our country's great geography. Indeed, our recognition of the diversity of the women of Canada underpinned an important announcement yesterday that will benefit aboriginal women.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians announced that five new shelters will be built in five new communities across Canada. They will be built to help address violence against first nations women and their families.

This initiative builds on our government's one-time investment in 2006 of $6 million to meet the urgent operational needs of the existing 35 shelters. These five new shelters to be built in five provinces are the result of our further investment in 2007 of almost $56 million for the first nations family violence prevention program. Construction, I am happy to say, will begin this summer.

Initiatives like this, along with our government's support for women's programs, underscore our commitment for women. By using funding priorities, Status of Women Canada ensures women's program resources are invested where the need is the greatest and where there is a clear potential to make a correct, direct and concrete impact. This means that while all proposals receive due consideration, priority will be given to those that fall within the 2007-08 funding priorities.

Through its funding and services, the women's program enhances knowledge and engagement in advancing gender equality. Because of that support, a growing number of organizations are achieving their objectives and making a difference for their communities and for their regions in Canada.

The following issues have actually been identified as women's program priorities in 2007-08: first, women's economic security and prosperity; second, women's health, both non-medical and clinical; third, women's safety; and fourth and probably most important, eliminating all forms of violence and discrimination against women.

In addition, as of April 2007, this government diversified the women's program. It now offers two components: the women's community fund and the newly created women's partnership fund. Let me explain both of these.

The women's community fund focuses its support on eligible organizations to support projects at the local, regional and national levels. To qualify, projects must address the economic, social and cultural situation of women in their specific communities. The women's partnership fund, on the other hand, focuses its support on eligible organizations to carry out partnership projects at the local, regional and national levels.

The fund seeks to build partnership projects between the Status of Women Canada and eligible non-government recipients and public institutions to jointly address the economic, social and cultural situation of women in our country. Applications to the women's partnership fund are accepted throughout the fiscal year.

Clearly, the women's program is fulfilling its mandate and achieving its objectives. As a result of the efforts of our government, it is meeting the needs and it is meeting the interests of women all across our great country.