Ujjal Dosanjh

[National Defence, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence confirmed yesterday that he acted as a lobbyist on behalf of Stewart & Stevenson until late 2003, one of the main contenders for a $1 billion truck purchase under his authority. The minister was registered to lobby seven different departments, including national defence, to convince the government of the value of Stewart & Stevenson trucks.

Did the minister meet with the project team responsible for that purchase?

[National Defence, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Defence tell us, yes or no, if he served until 2004 as a lobbyist for Stewart & Stevenson, one of the leading contenders for the $1 billion truck purchase?

[National Defence, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, reporters have indicated that in the lead-up to the federal budget there were a series of conflicting lists from the military, the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office.

Of the key priorities for the armed forces, none of these lists won out, which is why the budget did not address the urgent needs of our men and women in uniform.

Medium logistics trucks are a top priority for our troops in Afghanistan. Could the Minister of National Defence inform us of the status of the truck purchase?

[National Defence, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government was sadly silent in the budget in getting our military the equipment it needs. Out of the National Defence Headquarters, we now learn that conflicting lists of priorities were being passed around between the offices of the chief of defence, the minister and the PMO. The conflicts remained unresolved, with the result being no new announcements to support our troops in theatre.

Who is really in charge of defining what the military needs to perform their mission: the Chief of Defence Staff, the minister or the Prime Minister?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of External Affairs mentioned earlier, this is a long term, permanent agreement that is reviewed every four years. It can be reviewed at the behest of either party even prior to four years. It also can be terminated with 12 months' notice. It is not something that if tomorrow we believe as Canadians that it is not in our best interests that we are stuck with. We can obviously get out of it with 12 months' notice.

I believe that all the work, in terms of maritime surveillance, has been done, is currently being done. No more work is going to be done than what has been done. It will simply be coordinated and put together with the rest of the surveillance that Norad does. I think that is an appropriate way to go.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a red herring. The fact is that during the time I was here there was no treaty signed. This is a treaty negotiated by us and this is a treaty that was to be signed.

With respect to the Charter, the Charter was an amendment to the Constitution. It came to this chamber and it went to the provinces for ratification. That was important. The member cannot say that an amendment to the Constitution is the same as ratifying a treaty within our current framework.

This has now been changed. I am happy that it is here for debate and a vote. I am not opposed to that. I like the spirit of that but we need to understand that when we try to graft different alien processes on to an existing parliamentary system where we function differently, there will be some problems and we will have arguments coming at us that make no sense.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when a government attempts to impose American processes on a parliamentary form of government, that is the kind of distorted thinking we get.

In the past, when a government signed a treaty it signed the treaty after full cabinet consultation. There is absolutely no doubt that diplomatic notes would be exchanged.

What the government says now is that it has earmarked this for debate. That is wonderful. However, in the United States of America, where Congress has the right to ratify treaties, it has a different system of government. In our system of government, if I might let the hon. member know, we derive our authority from the House based on the confidence of the House, not on ratification of individual issues that come before the House.

Whether it is a majority or a minority government does not matter, if the government has the confidence, then government, on behalf of the Crown in this country, has the right to sign those treaties and ratify those treaties.

I just want to advise my hon. friend that I do understand and appreciate the differences. When we try to bring American processes into a parliamentary form of government, then we have the kind of bastardization that occurs in the process where it is still maintained that we dishonour the Crown and we do not keep in mind the honour of the Crown if the House votes against the treaty. If the House were to vote against the treaty, we would dishonour the Crown. The government would not be able to actually keep the honour of the Crown intact, which is very important. When the Crown signs a treaty, that means the Crown will ratify that treaty.

I am happy the matter is here for debate but I think we need to understand that we are trying to graft on to our system of government something that is alien, which is from the United States. It is an Americanization. It is a different process. It does not jibe with our system. We may have to make some changes to make it jibe with our system. I am happy it is here for a vote and for debate.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Egmont.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the official opposition in support of the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defense command, known as Norad.

Norad has long been an anchor of Canadian security and defence policy. Established in 1958 at the height of the cold war, Norad is an expression of our shared resolve with the United States to defend North American air space against all threats. It is also emblematic of the shared interests that make Canada and the United States the best of friends and the strongest of allies.

While the cold war rationale for Norad no longer exists, both of our nations understand that the world remains a very uncertain and dangerous place, rife with constantly evolving threats against which we must remain always on guard.

For proof, we need only recall the awful events of September 11, 2001. Out of the clear blue sky, commercial airliners were turned into flying bombs and thousands of innocents were slaughtered. In the space of a few hours, North American air space was thrown into complete chaos and then shut down completely. It was an unprecedented event that required unprecedented cooperation between Canada and the United States that managed the crisis.

In the post-9/11 world, Norad is as relevant as ever. The Liberal Party is pleased to reaffirm today our support for a modernized Norad framework. The renewal of Norad equips it to deal with a broader range of threats than before. The inclusion of existing maritime surveillance mechanisms into the Norad monitoring framework is just common sense.

While the official opposition supports the new Norad treaty itself, we are, however, concerned with the sloppy and secretive manner in which the government has handled a security and defence issue that is of paramount importance to Canadians.

When our party formed government and we signed international agreements, we had formal signing ceremonies which were public knowledge and which were often open to the media. But Canadians found out that Norad had been renewed not from their government but from the United States Department of State, and not with a formal public signing ceremony announcement but with a secret signing behind closed doors.

Representatives of the Conservative government will tell us that signing a treaty in secret is not a problem given that the treaty was earmarked for this debate in the House with a vote to follow. They will say that the treaty is not finalized until a formal exchange of diplomatic notes between our two countries, but that, with respect, is beside the point.

The troubling fact is that the Government of Canada entered into an agreement with another state and expressly decided not to inform the Canadian public. Worse still, the government actively endeavoured to conceal the decision.

According to the Toronto Star on April 28, the Prime Minister's office would not return phone calls asking if the agreement had been signed, and when first asked, government officials refused to confirm that the deal had been signed. I quote the article:

With Canadian officials saying nothing, it was left to U.S. officials to lay out the details of the renewal.

The Prime Minister made no public mention of the treaty signing until cornered afterward by journalists.

Since when does the Government of Canada allow a low level spokesperson from another country the prerogative of informing Canadians about international treaties into which their government has entered? What does it say to the United States of America, our most important ally, when the Canadian government refuses to publicly admit that a treaty that has formed the bedrock of our security partnership for nearly 50 years has been renewed?

It says that we have a government elected on the facade of openness and accountability which in office has revealed its true obsession with secrecy at all costs, no matter how embarrassing such secrecy may be to the country. It tells the United States that it is dealing with clumsy amateurs.

There is no doubt that the House will vote in favour of the new Norad treaty, and we should, but I question the Conservative government's clumsy handling of this matter.

What if the House did not vote in favour of the agreement the government has already signed? Would the government then make a mockery of the honour of the Crown and of our country internationally by refusing to follow through on an agreement already signed? This is not how a responsible and competent Canadian government conducts international security relations.

The government's handling of this matter also reinforces its growing reputation for ducking accountability with Canadians. It is a government which, for shabby public relations reasons, now prevents the Canadian public from witnessing the repatriation of the remains of our fallen heroes to Canadian soil.

It is a government that in its budget ducks its responsibility to make needed procurement decisions for the armed forces, possibly because the Minister of National Defence is mired in outdated cold war thinking that is at variance with the views of General Hillier about the needs of a modern military.

It is a government that refuses to fess up that it cannot afford the pricey and unnecessary polar icebreakers that it promised during the election.

And it is a government that has put the capacity of the Government of Canada to make needed military purchases at risk by abandoning the Liberal tradition of fiscal prudence and returning to the irresponsible budgeting practices of failed Conservative governments of the past.

Throughout my time in public life I have conducted myself with one main principle, and that is that governments should be as open and transparent as possible with those they have been given the privilege of governing.

While the official opposition will certainly support Norad, we lament the way the government has handled this file. Let me warn them that a government that allows secrecy to seep into all manner of its operations, that thinks it can pick and choose the facts it acknowledges and the promises it keeps, will not long be in a position to exercise the authority with which it has been entrusted.

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question would be, why is the minister there if it is just for the families?

Yesterday Reporters Without Borders protested against the government's ban on media coverage of repatriation ceremonies for fallen Canadian soldiers. This is not just about the media's right to access. Ultimately it is about the public's right to know and, even more important, the public's right to be able to mourn fallen soldiers.

Shame is on the other side and my question is this: why did the Prime Minister change the rules and deny Canadians the opportunity to--

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the United Kingdom allows open media access to the repatriation ceremonies for fallen British soldiers. The British government changed its policy so the public can mourn with the families of the fallen. British military officials say there has never been any suggestion this should not be so, not from the families and not from the government.

Why does the Prime Minister insist on following the controversial path of the American government rather than the open and democratic way of the British and our own experience here in Canada?