Stockwell Day

[Rivière-Rouge—Mont-Tremblant International Airport, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at all our airports, we constantly monitor the charges. We can assess them at any time to ensure that they are equitable across the country. That is the case in Rigaud. In addition, we are currently reviewing the situation at every airport across the country. Everything is equitable and will remain equitable.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I listened patiently to the member's question and she seems to have lost her patience even before I have begun here, but that is her right and also her past record.

I do not know how many times I have to repeat it in the clearest of language. This government does not want, intend or desire in any way to reopen the debate on the death penalty. I do not know how much clearer we can say it.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with my emotions here in regard to being saddened at the suggestion that the member would rather hear from her own colleague than from me. I am going to try to pull myself together emotionally so as to be able to handle that.

We have been very clear, in the clearest of forms--

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is jumping all over the place. That is understandable, because he knows he is on shaky ground on the question of where the government stands on the debate regarding the death penalty.

The government has been very clear on this. As I said in my remarks, the Minister of Justice has been very clear. Other members of the government have been very clear. We are not reopening the debate. We have no intent or desire to reopen the debate on the death penalty.

When I articulate that in the clearest of fashion, even as other members have done so, what does my hon. colleague do? He gets up and begins to cloud the debate with other issues when the motion in fact is very clear. The member should stick to the motion and stick to the question.

That is why we are saying, as we read the motion, that clearly we are in favour of maintaining the government's position in terms of being opposed to the death penalty. The essence of the motion is not the problem. The problem is that it is being used to waste time and distract from other things when our position is very clear.

We are not opposed to the Liberals continuing to ask the question. We are opposed to them using the valuable time of the House to ask a question that has been answered in the clearest of forms a number of times, and very recently.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary East.

The motion that is before us today, I say regrettably and unfortunately, is a waste of this House's time. I say that with respect to the member who has just spoken from across the way because he is usually not one who would be engaged in an activity which, in fact, is a waste of the House's time.

This is an attempt, and I will not say by the member but certainly by the Liberal opposition, to draw debate where there is no debate, which is why we are opposing the motion. There are too many important issues before Canadians right now for us to be spending hours on this particular motion when the government has been most clear on this particular topic.

Some have suggested that this motion is a distraction from other difficulties that the Liberals are having, most notably the increasing and continual litany of humiliating voting responses by the Liberals, where it has gone as far now, as we have seen, where the leader of the Liberal opposition proposes a motion of non-confidence in the government and then tells his own members that they cannot vote for it. It has gone as far as being asked to join in a vote to ask the Senate to expedite very important criminal justice bills through the Senate, a simple motion like that, and they all walk out. The public is noticing one after another of these humiliating situations in which the Liberals continue to put themselves. Maybe that is why they are using something like this to take up House time and distract from the grim realities in which they now engage.

The motion calls on the government to reaffirm that there is no death penalty in Canada. We have said before and we will say again that there is no death penalty in Canada. The Minister of Justice and other members of the government have clearly said that. The member for Mount Royal must know that. This position has been articulated a number of times in recent days and he still has some audacity to stand in the House and say that they want to hear this articulated when it has been articulated on a number of occasions.

The government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty. We do not know how much clearer we can make that.

Since December 10, 1962, no one has been executed in Canada. That is over 45 years.

On July 14, 1976, the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code. The death penalty was then removed from the National Defence Act on December 10, 1998. Since that day, there has been no death penalty in Canada in law as well as in fact.

In 1987 there was a free vote right here in the House of Commons regarding reinstatement of the death penalty. The result of that vote by members of Parliament, who had polled their constituents before the vote, sent the very strong signal that Canadians were in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty and, as the Prime Minister has confirmed, this government does not have the desire nor the intent to reopen the death penalty debate in Canada. We have said it before and we are saying it again. I do not know how much clearer we can make it.

The government continues to speak for Canada and make its voice heard at the international level on all matters of foreign policy, including international human rights.

In addition, Canada's voice is a principled one which supports international standards and the rule of law.

It should be recalled, somewhat parenthetically, that the death penalty is not in and of itself contrary to international law. International law clearly recognizes that different states may legitimately take different views on the issue of the death penalty itself.

One of the foremost human rights treaties, adhered to by over 130 states, is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada has been a party to that treaty since 1976. The covenant does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty, but it sets out that states that retain the death penalty must abide by certain rules.

Canadian advocates have talked about, as we have talked about consistently, a strict adherence to and full respect for safeguards and the due process of law where the death penalty is still in use. We insist on that due process of law.

I want to conclude by reassuring the House. Despite suggestions from the opposition that we are wavering in our support for the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, nothing could be further from the truth. The House has spoken on this issue previously, we have spoken authoritatively, and we will not reopen this debate. I want to underline this. We said that clearly before this motion came into play, in the clearest of terms from the Minister of Justice and from other members of the government.

This is why we are saying that this particular motion is a distraction. It is taking important and necessary time away from debate, because it is not necessary since it is asking the government to do what the government has already done very clearly on a number of occasions.

Canada's record on justice issues speaks for itself. This is a government that stands for the rule of law, justice and the protection of human rights. Protection of society is a priority. It is not an afterthought. Our government remains unwaivering in its determination to keep Canadians safe. We will continue to deliver on what is important to Canadians: the safety and security of their communities.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my friend representing the constituency of Mount Royal could read to us in one crisp, clear statement one clear example of any member of Parliament, government or otherwise, who has articulated in this Parliament a desire to reopen the debate on the death penalty? Could he give me one? Just one is all we ask for, not a long meandering supposition but one clear statement from one MP anywhere in this House?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not presented a rosy picture of what is happening in Afghanistan. My remarks, if the member had been listening at all, would have suggested that this is a long process and not an easy one.

Just as I did not present a rosy one, I did not expect the member opposite, from her previous positions, to suggest that nothing good at all was going on in Afghanistan. I wish she had been present to hear the female members of parliament from Afghanistan who were here just last week thanking Canadians for their great contribution, in fact a contribution of the highest sacrifice in terms of Canadian lives at times, and talked about the progress there.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not question the intent of the inquiry from my hon. friend but we should keep in mind a couple of things.

First, in the preface to his question, I believe he made the suggestion that at times we hand over suspected terrorists to the American authorities but, of course, we do not do that. I just wanted to clarify that. I do not think he meant that but I wanted to clarify that for the record.

Second, it is not our policy to be building Canadian jails or taking responsibility for Canadian detention centres in Afghanistan. In fact, that is something the Afghanis need to do themselves as it is a matter of their own sovereignty.

If we were to do that, I am sure we would be quickly categorized as the Americans have been with its facility in Guantanamo Bay. I can imagine the type of pressure and critique we would be under if we were to do something like that. We are there to assist the people of Afghanistan, its administration and security forces to know and understand what it is to build an effective corrections capability.

Sometimes when we use the word “detainee”, it almost has a benign sound to it. These are not people being accused of jaywalking. These are people who are, in many cases, being accused of the most outrageous atrocities against fellow human beings. It is a very tenuous situation and one in which the Afghan people, as I indicated in my remarks earlier, are already showing an increased capacity, in a humane and effective way, to hold these individuals until they can be brought to justice.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Defence, in articulating the case for the motion before the House and also recounting for us some of the contributions that have been made in Afghanistan, certainly by the military but also other agencies.

It is very important that we recall why we are there in the first place, as the Minister of National Defence already eloquently articulated. Post-1989 there was a political vacuum in Afghanistan. As we know, just as physical nature abhors a vacuum, so does a political nature. A vacuum was created because of the preceding 10 years before 1989, from the 1979 historic and the somewhat horrific invasion of the U.S.S.R. and Russian forces into Afghanistan, occupying and maintaining somewhat of a reign of terror in that land for about 10 years.

As a result of the heroic struggle of the Afghan people in resisting that and wearing down the Russian forces, the U.S.S.R. moved out of there in 1989. Unfortunately, then in that particular vacuum, again it was the most vicious and the most powerful groups that would rise to power. They eventually became the organization known as the Taliban. They are ultra extremist fundamentalists who use any tactic and every tactic imaginable of both terror and horror to promote their single-minded agenda. In doing that, the litany of their tragic methods is legend and it is something which, when talked about, horrifies any reasonable human being. They used and still use methods such as training of and sending their suicide bombers into groups. They deliberately target groups of children wherein soldiers hand out candy to them, as has happened in the past.

They go into towns, villages and rural areas and with the most vicious of tactics subdue the local population. They behead elderly women, severe limbs and torture methods. Anything that the human mind could imagine as being horrific has been and continues to where possible be perpetrated by the Taliban.

The cry of the Afghan people was heard. It was heard as far away as the United Nations. It was the United Nations that mandated this mission. Therefore, for those in the House who have concerns and would say that we should immediately leave, and I know the LIberals do not say this but others do, is somewhat in defiance of a UN mandate, that a coalition, principally headed by NATO, to help the people of Afghanistan push back the Taliban to the place where things can be stabilized and the people then can move to develop a democracy that meets their needs and is suitable to them.

I know there was a great excitement over the elections in Afghanistan a few years ago. They were the first ever in their entire history, which goes back as we know many centuries of wartorn history. When people try to diminish the effect of that and how powerful it was, it is good to remember this.

At the time the elections were held in Afghanistan, it was about the time of the 2004 elections in Canada. Under threat in some cases of literally being murdered, people still voted in the elections in Afghanistan. In fact, they turned out in a bigger number percentage wise than Canadians did in our election. In doing so, they elected a higher percentage of women to parliament than we have in Canada. It was a remarkable first step and one that needs to be fortified and supported so they can develop along the lines that will best meet their needs.

We have seen some very positive changes in Afghanistan. While this is talked about a lot, often it is not reported as much as it could be. The GDP continues to rise in that country year to year. They are an impoverished nation but relatively speaking there is improvement there. On the health care side, polio was once rampant in that land. Five million children have been inoculated from polio since our involvement there. Health care centres and schools have been established. It is a long journey, but it has all the signs that the journey is paying off.

I would like to point to two particular agencies under the auspices of public safety that have had some positive effect. One is the RCMP which has 17 officers deployed, principally into the Kandahar area, but also in a few other areas. They have been very effective in working with the Afghan national police. They have developed, along with our NATO partners, a training program. The RCMP have now trained some 615 Afghan national police officers in basic policing and in recognizing the importance of human rights. Some 2,500 uniforms have been delivered to these people.

In different parts of Canada, there has been some sense of wanting to support that. As one example, the volunteer fire department in the community of Langford, British Columbia, has donated over $400,000 worth of equipment to first responders in Kandahar. So some exciting things are happening there.

On the correction side, we hear a lot of concerns related to the Taliban who in battle are captured or arrested in different situations. These terrorists are in jails in Afghanistan. In Kandahar, where we have our corrections officers, there has been great progress in impressing on the minds of the Afghanistan people that all individuals, even criminals, have certain basic rights and certain human rights that need to be respected even when in a corrections system.

Canada, of course, has a great record of exemplifying that within our own system and that is why people from around the world come to Canada to look at how we do corrections here.

We have three corrections officers who worked here in Canada and yet volunteered to go to Afghanistan, into a very dangerous neighbourhood and at some great personal risk, to offer up their advice where possible and offer mentoring programs to the people running the corrections system in Afghanistan.

Some of their accomplishments have included being a part of a group of individuals and a group of countries who have convinced Afghanistan officials and the government to move the whole area of corrections from the department of the interior, which is basically their security side, to the department of justice. That is to put the emphasis on the fact that human rights must be respected and, yes, even when dealing with possible terrorists and criminals, those rights need to be protected. They cannot permit things like torture. They need to allow for the basic needs of individuals.

I can say that the input of our three individuals there has resulted in a number of recommendations that are being followed and implemented, with improvements to the infrastructure in the prisons. A system has been established of reporting, whereby the prisoners are catalogued and their concerns are registered. If there are any concerns related to what is going on in the prison itself, those are logged in and passed on to the Afghan officials, where it should be passed on, to deal with and to monitor. Therefore, we can see that there is considerable progress that has been made, even in the corrections system.

I want to acknowledge the work of the RCMP and our corrections officers in both being diligent and, I might add, somewhat courageous in ensuring that the situation in Afghanistan continues to improve.

I would ask people, certainly in the House, but even across the country to realize that these types of changes do not happen overnight. If we look at history in the second world war, for instance, with Japan, it was a good number of years that allied forces stayed in Japan after its surrender before things were established. Japan was a country that already had a history of democracy and internally did not have a ravaging force like the Taliban trying to destroy everything that was being accomplished.

Post-war Germany took many years. Allied forces stayed in that country many years to see things stabilized. Again, that country already had a history of democracy and was not dealing internally with any significant force from within that was trying to destroy everything that was good and right from a human point of view.

Those are examples of two countries where allied forces spent many years stabilizing and now they are among the most productive and most robust democratic countries in the world today.

We need to allow time for things to happen. We need to continue to hear the cry of the Afghan people, as Canadians have heard the cries from other peoples in the past in our own development. I look for the support of this motion from all members in the House.

[Criminal Code, March 7th, 2008]

moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read a first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)