# National Defence in Hansard



## vonGarvin (23 Nov 2006)

Here, unedited, I intend to post converstations taken from HANSARD that have to do with National Defence matters and other defence issues.  Feel free to reply here, or, if a mod jumps in, put the replies elsewhere.  Actually, I'd like nothing but the raw conversations here and comments elsewhere, so that people can read this stuff without commentary.

From 22 Nov 2006 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2528725):
*Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, although there has been no official announcement, it looks as though Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $5 billion contract to build planes for our troops. Of course, one has to wonder how come Lockheed Martin knows. Subcontractors and contractors apparently know already, but ordinary Canadians have not been told. In fact, a press conference was cancelled.
    My question is for the Prime Minister. What is so secret about this deal? Why can Canadians not be told what is being done with their tax dollars when it comes to a major military purchase?

*Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): *  
    Mr. Speaker, no deal has been signed. The RFP has yet to go out. In fact, the contract will not be awarded until August 2007. Again, the leader of the NDP is barking up an invisible tree.
*
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that clarification.
    How about this, will the government at least commit to bringing this contract in front of the Standing Committee on National Defence so that it can be reviewed, so we can find out whether or not this is actually going to be the best plane for the Canadian Forces, and so that we can find out whether it is actually going to meet the needs?
    I know the peanut gallery heckling me at the moment does not like to hear these kinds of questions. Let those members support the idea of having this sort of discussion in front of a standing committee of this House, the way they used to say it should be done when they were in opposition.

*Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the government made clear in the last budget its intentions to re-equip our military. That will be done with the best interests of the Canadian military and Canadian taxpayers in mind.
    What I find interesting is that no matter how much the NDP says it supports the military, as soon as we actually want to spend money on the military, the NDP objects. This party will give our military the best equipment.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Nov 2006)

From 22 Nov 2006:
*Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP has learned through access to information that a major fuel spill at the Canadian Forces installation at Alert went unreported at the time. The significant incident report which we obtained states that on September 6 of this year a flex expansion joint failed and 21,000 litres of jet fuel were spilled at Alert.
    Why did the government fail to inform northern Canadians? What actions has the minister taken to ensure this never happens again?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, as soon as that incident occurred, the defence department moved quickly to clean it up. All the necessary actions have been taken.

*Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, current and former northern military installations have wreaked havoc on the environment. 
    Why did it take the NDP to have this information see the light of day? The government promised to be open, transparent and accountable.
    The minister should apologize. This incident should have been reported to the hard-working people of the north. We are not second class citizens.
    Will he immediately announce that any incident like this will be promptly reported to the Canadian people?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, all the necessary actions were taken to clean up the spill. I should inform the member that DND is spending about $60 million each year cleaning up residue that was left in the north for the last 30 to 40 years. We will continue to do that until all the areas are cleaned up.


----------



## DavidAkin (23 Nov 2006)

There was also this exchange yesterday:

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, on Remembrance Day Canadians often reflect upon the sacrifices made by so many of our war veterans. However, over the years a small group of veterans has gone unrecognized.


     The U.K. ministry of defence has identified about 200 veterans including soldiers from Newfoundland serving in the British army who underwent chemical agent testing in England. They have gone unnoticed.


    Can the Minister of National Defence please inform the House what he is doing to rectify this situation?

    [Table of Contents] 

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour today to announce that our new government will be extending Canada's chemical warfare agent testing recognition program to account for those who volunteered as test subjects in Britain. These 200 veterans, or possibly their primary beneficiaries, are now eligible for a one time tax payment of $24,000. They will finally be recognized for the personal sacrifice they made in the service of Canada.


    Supporting our brave men and women in uniform means giving them the recognition and care they are due when their service is done. Those who served decades ago need our support today. Canada's new government is honoured to be able to give it to them.

================

Forgive me for the self-promotion but we have more on this:

*Vets will get compensation for chemical testing*

OTTAWA -- The Canadian government will provide compensation to Second World War veterans who volunteered to undergo chemical warfare agent testing done by the British Army.

Documents obtained by CTV News last week under Access to Information laws indicate that the Department of Defence believes that 200 Canadian soldiers volunteered to have mustard gas sprayed on their arms that had been coated with "barrier creams", concoctions the British Army was trying to develop to protect troops in the field from mustard gas attacks. [Read the rest at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061122/veterans_compensation_061122/20061122?hub=Canada]

and also:

For those who want some more background, I’ve uploaded an electronic version of the briefing note we obtained which provides some more background on this issue.  See our blog post at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061122/veterans_compensation_061122/20061122?hub=Canada ]


----------



## Cronicbny (23 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> From 22 Nov 2006:
> *Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):  *
> Mr. Speaker, the NDP has learned through access to information that a major fuel spill at the Canadian Forces installation at Alert went unreported at the time. The significant incident report which we obtained states that on September 6 of this year a flex expansion joint failed and 21,000 litres of jet fuel were spilled at Alert.
> Why did the government fail to inform northern Canadians? What actions has the minister taken to ensure this never happens again?



Obviously, the local populace was VERY concerned... that was over TWO months ago. I'm not a CFS Alert genious, but I suspect there must be local (read civilian) workers at the station? Considering it took an access to information request one can deduce the member from the Western Arctic is more than a little out of touch with his constituents - could be the distance to Ottawa though. Oh.. and isn't a significant incident report - IAW with the CFS Alert EMS - considered "a report"? Should the federal government hold a national press conference every time an SIR is forwarded?


----------



## GDawg (24 Nov 2006)

Of course the press needs to know, how else will mole hills turn into mountains?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Nov 2006)

From 23 November 2006:

*Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, another major military aerospace contract is heading for the United States. Lockheed Martin has just been awarded a contract totalling $4.9 billion Canadian, for purchase and maintenance of the Hercules CC-130J tactical aircraft.
    Does the Minister of Defence acknowledge that his procurement process excludes all other companies from a potential transaction, and that he is again going against a tendering process that is equitable, fair and transparent, with all of the negative consequences for employment in Quebec, where 55% of the industry is located—

*The Speaker: *  
    The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor.

*Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, my colleague appears to be unaware of what has been said. I told the leader of the NDP yesterday that the awarding of this contract has yet to be decided. A request for proposal will be issued to the sole bidder qualified. The project is proceeding on schedule. The plan is for this contract to be awarded in August 2007. So this has not yet been decided.

*Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, considering Quebec companies make up 55% of the Canadian aeroindustry, can the minister explain why Lockheed Martin should be chosen?
    Also, how does the minister explain the fact that, in his letter of intent posted on the Public Works Canada site, he requires Quebec content of no more than 5% of the total contract? That is absolutely unacceptable to Quebec. 

*Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the contact is not yet written, not yet drawn up. This will not be decided before August of next year, August 2007. So I ask my colleague to wait until then.
    We will comply with all the processes, as will all those who wish to submit their application for this project. We shall do what we can to ensure the best results for our country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, on October 26 the defence minister told the House he would discuss Canada's role in Afghanistan any time any place. He then took his so-called cross-Canada tour to sell the Kandahar mission without setting foot in Atlantic Canada. Halifax is home to Canada's largest military community. Soldiers from Nova Scotia have suffered the most severe casualties in Kandahar.
    I urge the minister to reconsider his refusal to come to Halifax on December 4 to participate in a public forum on Afghanistan, or does the minister's Canada end at the New Brunswick-Quebec border?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that a member who belongs to a party that really does not care about the military is talking about the military. I have been to Halifax twice since I have been in office and I will be in Halifax again in the near future, but I will follow my own schedule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Nov 2006)

*Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-287, a bill to recognize a national peacekeepers' day. It is certainly appropriate. Parliament has passed bills in the past and previous ministers have also recognized special days. I think of Vimy Ridge Day, April 9, to honour our soldiers who fought at Vimy Ridge in 1917. National Aboriginal Day is in June.
    The purpose of the bill is to recognize the tremendous role and the history of peacekeepers in this country since the days of Lester B. Pearson. In 1956 he first proposed at the United Nations a peacekeeping mission with regard to the Suez Canal crisis.
    Historically in the world, armies have been involved in combat and often in peacemaking rather than peacekeeping. After the Suez Canal crisis, in November 1956, for the first time countries in the region, including Egypt and Israel, agreed to the proposal to have peacekeepers there. Canada's foreign affairs minister at the time, Lester Pearson, proposed the United Nations expeditionary force to go there and basically separate Egyptian and Israeli troops. For this he received the Nobel Peace Price in 1957. 
    Canadians have been very proud and have been recognized around the world for their peacekeeping efforts. We have trained. Whether it is on the Golan Heights with Japanese troops, whether it is in Cambodia, or elsewhere, our troops have been recognized for their peacekeeping efforts. People recognize the expertise of Canadians in the peacekeeping field. That is very important. 
    A national peacekeepers' day would be a day to take time to pause, to think about all of those missions in which Canadians have participated around the world, for example, Cyprus. It would be day to recognize what Canadians have contributed to assist in maintaining not only peace, but also in the promotion of that peace. It is very important to recognize the contribution.
    The United Nations under the Security Council gives the power and responsibility to take collective action when it comes to peace and security around the world. For this reason, the international community looks at these types of operations where Canadians and others have played such an important role in the past.
    I know all members of the House are very supportive and very proud of the role of our peacekeepers. Over 100,000 Canadian Forces participate in peacekeeping and peace support missions around the world. Regrettably, over 100 have been killed in action over the years. 
    I would like to stress the importance of a national peacekeeping day. It would be a day to remember, a day to reflect and a day to pause. The Department of Canadian Heritage does a tremendous job in educating Canadians with information packets, brochures, et cetera. I would envision in declaring August 9 national peacekeepers' day, and I will explain why August 9 in a moment, that it would be in part to educate Canadians, particularly young people. It is very important that they understand the role. Why August 9? Because regrettably, 32 years ago on August 9, nine Canadian peacekeepers en route from Beirut to Damascus were killed by a surface missile.
    I congratulate the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in proposing this bill and suggesting August 9 as the day, not only to remember those nine brave Canadians who lost their lives in the quest for peace, but also to recognize in a broader sense all of those who have continued to serve and will serve this country in the future, and to pay homage.
    I am the son of a World War II veteran who fought on the shores of Normandy through the Battle of the Falaise Gap, through Caen, through Belgium and Holland. Unfortunately he had shrapnel in his legs until the day he died and suffered from the loss of hearing in one ear from being buried alive when his tank was hit by a shell. I was always instilled with the importance of the role of Canadian soldiers.

It is a fact that freedom does not come cheaply. We are engaged in what I would consider to be a peacemaking mission in Afghanistan. Whether it is a peacekeeping role in Cyprus, the fact is that Canadians have always stepped up and contributed effectively over the years. In situations of civil wars, ethnic cleansing, genocides, Canadian peacekeepers have worked to save the lives of many people around the world. They are heroes.
   Normally when we think of peacekeepers, we do not think of them as being involved in conflict situations. Regrettably from time to time they could be fired upon by other parties as they were in Bosnia, or when they could hit a mine when travelling along a road. Our peacekeepers put their lives on the line every day.
    I am sure all members of this House would join me in supporting the recognition of a national peacekeepers' day on August 9.
    I mentioned that over the last 53 years we have seen Canadians participate in many theatres and also assist other countries in the art and the role of peacekeeping. When Canadians wear their blue berets or blue helmets, people know that peacekeepers are there to improve the quality of life for individuals in very difficult situations. They are there to assist in the peace process.
    There is no question that sometimes Canadians are not aware of the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Some would argue that in 1993 Somalia was not a peacekeeping mission; it was a peacemaking mission. Afghanistan is a peacemaking mission, although we are there obviously to try to improve the lives of people who are in a very difficult situation.
    Recognition is important. We do not do this lightly. We do not declare national holidays. National peacekeepers' day would not be a bank holiday, or something in that regard. In a sense it would be a day to reflect. I think it is important as a recognition.
    Not too far from Parliament Hill there is a monument to Canadian peacekeepers around the world, to their dedication and hard work. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians and Canadians in general not only to recognize the contribution of peacekeepers, but also to help educate people on the role of peacekeeping.
    As a former educator, I can say that nothing is more effective than making sure that materials are available in schools. I commend the Department of Canadian Heritage for the tremendous work it does in ensuring that information material is available.
    I urge members to support private member's Bill C-287. The member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is no stranger to this issue. He proposed and we adopted April 9 as Vimy Ridge Day.
    This issue is important. I would expect that this would be one of the few debates that would not be acrimonious because I think there is a spirit here for that recognition.
-------------------------------------------------
*National Peacekeepers' Day Act *​
    The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
*Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): *  
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the issue raised by this private member's bill proposing the establishment of a national peacekeepers' day in Canada. This private member's bill is very sincere and well intentioned but I would, however, like to add some perspective that I feel qualified to offer.
    Fifty years ago, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company and that event gave rise to armed conflict with Egypt on one side and Israel, Britain and France on the other. Eighteen hundred and fifty-three lives were lost. British prime minister, Anthony Eden, was forced to resign and the British, French and Israeli forces withdrew in March 1957.
    However, before the withdrawal, Lester Pearson, Canada's acting cabinet minister for external affairs, went to the United Nations and suggested creating a United Nations emergency force in the Suez. The United Nations accepted his suggestion and, after several days of tense diplomacy, a neutral force was sent, with the consent of Egyptian President Nasser, stabilizing conditions in the area.
    Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Price in 1957 for his efforts. The United Nations peacekeeping force was Lester Pearson's creation and he is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping. Since that time, Canada has lost close 115 personnel on what have been called peacekeeping missions.
    In a speech in Edmonton recently, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, recalled wryly that it was hard to classify the operations in Croatia and Bosnia as peacekeeping when artillery rounds were routinely whistling overhead. The name that we give to operations in no way changes the sacrifice that Canadian Forces personnel and their families have made in their conduct of those operations.
    Over the past 50 years, many Canadians have become accustomed to the idea that we are a nation of peacekeepers despite the fact that our soldiers have been assigned mainly to missions other than those carried out by the UN blue berets. 
    Canada is one of the major military forces in the world for some good and some not so good reasons. The Canadian Forces act as instruments of peace every day. Whether in the First World War, the Second World War, Korea, Suez, Cypress, the Balkans, the first Gulf war, Afghanistan, various missions in the Middle East, roles within NORAD and NATO for about 50 years, and many other missions too numerous to mention, the Canadian Forces have contributed to peace and security.
    Although I do not wear any of the traditional peacekeeping medals, I flew thousands of hours of peacekeeping missions in the CF-104 Starfighter and the CF-18 Hornet in North America and Europe. I spent thousands of hours as a flying instructor teaching others to carry out those missions. My flying helmet was not blue but that did not detract from the ultimate objective of every mission that I flew.
    Several times during the first hour and a half or so of debate on this bill, the tragic and criminal incident of the shooting down of a Canadian Forces Buffalo aircraft by a Syrian surface to air missile on August 9, 1974, was cited. Nine Canadians were killed during this routine supply mission to Egypt. The Syrians maintained that the attack was an accident but no one bought that story. 
    I recall very clearly when I heard the news that day. I was driving southbound on the autobahn in Germany between our bases of Baden Soellingen and Lahr. One of the names that was released was Captain Keith Mirau. Keith and I had been flying instructors together at Gimli, Manitoba on our previous tours. The loss of Captain Mirau and his eight crew members was mourned appropriately. 
    During and since my career in the air force, I have attended many dozens of funerals mourning the loss of friends and acquaintances who have died in the line of duty in the uniform of the Canadian Forces.
    Every one of those losses was tragic, and the families did not distinguish between deaths caused by a CF-18 crashing in Cold Lake, a diving accident near Esquimalt, a submarine fire in the middle of the ocean, a sniper in Cyprus or Bosnia, a vehicle rollover in Wainwright, a gunshot in the Middle East or fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. 
    Every member of the Canadian Forces who died in the line of duty represents a sacrifice in the name of peace, and they are all worthy of the title “peacekeepers”.
    The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore wrote in the February 2003 edition of Policy Options that the traditional, almost quaint, notion of Pearsonian peacekeeping is dead. He contended that Canada has not adjusted well to the realities of what has been called peace enforcement. He said, “We not only don't contribute enough to peacekeeping, we are not training to do the right kind of peacekeeping, which is combat-capable peace enforcement in zones of conflict, like Afghanistan and the Balkans”.
    Retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie has argued that the inability of the UN to prevent human slaughter in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda would have been solved by firmer military force. He wrote last year that the Canadian Forces needed to adapt by being “light, lethal, strategically mobile and sustainable”. 
    What I am trying to say is that there is a very large grey area between what Canadians have been led to think of as peacekeeping and our military's other activities, including wartime combat.
    Like many other countries, Canada sets aside one day to remember Canadians in uniform who gave their lives in the name of freedom, regardless of how they made that sacrifice. That day is Remembrance Day, and we celebrate it every November 11.
    We all spent time in our ridings recently commemorating the courage and sacrifice of Canadian men and women in the cause of peace. Remembrance Day has had more meaning for Canadians in recent years but, as always, the sacrifice to which we pay homage was not in the cause of war but in the cause of peace. Canada has lost over 116,000 courageous men and women in uniform in the cause of peace since 1914. 
    The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association is an organization that promotes Canada's history in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Their members have a right to be very proud of their contributions to peace. On their website, the new Book of Remembrance will contain the names of members of the Canadian Forces who died as a result of duty either overseas, outside of or in Canada. To date the criteria is:
     In addition to those who died from causes related to service in a “Special Duty Area”, the Book will contain the names of all those whose deaths resulted from injury or disease or aggravation thereof that arose out of or was directly connected with military service in other than a “Special Duty Area”. 
    The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association clearly recognizes the equivalence of the sacrifices made by all Canadians in uniform, no matter their mission.
    August 9 is already designated and celebrated as Peacekeeping Day. In my view and in the view of virtually every serving and retired military member whom I have canvassed, that is appropriate. Any additional recognition, such as lowering the flag on the Peace Tower or declaring a national holiday, would dilute the significance of November 11.
    Allow me to quote a few of the many responses I have received.
    A retired colonel and member of UN peacekeeping missions said:
     With the advent of the Seventh Book of Remembrance, peacekeepers are now recognized in the Peace Tower and, in my view fall into the same category as wartime fatalities—they died in military service to Canada. Almost all of our provinces now recognize the 9th of August as Peacekeeper's Day. I equate this to the Battle of the Atlantic Day and the Battle of Britain Day ceremonies—celebrated to show respect, concern, admiration and remembrance but being neither a national holiday nor an event requiring the lowering of the Peace Tower flag. 
    A retired colonel and World War II fighter pilot said:
     My view is that a proper recognition of our annual Remembrance Day on November 11th is exactly what we need, exactly what all our generations need as a tribute to the fallen, and those who served our country. I do not favour a special “Peacekeepers Day”. 
    A retired lieutenant-colonel and fighter squadron commander said:
     The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month would seem to me to recognize those who were successful at establishing peace and maintaining the peace or gave their lives in the attempt. 
    A retired general and former chief of the defence staff said:
     I for one believe that we should keep November 11 as our ONLY military day of recognition...where all present, past, living, dead military folks who have and are contributing to our security are honoured and recognized. I do not believe we should dilute the importance of this day...to have a Peacekeepers Day is a BAD idea. 
    I have heard similar comments, all of which echo that idea, from members of the armed forces at all levels. 
    I know that the intention behind this motion is honourable, and I am certainly not questioning the motives of the hon. member who introduced it.
    However, as a veteran and a peacekeeper and representing the virtually unanimous opinions that I have received on this issue, I do not support any initiative that would have the effect of watering down the importance of November 11. 
    I know there is a desire to have this bill go to committee for study and to hear more indepth discussion on the pros and cons of this initiative. For that reason, I will support it at this time.
*Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day.
    I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by my colleagues, most recently my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. I want to commend the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, who also works with me on the veterans affairs committee, for bringing this initiative forward. I also want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her comments earlier in the House.
    It is indeed fitting that the debate on the bill has stemmed from the 50th anniversary of the Suez crisis and Remembrance Day less than two weeks ago. Previous speakers have referred to Canada's leadership during the Suez crisis and our country's contribution to many peacekeeping missions in the years since. In fact, I would just like to read a portion from a report from the Library of Parliament, which says:
     Over 100,000 Canadians have served in more than 50 separate missions since 1949. UN peace and security operations form the majority of Canada's international military commitments. While peacekeepers come from all branch of Canadian Forces (Army, Navy and Air Force), the Army has provided the vast majority because of the nature of the tasks involved. More recently, thousands of men and women from police forces across the country, Elections Canada, the Corrections Service of Canada and other Canadian governmental and non-governmental agencies have served in peace support missions as well.  
    Canada's peacekeepers have served their nation with great courage and distinction, and they are continuing to serve the cause of peace in troubled regions all around the globe. Previous speakers have noted that many ceremonies that are organized in communities across Canada on August 9 to commemorate the service and sacrifice of peacekeepers.
    I thank our veterans organizations for supporting the bill. May I take this opportunity to salute the leadership of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping. They led the campaign to win the support of provinces and municipalities for declaring Peacekeepers Day in their respective jurisdictions. They have also been instrumental in organizing the commemorative ceremonies on August 9 as well.
    My colleague earlier spoke about the missions involved from peace building to peacemaking to peacekeeping. While there is some debate as to the definition of peacekeeper, I would hope that we give it the widest interpretation possible to be fully inclusive of all Canadian Forces members, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces as well as members of the diplomatic corps, who have supported international peace and security operations. This would be very much in keeping with the spirit of recognition and remembrance.
    The ceremonies on August 9 give Canadians an opportunity to pay their respects to all those who have worn our uniform in times of peace and war, especially those who paid the ultimate price of giving their lives. We also take the time to remember those men and women in the Canadian Forces who are now placing themselves in harm's way to defend our values of life.
    My colleagues have spoken about the other ways in which we honour our peacekeepers. We know that tens of thousands of veterans wear the peacekeeping service medal with great pride. Here in the nation's capital, Canadians can visit the peacekeeping monument, “Reconciliation”.
    It is appropriate that the House of Commons should be located only a few paces down from the memorial chamber where seven Books of Remembrance are on display. Those books contain the names of those who died serving our country. 
    Until last November, there were six books in honour of Canadian men and women who died in the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the South African war and the Nile expedition as well as the fallen from Newfoundland before it joined Confederation and those who gave their lives serving where my dad served in the merchant marines.
    On November 11, 2005, the Year of the Veteran, the Governor General came to Parliament Hill to dedicate the Seventh Book of Remembrance, which is entitled “In Service of Canada”. On its pages are the names of those who died while serving Canada since 1947, with the exception of those who died in the Korean war. It includes the names of those Canadians who died on many peacekeeping missions. It is a permanent testament to the enormous risks taken by those who wear a uniform, both at home and abroad. 
    I would be remiss if I did not remind my colleagues that the Seventh Book is unique, because it will never close. It will also commemorate those in future generations when they give their lives in the service of this great nation, Canada.
    We have been reminded all too well in recent weeks of the tremendous sacrifice made by our soldiers. I have visited them, both those who have returned without wounds and those who have returned seriously wounded. I have attended funerals as well.
    We have been inspired by their stories and the courage of their families and friends as they cope with the tragic loss of their loved ones. They are in our thoughts and they are most certainly in our prayers. May they take some measure of comfort knowing that our nation will not forget their service and sacrifice.
    This brings me to the issue of remembrance. In the past few years, especially during the Year of the Veteran, this year called Share the Story, I have been impressed by the increasing number of Canadians who gather at memorials and cenotaphs in their communities in honour of their local heroes. 
    That is the essence of November 11 and it is also the inspiration of August 9, to express our gratitude to those who served our nation and to commemorate the sacrifice of those who lost their lives. In fact, if I have any concern at all regarding this bill, if any concerns have been expressed by the veterans community, and if it is in any danger whatsoever, it is because there may be a danger in obscuring the memorial we have on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour.
    I am also encouraged by the work that our schools are doing to stimulate interest in Canada's military history and heritage. In many schools it was commemorated during Remembrance Week. I would like to applaud the efforts of all those teachers who take the time to organize special learning experiences for their young students.
    As Canadian citizens we should not take for granted the sacrifice made by those who lay down their lives so that others may enjoy peace and freedom. It is our collective duty to remember them. They deserve no less.
    I think too that we also pay tribute to our veterans through the services and programs we provide to them and the way in which we do so. As my colleagues would know, veterans returning from the second world war had access to a veterans charter, a series of programs and services intended to aid their rehabilitation to civilian life. Over the years, those programs were adjusted in line with the changing needs of our aging veterans.
    However, these programs are not well suited to the needs of younger Canadian Forces veterans and earlier this year in April a new veterans charter was put in place. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs said at the time, “The new charter represents a new chapter in Canada's longstanding commitment to take care of those who take care of us at home and abroad”.
    We are also committed to keeping alive the memory of those whose noble and selfless sacrifice represent the very highest ideals of public service. On August 9 and on November 11 at the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them. We will remember them.
*The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  * 
    Is the House ready for the question? 
    Some hon. members: Question. 
    *The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):* The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
    Some hon. members: Agreed. 
*    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):* I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

    (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)


----------



## Journeyman (24 Nov 2006)

If I may quote......





			
				von Garvin said:
			
		

> *I for one believe that we should keep November 11 as our ONLY military day of recognition*...where all present, past, living, dead military folks who have and are contributing to our security are honoured and recognized. I do not believe we should dilute the importance of this day...*to have a Peacekeepers Day is a BAD idea.*


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2006)

From the Senate, 22 Nov 06
http://tinyurl.com/u47he

Georgina Fane Pope
Bronze Bust in Memory of Contribution to the Army Nursing Service and Medical Corps
Hon. Percy Downe: It is with great pleasure that I celebrate the national recognition of a daughter of Prince Edward Island, Georgina Pope.

A bronze bust of Pope has been erected to commemorate her contribution to Canadian military history as part of the new Valiants Memorial in Confederation Square in downtown Ottawa. This national monument was unveiled on November 5, 2006, as part of Veterans' Week. The memorial honours 14 Canadians for their service during five separate wars.

(1340)

Georgina Fane Pope is fondly remembered as the first permanent member of the Canadian Army Nursing Service, and has greatly contributed to Canadian military service.

Georgina Pope, daughter of William Pope, a Father of Confederation, was born in Charlottetown in 1862. As a member of a prominent Island family, Pope could have easily settled into the expected lifestyle of the times. However, Pope had far greater aspirations. Her journey began at the Bellevue School of Nursing in New York, where she received her medical training. She remained in the United States until 1899, when she volunteered for nursing service in the Boer War. Georgina Pope, as senior nurse, and three other nurses were members of Canada's first contingent to South Africa where they served north of Cape Town. After the initial five months, Georgina Pope and another nurse headed further north, where they took control of a military hospital that had been ravaged by disease. After a year of emotional and physical hardships in South Africa, Ms. Pope returned to Canada.

Georgina Pope returned to South Africa in 1902. This time she headed a group of eight Canadian nurses, which was known as the official Canadian Army Nursing Services, part of the Canadian Army Medical Corps. Ms. Pope and her nursing colleagues remained in South Africa until the end of the war.

In 1903, Georgina Pope was recognized for her service in the field when she was the first Canadian awarded the Royal Red Cross by Queen Victoria.

In 1906, Georgina Pope was appointed to the permanent forces in Halifax, as part of the Canadian Army Medical Corps. After only two years in this position, in 1908, she became the first person to earn the position of Matron of the Canadian Army Medical Corps. Several years later, Ms. Pope returned overseas to assist the efforts of the First World War. She was stationed in Canadian military hospitals in both England and France until the end of 1918. She then returned to Charlottetown where she died in 1938.

The inscription on the wall below the monument in Confederation Square captures the spirit of the new memorial:

No day shall ever erase you from the memory of time.

All Canadians and Prince Edward Islanders can be proud of the dedication and service given to Canada by Georgina Pope.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Nov 2006)

From 24 November:
*Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): *  
    Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present.
    The first petition calls upon the Canadian government to immediately withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan and to develop an independent foreign policy that promotes world peace and ecological sustainability and to grant residence to American war resistors.
    The second set of petitions is also about Canada's role in Afghanistan. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to begin the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.
-----------------------------------------
*Status of Women *​ *Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): *  
    Mr. Speaker, hon. members will know that tomorrow, November 25, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
    I would like to take this opportunity to express my wholehearted support for efforts around the world to bring an end to the cruel and inhumane violence inflicted on women.
    Could the Minister of International Cooperation tell us what our government is doing for women in developing countries?

*Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I want this House to know that Canada has been actively dealing with this issue.
    Take for example our mission in Afghanistan, where women have suffered greatly under the rule of the Taliban. Through our mission, we have already helped the Afghan people achieve progress in asserting their rights and taking control of their own future. Twenty seven per cent of members in the new Afghan Parliament are women and 75% of micro loans have been made to women. Women have access to health care, legal aid and literacy services, not to mention access to schooling for young girls. I have—
---------------------------


----------



## observor 69 (25 Nov 2006)

Mr. Von Scarlett ;>) My wife loves your Mil Exp line " Apparently, not enough. Or too much. Depends on who's talking" She has her Masters and is getting the same response from HR people. Due to my postings she was not able to get started in her career field until into her 30's.Thanks for a Saturday morning smile.

Allen


----------



## observor 69 (25 Nov 2006)

If we are going to go down this route then you can also get valueable info from the Commons and Senate Defence Committees:

Commons Committee   http://tinyurl.com/y45arp

Senate Committee      http://tinyurl.com/y2k8qf

I haven't followed the Senate committee much but the Commons committee has had some very good "witnesses" such as Hillier, O'Connor and Leslie.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2006)

From 27 November 2006:

*Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I realize how difficult this must be for the minister. Just today we had two soldiers killed in Afghanistan and tomorrow or the next day their remains will be brought home, draped in a Canadian flag and a nation will be very thankful of the work that they were doing in that part of the world, not a nation of nations, but a nation. I am sure that the minister will join me in recognizing that we are paying respect to them as a nation for the work that they are doing in fighting for human rights, justice and peace around the world.
    I am wondering what we tell the parents of the two soldiers who are coming back. Do we say that this is a nation which is grateful to your sons and daughters or is this a nation of nations which is respectful to your sons and daughters? I am wondering if the minister will share with us the exact expression that he is going to use when he meets those two families.
*Hon. Peter MacKay:  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I know that all members would share in our gratitude and our remorse, and our great thanks on behalf of a grieving nation to those families who have lost sons and daughters. It is the ultimate sacrifice in defence of not only our country but the values that we stand for: freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law, and respect for human rights. These are the very motivations which led us to embark on this mission in Afghanistan with other UN countries as part of a NATO backed mission.
    While tragedy has befallen these soldiers, this is not a time to mix the issues or to somehow skew our gratitude as a country. Quebec is very much a part of this nation, very much a part of the mourning that will follow. To that extent, I know I join the member opposite and all members of the House in expressing our great gratitude and share with the families our thoughts and our prayers at this most difficult time.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> From 27 November 2006:
> 
> Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.):
> Mr. Speaker   ....
> ...



While two hundred and sixty odd parliamentarians may have deserved that little shot, those soldiers and their families certainly did not. Shame.


----------



## civmick (28 Nov 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> I am wondering what we tell the parents of the two soldiers who are coming back. Do we say that this is a nation which is grateful to your sons and daughters or is this a nation of nations which is respectful to your sons and daughters?



what a stupid idiot.  

But then he did support Volpe in the early going
http://www.karygiannismp.com/spip/article.php3?id_article=300
until Hezbollah v Israel broke out.
http://www.karygiannismp.com/spip/article.php3?id_article=334


----------



## cplcaldwell (28 Nov 2006)

The Hon. Jim Karygiannis  is Liberal Member for Scarborugh Agincourt. Here is his contact info...

_Ottawa
Phone: (613) 992-4501 
Fax: (613) 995-1612 
EMail: Karygiannis.J@parl.gc.ca 
Web Site:* www.karygiannismp.com/  

Constituency Offices
3850 Finch Ave East, Suite 206 
Scarborough, Ontario 
M1T 3T6 
Telephone: (416) 321-5454 
Fax: (416) 321-5456 _  

Perhaps members would like to contact Mr Karygiannis and share their thoughts on his latest elocution, mixing up the deaths of two Canadian servicemen with unrelated politcal meanderings (intended, no doubt, to score gratuitous points with the electorate), whilst, I might add, collecting an ample salary from the Canadian taxpayer.

Anywho, just a thought....


----------



## probum non poenitet (28 Nov 2006)

For Hansard-geeks, here are two important debates about the Afghan mission.

'Take note debate' during early stages of Operation Archer, November 15, 2005.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=38&Ses=1&DocId=2110734#SOB-1471141
(hit ctrl+F "Afghanistan")

The famous '2009 extension debate' that split the Commons, May 17, 2006.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2215122
(hit ctrl+F "Afghanistan" a few times)


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Nov 2006)

From Hansard (House of Commons), 28 Nov 06
Direct link to statement

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):  
    Mr. Speaker, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I rise in the House to mark the deaths of two Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, Chief Warrant Officer Bobby Girouard, 46, originally from Bathurst, New Brunswick, and Corporal Albert Storm, both with the battle group, First Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ontario. They were killed yesterday by a suicide bomber while travelling in their armoured car.  These deaths are a reminder of the daily danger faced by the military at work both in Canada and abroad.  On behalf of the NDP caucus and myself, I offer my sincere condolences to the families of Chief Warrant Officer Bobby Girouard and Corporal Albert Storm, to their friends and the military community.


From Hansard (Senate), 28 Nov 06
Direct link to statement

The Late Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard
The Late Corporal Albert Storm
Silent Tribute

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we begin, I invite you to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard and Corporal Albert Storm, who were killed tragically yesterday while serving their country in Afghanistan.

Thank you, honourable senators.

_Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute._


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2006)

From Hansard (House of Commons), 29 Nov 06

http://tinyurl.com/uumtp

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan tried to put aside the tragic deaths of their comrades for a few hours yesterday as musicians from across the country entertained them.

    Two eminent artists from the greater Fredericton region, Canadian Idol contestant Casey LeBlanc and Matchstick Mike Bidlake, performed at the three hour concert.

    This event provided an important reprieve, and I am pleased Casey and Mike joined so many other entertainers to support the troops. They will undoubtedly return to Canada and spread the word about the great work done by our soldiers.

    Before the concert, they paused to remember Chief Warrant Officer Bobby Girouard of Bathurst, his battalion's regimental sergeant-major, and Corporal Albert Storm, who were killed Monday in a suicide bomb attack.

    We cannot thank them enough for their lives of bravery and honour. We offer our condolences to their families and to their communities.



http://tinyurl.com/y7uaea


Afghanistan   

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, at the NATO summit which wrapped up today in Riga, Latvia, member countries all agreed that their key priority is contributing to peace and stability in Afghanistan and pledged that NATO troops would stay as long as it takes to bring peace to the country.

    Can the Prime Minister explain what this NATO commitment means for Canada?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to NATO's priority and the mission in Afghanistan, as we all know, our allies greatly appreciate the efforts and sacrifices being made by Canada and Canadians to help the people of Afghanistan. Progress was of course made during the summit, by our Prime Minister, in particular, who did a wonderful job at this meeting.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will end in February 2009. 

    Can the minister assure us that the Prime Minister clearly indicated that he will not prolong the mission beyond that date without first obtaining the consent of the House of Commons?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, some progress has been made, which is what matters to this side of the House. This progress was made together with our allies. We successfully cut down on a number of restrictions previously in place. We were able to increase development assistance, and other NATO countries pledged to work towards the same goal. All signs are that the Canadian initiative is bearing fruit.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that he cannot withdraw troops from Afghanistan without giving his allies reasonable notice.

    Knowing that the mandate of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan ends in February 2009, should the Prime Minister not be very clear with his partners and tell them, right now, that he has no mandate to extend the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan after this date of February 2009?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear. Any deployment anywhere will be brought in front of the House of Commons, as was the deployment motion that was brought to extend it until 2009. He has been very clear that the House of Commons is where he will bring the motion and I can assure the member that the Prime Minister will keep his word.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister deplores that other NATO members present in Afghanistan are not helping Canadian troops who are based in the south.

    Is it not all the more important, in that context, to indicate to his allies that they cannot assume that Canada will continue to pursue its efforts and to tell them, right now, that they have to plan to replace our troops after February 2009?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, there was progress made in Riga and it was a step in the right direction. The removal of national caveats is a very welcome development as it will enable increased troop mobility in Afghanistan.

    We welcome as well the willingness of allies in Riga to deploy troops to the south to reinforce our Canadian troops.

*   *   *



http://tinyurl.com/yxo8y6

Afghanistan  

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  
    NATO member states have confirmed they will maintain their military presence in Afghanistan. However, the humanitarian aspect of this operation seems to have been largely forgotten at the conference. 

    Can the Prime Minister tell us how he tried to convince his allies to discuss the humanitarian aspect of the NATO mission in Afghanistan during the summit?


Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, with NATO allies, reinforced the commitment to help Afghanistan with reconstruction. We have an approach there that takes reconstruction into account. The Riga summit, through the communiqué, has even asked for the regional countries to come along and help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. 

    We know this is a priority. The reconstruction of Afghanistan is a must. That is what NATO is concentrating on as well.


Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, all rhetoric aside, will the Prime Minister agree that re-establishing the necessary balance between the military and humanitarian aspects of the mission in Afghanistan is crucial to counteracting Afghans' disillusionment with the international community and the Afghan central government?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that one of the first things our government did when we were elected was our Prime Minister's announcement of increased funding for reconstruction in Afghanistan. That is much more than the Liberal government committed to doing to help with reconstruction in Afghanistan. In addition, we have extended our commitment to 2011.

*   *   *


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2006)

In the Senate, 29 Nov 06
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/055db_2006-11-29-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1

Gagetown—Testing of Agent Orange and Agent Purple—Response to Reports
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: I have one question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It deals with Agent Orange and Camp Gagetown.

Two reports have been released in almost six months. As a result of those reports, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has indicated that they will deal with the legitimate applications with regard to the effects of Agent Orange on certain individuals.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform me as to whether the government has followed through on that undertaking? If so, how many people have been compensated?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for his question. He has asked questions on this very serious matter on previous occasions.

Minister Thompson is currently involved in an ongoing process with the families and the people who live in the CFB Gagetown area. I know that the last time he spoke of the subject in my presence there were a number of issues that still had to be addressed.

On the basis of the honourable senator's question, I will go back to my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Thompson, and ask for an update on where this file is at the moment.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

From Yesterday 4 Dec 2006 (NB: Not just military stuff, but also the ass gas comment by the leader of the NDP, for levity)
*Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): * 
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians have learned to expect only one thing from ministers of the environment, whether they be current or former, and that is betrayal, because no matter which of them were in power, pollution continued to go up. 
    What has been the result of this? More droughts, more floods, more fires, more storms and more ice melting. The problem is getting more and more serious.
    After all these years of inaction, will the Prime Minister finally get something done and do something the former government would not do and that is to cancel the subsidies to big oil and big ass--I mean big gas and start putting--
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
*The Speaker: * 
    I am afraid the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth's time has expired. We will have a little order please. 
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
*Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): * 
    Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it. I am really not sure whether I should take what the leader of the NDP said personally.
    It was at the request of the leader of the NDP that the government agreed to put Bill C-30, the clean air act, before a parliamentary committee at second reading. Because we want to make concrete progress, we invite the constructive participation of all opposition parties. I would encourage the leader of the NDP to return to that constructive tone.

-------------------------------------
*Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): * 
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to Riga to persuade his NATO partners to send more troops to southern Afghanistan. He wanted to ensure that the troops already in the field will be able to help Canada under all circumstances. The Prime Minister failed.
    When can Canada expect to have help from its NATO partners in southern Afghanistan?
[English]
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   * 
    Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, a number of countries have committed additional troops, particularly the Poles who have committed 1,000 extra troops. These troops will have no caveats. They will be able to be employed anywhere in the country.
[Translation]
*Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): * 
    Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that our NATO partners are not doing their fair share in southern Afghanistan and that Canadian soldiers are paying the price.
    The Prime Minister left the meeting claiming victory but we do not know the number of additional troops committed and which countries will contribute. Basically he is telling our troops that if they are in trouble they must call 9-1-1 to get reinforcements. Our soldiers and Canadians need guarantees.
    How can the Prime Minister be pleased with such a dismal failure?
[English]
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): * 
    Mr. Speaker, at the NATO meeting we learned that the ISAF commander, that is the NATO commander in Afghanistan, will have three battle groups in reserve, two American battle groups and the Polish battle group, and that should be sufficient to deal with any emergencies.
-------------------------------------
*Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):  *  
    Mr. Speaker, a contingent of 120 soldiers is leaving the Valcartier military base today and heading for Afghanistan on a nine-month mission under the auspices of NATO and sanctioned by the United Nations.
    I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these courageous men and women who have not hesitated to leave their friends and family for a mission that will be dangerous at times.
    These soldiers of the Royal 22nd Regiment from CFB Valcartier will join the provincial reconstruction team which, since the beginning of the mission, has been rebuilding roads, schools and community centres to help improve the lives of the Afghan people.
    I have no doubt that our soldiers will make a difference in the lives of the Afghan people. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to affirm that they have the steadfast support of the Conservative government.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2006)

From Tuesday, 5 December 2006:

*Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): * 
    Mr. Speaker, this petition has been submitted by individuals from across the country, particularly Quebec, with a concern about Canada's role in Afghanistan. In particular, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan and the mission that is taking place there. I present this petition to members of the House.

-------------------------------

*Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, tomorrow 500 wheelchairs will arrive in Kandahar, Afghanistan. A wheelchair can transform the life of an amputee, providing mobility, opportunity and hope. 
    After decades of conflict and war, several hundred thousand Afghanis are amputees. In response, Wheelchair Foundation Canada, led by a constituent of mine, Christiana Flessner, has worked alongside our Canadian military to provide wheelchairs to Afghanis in need. 
    Each wheelchair proudly displays the flags of Canada and Afghanistan side by side, symbolizing our friendship and national determination to help them through this difficult time. The wheelchairs will be distributed by our soldiers in Kandahar, giving our troops yet another opportunity to build new and important friendships with Afghanis.
    I would like to honour Ms. Flessner for her dedication to this worthy project. I encourage all Canadians to visit the Wheelchair Foundation website, at wheelchairfoundation.ca, to learn more about this exceptional organization.

-----------------------------------

*Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the Memorial Cross, more often referred to as the Silver Cross, is awarded to mothers and widows of deceased Canadian Forces members who die on active duty.
    Over the past several years, members of the House have led the charge for changes to modernize the Memorial Cross medal.
    Could the Minister of National Defence please advise the House as to the status of the Memorial Cross medal?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): * 
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the rules governing the Memorial Cross have been revised to reflect the personal wishes of each individual member of the Canadian Forces.
    As of January 1, 2007, each Canadian Forces member will designate up to three recipients who will be awarded the medal in the event of their death in the service of Canada.
    I would like to personally thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for his help and that of his department in achieving these significant changes. I am very pleased that Canada's new government has found an innovative way to better serve the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

I'm a bit back logged.  Here is 6 Dec:

*Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the new Leader of the Opposition has recently been talking about a Marshall plan for Afghanistan. 
    Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell the House what type of reconstruction plan is in place in Afghanistan?

*Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, in fact many have suggested there should be a Marshall plan for Afghanistan.
    I point out that last January, Canada, as a major contributor to the Afghanistan Compact which sets goals for stabilizing Afghanistan, strengthening governance and reducing poverty, which is the equivalent of a Marshall plan, recognizing that long term state building is ultimately the key to sustainable peace and security, pledged approximately $100 million annually to development assistance in Afghanistan to year 2011. This makes it the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid.
    We are making progress. There are 150,000 Afghan women now with access to Canadian microcredit and 5,000 rural development projects. Progress is being made for the people of Afghanistan.
-------------------------
*Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):  *   
    Mr. Speaker, so far the vast majority of postings to Afghanistan have been for six months. Now the Vandoos from Quebec have been posted for nine months rather than six.
    This poorly planned mission initiated by the Liberals is placing undue hardships on our military families. Will the minister please tell soldiers and their families whether future deployments will be for six months, for nine months, or will they be longer? Military families need to know. They need to be able to plan. What will it be?
*     Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   * 
    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, what we intend to do is try to ensure that soldiers who are in harm's way in the battle group or in the PRT will not go there a second time. To do that we have to adjust sometimes the lengths of the tours, but the tours of the fighting troops will be six months.

*Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):   * 
    Mr. Speaker, not only are we sending them for a longer deployment, we also cut their pay if they are injured in battle. This is shameful. The minister promised almost three months ago that he would address this matter. He promised it again in the House a few weeks later.
    Why has this problem not been fixed? When will the minister ensure that every wounded soldier when returned to Canada will not have a pay cut?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  *  
    Mr. Speaker, I addressed this earlier and I said our government will stand by our soldiers and make sure that they get all that is due them.
    By the way, nobody is cut by pay. That is a misleading piece of information. We will be addressing the issue of so-called wounded pay very quickly.
-------------
*Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): *   
    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents in the Nelson-Castlegar area. The petitioners say that the Government of Canada has committed the Canadian Forces to an unbalanced counter-insurgent mission in southern Afghanistan that has no clear objectives, criteria for progress, definition of success or exit strategy. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to begin the withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.
-----------
*Question No. 109--
Ms. Dawn Black: * 
    With regard to the government’s development and reconstruction spending in Afghanistan since 2001: (a) what have been the government’s priorities for development and reconstruction; (b) what projects, completed or ongoing, have been undertaken; (c) what are the specific locations, by province, within Afghanistan of each completed and ongoing project; (d) how much money has been (i) pledged to each project, (ii) dispersed for each project, (iii) planned for disbursement for each project that is still ongoing; (e) who were the partners of each completed and ongoing project; (f) for those projects with more than one partner, what percentage of the funding, by partner, has been allocated to (i) Canadians or to Canadian organizations, (ii) Afghan individuals or to Afghan organizations, (iii) the government of Afghanistan, (iv) multilateral organizations; (g) with start and end dates, what was the duration of each completed project and what is the expected duration of each ongoing project; (h) what are the results of the completed projects, and what are the interim results of the ongoing projects; (i) which of these projects have been carried out by the Provincial Reconstruction Team; and (j) how much funding has been approved for projects in future years, but have not yet begun, and where will they take place?
    (Return tabled)

*   Mr. Tom Lukiwski:    * 
    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
* The Deputy Speaker:  *  
    Is that agreed?
    *Some hon. members: * Agreed.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

7 December will get two posts.  Here is the first:
*
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP):*   
    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions to table today.
    The first petition states that the Government of Canada has committed Canadian Forces to an unbalanced counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. The petitioners support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces and, therefore, call upon the Government of Canada to begin with the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. This is very important to the people of Hamilton.
    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a weighty petition with thousands of signatures. It is regarding war resisters. 
    During the period of 1965 to 1973 more than 50,000 draft age Americans made their way to Canada because they refused to conscientiously participate in what they saw as an immoral war. Thirty years later we are facing the same choices in Canada. The petitioners call upon the Canadian government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and treaties to which it is a signatory by making provisions for U.S. war objectors to have sanctuary in this country.
---------------------
*Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):   * 
    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
    The first petition is from thousands of Canadians who are asking that Parliament allow the American-Iraq war resisters stay in Canada. The petitioners believe there is a moral choice for Canada, which is to give refuge to those who refuse to be accomplices in a U.S. led war in Iraq. If we were to reject war resisters, they would be returned to the United States, face incarceration, and possibly even the death penalty. Therefore, Canada should not facilitate the persecution of American war objectors by returning them to the United States.
    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from over 1,000 young people who call on Parliament to allow them to participate overseas as volunteers. 
    They point out that over 40 countries worldwide rely on young people to assist them. By going overseas these young people acquire another language to better appreciate Canada's rich cultural diversity. They would also learn different cultures and respect different values. This is a very important experience that young people should have, and Parliament should ensure there is legislation and funding to allow them to participate as volunteers in Canada and overseas.

------------------------------ 
*Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, 15 Wing Moose Jaw is home to NATO flight training in Canada, or NFTC, as well as Canada's world famous Snowbirds. The future of both of these programs is of great significance to our military and to the community of Moose Jaw.
    Could the Minister of National Defence please inform the House about the commitment our new government has to the future of NFTC and the Snowbirds?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  *  
    Mr. Speaker, NFTC is vital for the production of our pilots and those of our allies, and that contract will go on to the year 2021. We are also actively marketing in other allied countries to get more pilots involved.
    As for the Snowbirds, the Snowbirds are a national icon and the government is committed to supporting that organization well into the future.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

Here is the second post for 7 December:
*Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):   * 
    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who has spent 15 minutes outlining a multi-point plan on how Canada should change its focus in Afghanistan, away from what his party got us into in the first place in the aggressive search and kill counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar. 
    Next, unbelievably, his party gave the Conservative government enough votes to ram through an extension on a mission with nine months still to go, adding two more years to that mission. Those members did this without a proper evaluation of what was happening with the mission, without an opportunity for us to even begin to consult Canadians, let alone have a fully informed, thorough, responsible debate before being pushed into a vote on very short notice. 
    Mr. Speaker, I assume that you will be as liberal in the interpretation of the rules of relevancy as your predecessor in the chair this afternoon. We are here this afternoon to deal with Bill C-37, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, but since the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was given the opportunity to speak for 15 uninterrupted minutes about his views on Afghanistan, I assume it is in order for me to ask him a question on this extremely important topic.
    It took me a minute to realize that we were debating Afghanistan, so I did not hear in full the first couple of points in his five point plan on how to get us out of the Kandahar quagmire and finally address the horror of what is happening to our troops in the current flawed mission.
    I want to ask him about a subject that came up in the foreign affairs committee yesterday of which he will be aware, I am sure. The Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed and informed the committee that 34,700 Iraqi police had been trained by Canadian RCMP officers over the last couple of years. This raised in the minds of everyone at committee, I think, the question of how many Afghan police, particularly in Kandahar, had been trained over the same period, because of course we are not supposed to be in Iraq although it is a very important thing for there to be training for the Iraqi police. 
    Given the fact that our commitment is supposed to be dealing with the insecurity in Kandahar, and given that many people feel that problems with the under-policing, the under-qualified policing and the insufficient numbers of police are at least as much or perhaps more of a threat to the security of the citizens of Kandahar, the question of interest, of course, is how many have been trained by Canada in Kandahar? I have to say that I almost fell off my chair when the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed there had been 150.
     I want to invite the member to address this question. Where does the issue of training the Afghani police fit into the member's five point plan for getting out of the Kandahar quagmire?

*Hon. Keith Martin:  *   
    Mr. Speaker, the member asked four large questions, really, and I will try to go through them briefly.
    The first is on the Iraqi police. RCMP officers train Iraqi recruits in Jordan. I have had a chance to visit them and I want to say on the record that the RCMP officers are doing an absolutely outstanding job in training the Iraqi police. They are doing a magnificent job. Wherever the RCMP has gone, and I have seen their work in Sierra Leone, their work deserves medals, quite frankly. The work of the RCMP is outstanding.
    Second, on the issue of the 3D approach, we sent our troops to Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was there. It was not an aggressive search and destroy mission, as the hon. member mentioned. It was a balanced mission in a number of ways. 
    Yes, our troops engage in combat and we are very proud of the fact that they do an outstanding job within their combat role, but that is one of their roles. Unfortunately, the milk of human kindness does not flow through the veins of some of the people who are trying to kill Afghan civilians and, indeed, our troops. Our troops are trying to protect them, as the member knows, and to provide security. They are doing a great job in that respect. 
    However, they are also there, and we sent them there, to engage in something called a provincial reconstruction team, of which our forces are an integral part. They are making a difference on the ground in terms of providing small amounts of money, in being able to give people the basic infrastructure they require on the ground and in building roads, drilling boreholes and a number of other things. Quite frankly, our troops are the only ones who can do that in these areas of great insecurity.
    Third, on the issue of the vote, I am glad the member brought this up. I was utterly disgusted by what the Prime Minister did. He used our troops as a shameless tool to try to divide my caucus. It had nothing to do with the mission in Afghanistan. It was a political decision and a political tool to use our troops shamelessly. Why do I say that? Because the decision to extend the mission into Afghanistan has nothing to do with what the House says. It is an executive decision. In the Prime Minister's speech, he very clearly said, “I am going to extend this mission for a year regardless of what the House says”. 
    That is what the Prime Minister said. He should be utterly ashamed of using our troops as a political tool because no decision of the House can ever be more important than when we have to put our troops' lives on the line, when our troops can possibly be killed. As for the fact that the Prime Minister did this, he should be utterly disgusted with himself.
    Fourth, to answer the member's question of what my plan is with respect to Afghanistan, it involves the following points.
    Number one, we have to train the Afghan police. The Germans are responsible for that. The government could have asked our NATO allies to contribute to their training, equipment and pay. They are being paid only $70 a month right now. As a result, they have become as much of a problem on the ground as the Taliban, because they are engaging in thuggish activity, quite frankly just to be able to put food on the table in many cases.
    Number two, the development component, the amount of money that Afghanistan receives on a per capita basis, is among the lowest of any post-reconstruction situation we have seen in the last 30 years. 
    Number three, we need a loya jirga to bring in the groups that have been disarticulated from the decision making process and were excluded from the Bonn agreement. They need to come to the table. A loya jirga is a way of doing that.
    Number four, we need to be able to deal with the insurgency coming from Pakistan and other areas. We need a regional summit on the area.
    Last, the poppy crop is going to destroy Afghanistan unless we affect the poppy crop. To destroy the poppy crop would be a huge mistake, because we would be destroying the only source of income people have. One of the solutions is to destroy the poppy crop and pay the farmers or use the poppy crop to produce legal, medically used narcotics and provide a domestic industry for the people of Afghanistan.
*Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):  *  
    Mr. Speaker, when the former Liberal government sent troops into the southern part of Afghanistan for an operation called Operation Enduring Freedom, there was no debate in the House. There was no vote. There was no analysis of the cost. There was no reporting back to the House of Commons. There was no discussion whatsoever with the Canadian public. 
    There absolutely has to be some accounting for why billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan. There was absolutely no debate here in the House of Commons provided by the former government. 
    How can the member talk about democracy when there was not even a vote last summer in the House when troops were sent to southern Afghanistan, into Kandahar?

*The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):   * 
    The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will know that the clock has run out but I will allow a short moment if he will keep an eye on the Chair.

*Hon. Keith Martin:   * 
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very brief. 
    I have two things to say. First, the member was not in the House at that time so perhaps she is not aware that ample discussions took place in the defence committee and in other committees, including foreign affairs, and this House did have take note debates on the issue. 
    Lastly, the member should know that this is an executive decision on the part of a prime minister, which is why the vote that took place to extend the mission was so reprehensible. The decision had already been made and it was a political tool, not an effective tool to inform the public or allow this House to have effective input on an exceedingly important decision.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

7 December, 2006:




*Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has been signed by members of my community of New Westminster, in Burnaby and in Coquitlam.
     The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to pull back from the unbalanced counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, citing that it has no clear objectives, criteria for progress or definition of success. They say that the New Democratic Party has called for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from this mission, that they support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.
     They call upon the government to begin the orderly withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.


----------



## observor 69 (9 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> I'm a bit back logged.  Here is 6 Dec:
> ]
> 
> I appreciate you doing this, I enjoy reading the reports.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

Thank you *blush*


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):
> I am pleased to present a petition... call upon the Government of Canada *to pull back from the unbalanced counter-insurgency mission*


And their expertise at both counter-insurgency and the mission's "balance" is based on what exactly?  :

It seems to tie in with the Toronto Public Forum thread


> I also would have liked to know from Mr. Wright why he thought asking Canadians - whose entire body of knowledge of the Afghan mission comes directly from press coverage - about whether that same press coverage is fair, balanced, and accurate is a useful question. How exactly would they know if it wasn't fair, balanced, and accurate?


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2006)

a LONG one from Monday 11 December 2006: (first part)
*Canadian Forces *​
*Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)  * 
     moved:
     That the House affirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and call on the government to continue to provide them with the best possible equipment and support to carry out their responsibilities. 
    She said: It is with great pride and honour that I rise in my place today to move this motion.
    As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes CFB Petawawa, “Training Ground of the Warriors”, which is the motto of Base Petawawa, my motion is for all the women and men of the Canadian armed forces and, more particularly, the loved ones whose job it is to keep the home fires burning.
    I take this opportunity in the House of Commons, on behalf of the residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the troops, their families and all Canadians, to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on behalf of the Government of Canada by demonstrating how much he cares for the soldiers and their families by coming to my riding, to beautiful Cobden, Ontario, and officially turning on the lights for Canada's tallest Christmas tree.
    The organizing committee of the 2006 tallest Christmas tree dedicated this year's 75-foot tree to the women and men in the Canadian armed forces and their families. While the beautiful ceremony was broadcast live to our troops in Canadian Forces Base Kandahar in Afghanistan, the tree is dedicated to all our brave women and men who put themselves at risk helping people in serving around the world.
   I congratulate the committee members and the volunteers for all their hard work and enthusiasm in making this year's tree lighting ceremony such a big success and also the thousands of upper Ottawa Valley residents who came out to show their support for the troops and to make this year's tree lighting ceremony a resounding success. The tree was decorated by hundreds of Renfrew County schoolchildren, many of whom have adopted a soldier in Afghanistan and have written Christmas letters to let them know that, although they may be far from home, they are not forgotten.
     Our community has also created an endowment fund for children who have lost parents in the conflict in Afghanistan.
    At CFB Petawawa, the public is raising funds to erect an eternal flame monument, dedicated to all those who keep the home fires burning. I thank retired military spouse Dianne Collier for her work to “light the flame of hope”.
    I was reminded of the sacrifice of the families of our soldiers recently when I had the privilege to attend a memorial service in honour of a brave soldier who was killed defending the very freedoms that so many in Canada casually take for granted. 
    I ask members to please give me a moment of their undivided attention to listen to the following poem written by Jocelyn Girouard, daughter of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Michel Joseph Girouard. Chief Warrant Officer Girouard was recently laid to rest in peace.

     The poem is entitled Dear Daddy:
Dear Daddy,
I did not believe them,
When they told me you were gone.
It did not feel real.
It felt so, so wrong.
God took you away from us,
Without seeming to care.
Your family needs you, Daddy
It does not seem fair.

We are not revengeful,
We are not even cross.
We just feel so sad
Because your presence has been lost
Yes, you will be with us,
Yes, your memories remain.
It just doesn't seem worth it,
Not seeing you march off that plane.

We'll miss you forever,
But you will miss so much.
How can we live without you?
Without your support, your love, your touch?
We need you, Daddy.
We are not ready to go on.
Even though you taught us well,
We are not that brave, not that strong.

You were a soldier, lover, Father, and friend.
We are so proud of everything you do.
We will try to live just like you,
To your memory we will be true.
It's just so hard to believe that you are gone
You can't be gone for good.
You had been our rock for so long,
That our family has been unglued.

Don't feel bad for leaving us.
Think of us with pride.
We'll be OK without you,
We may just have a really hard time.
Think of us, wherever you may be.
We will think of you with love.
We'll remember that you are free,
And you died for all of us.

    I thank Jocelyn for allowing me to share her grief, although I appreciate the fact that I cannot begin to feel what she and her family are currently experiencing. I thank her for her courage.
    My motion today is for Jocelyn and all the other families and loved ones of our serving military personnel. I call on the entire House to reaffirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and I ask our government to continue to provide our Canadian Forces with the best possible equipment and support so that they can continue to carry out their responsibilities.
    This motion is not just for the Canadian Forces. This motion is for every Canadian, because every Canadian benefits immensely from the essential work that our military does at home and abroad.
    In the unpredictable world we live in, where international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and countries that are vulnerable or in decay threaten global security, Canada cannot take national defence lightly. 
    It is essential that the Canadian Forces receive the support and resources it needs to protect our peaceful society. 
    What is the mission? Why are we sending the flower of our youth halfway around the world?
     We are defending Canadian interests at home and abroad by preventing Afghanistan from relapsing into a failed state that provides a safe haven for terrorists and terrorist organizations. We are providing the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development. We are helping the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its people to build a stable, peaceful, self-sustaining democratic country. 
    All Canadians can be proud of our accomplishments in Afghanistan, such as ensuring young girls are able to receive an education in safety and security. Our integrated approach of development, diplomacy and defence is helping the Afghan people stabilize their country, establish the rule of law and ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for terrorists.
    Our task is a difficult one. Just yesterday I read a news report that Taliban militants, acting on one of their terrorist threats, murdered two female teachers and three family members. Their so-called crime: trying to give girls an education. This brings to 22 the number of teachers who have been murdered by the Taliban this year alone. These terrorists have no respect for females and little respect for human life. 
    Are we as Canadians doing all we can to support our brave men and women in uniform? 
    On May 18, 2004, the Ontario Liberal Party introduced a controversial new tax called the Ontario health premium, breaking its campaign promise to not raise taxes. In the case of Canada's military, the federal government directly provides for military health care. Although military members are excluded by law from being members of provincial health care plans, the Ontario Liberals collect almost $30 million in premiums from 40,000 regular and reserve military members in Ontario.
     The Liberals in Ontario tried to justify this blatant tax grab from soldiers by saying that the premiums pay for services to dependents, even though many soldiers are not married or have no dependents. Yet when the Phoenix Centre for Children and Families in Renfrew County requested $400,000 to hire therapists and child care counsellors to treat the high levels of anxiety, depression and even trauma among the children and caregivers of military personnel, Mary Anne Chambers, the Minister of Children and Youth Services in Toronto, wrote back saying that, and I refer to her October 3, 2006 letter to Phoenix Centre executive director Greg Lubimiv, supports and services to families and children are a federal responsibility. 
    As the member of Parliament for the riding that includes CFB Petawawa, I was recently contacted by a military couple who, tragically, lost their baby a few weeks after it was born. As both husband and wife are military, they do not have OHIP coverage because the federal government provides for health care directly. As the child died a few weeks after birth, the child would not be covered by OHIP because neither parent has an OHIP number to extend coverage to the child even though both parents are paying thousands of dollars in health care premiums to the provincial government. 
    This couple received a bill for thousands of dollars. They are Canadian citizens. They are in uniform in service to their country, but they are being treated like second class citizens by the Province of Ontario.
    In the previous Parliament, I provided other examples of how military personnel are unfairly treated when it comes to the provision of services in the province of Ontario. I say to Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party, “Stop trying to pass the buck”. If he is not going to provide services to families and children of our military personnel, he should give back the money he took from them, the $30 million.
     The Government of Canada, through the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is doing its part. The people of Canada are doing their part. It is time for the Province of Ontario to get onside and do its part.
    I will close my remarks by talking about supporting red Fridays. Close colleagues know that red is not a part of my wardrobe; however, I feel so strongly about supporting our troops that I am prepared to make the compromise every Friday as long as necessary to show my support. 
    The red Fridays campaign, which began in the U.S.A. in 2005, has been taking Canada by storm since last February. This campaign to show support for our Canadian military is a popular Friday event in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, with everyone out and about sporting as much red as they can.
    Two military spouses from Petawawa, Karen Boire and Lisa Miller, organized the massive red Friday rally on Parliament Hill last September to start the campaign. Why? It is because it is easy to do, does not cost a penny, unless a person does not own something red to start, like myself, and is so powerful in and of itself. 
    Friday seemed an appropriate day to acknowledge our support since many workplaces have a relaxed dress day on Friday. 
    During these troubled times worldwide, many Canadians feel helpless. They want to support our troops but are not sure how. Wearing red on Fridays is a very visible, tangible way to acknowledge the sacrifices of not only our troops but also their families. I ask everyone to join this wonderful campaign and let us see Canada turn red this one day from coast to coast.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion. To quote military spouse Sandi Evans, who joined the crowd on Saturday to see the lighting of Canada's tallest Christmas tree in honour of our soldiers and their families, “It's just nice to see everyone coming together to support our troops in Afghanistan”.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2006)

Second part:
*The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  * 
    I did not interrupt the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke while she named another member of the House. She also looked at me straight in the eye when she did it. I want to give her fair warning that if she does it again while I am in the Chair I will interrupt her.
*Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, less than six weeks ago, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore had a motion before the House which would have gone a long way to support some of the veterans and some of the members currently serving on some issues.
    The member's motion is good and we will support it but I must ask why she did not support the previous motion. Why did the entire Conservative caucus oppose the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and then, six weeks later, introduce this motion?
    How does she reconcile the spirit of the opposition to that motion and support for this motion?
*Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite is referring to the private member's motion dealing with military pensions. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this misconception and demystify this false perception.
    When military personnel retire on pension they receive a full pension until age 65. In addition to what they contributed to CPP and their military pension, they receive, prior the time they retire at age 65, a bridging benefit. When they reach age 65, CPP then kicks in. In reality, the money they receive between the actual time of retirement and age 65 is a benefit they have not paid for. The attempt is to have that bridging benefit equal to what they would be receiving upon turning age 65.
    Sometimes people do opt to collect their CPP earlier than age 65, thereby taking a lower amount. What happens is that at age 65, while they would have received a more even amount but because the option was taken at an earlier age, it does appear that they are receiving a lower pension income but that is in lieu of them taking the earlier CPP.
*Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for bringing the motion to the House and for the good work she does on the defence committee and her overwhelming commitment to our men and women in uniform.
    We on the committee have had the opportunity to travel to CFB Edmonton and CFB Petawawa and, hopefully, there will be further travel to visit our troops. Could she be a little more specific about the kind of equipment that is needed, which is referred to in her motion, and also some of the support enhancements that need to be done at home to ensure that the folks left at home are being properly cared for.
*Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the committee has travelled to CFB Petawawa and CFB Edmonton and the overwhelming response has been that they are appreciative of the equipment they have received so far. They would, of course, like boots that would last a little longer than what they are issued. They would also like to practice with the night vision goggles they have in theatre prior to deployment.
    Here at home we need to, as was mentioned in my speech, do what we can to help families who are keeping the home fires burning. The federal government is filling every request that comes along within its jurisdiction. We have a request, for example, from the Phoenix Centre for Children in Pembroke that services all of Renfrew county but has very limited resources to serve the children in the area which is suffering from a surge in having to help children through this tough time.
*Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the member's Motion No. 244 would reaffirm the House's commitment to Canada's military personnel.
    All members of the House and all Canadians support our personnel, whether they are in Canada or deployed elsewhere. However, one of the requirements we have as citizens is that when we send our troops in harm's way, whether we agree or disagree with the policy, we all support the troops. There is absolutely no question about that.
    The Canadian Forces have some of the finest soldiers in the world. We are always supportive and committed to their fine work, whether it is in Afghanistan or elsewhere, for the country and the sacrifices they continue to make. In that context, I commend the hon. member for reading that moving poem. It is indicative of the loss and the feelings that families suffer and the pride they feel for the work the soldiers do in theatre.
    As is the case generally with the government, it makes lots of noise about supporting the troops but when it comes to concrete measures for the current and former military personnel, it prefers to make noises of support rather than take the opportunity to take concrete measures.
    A case in point is the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families. The whole of the government caucus, without exception, like trained seals, stood and opposed the motion. I do not know what happened to their concept of free votes at that time nor do I know what happened to their concept of support for the troops or for veterans at that point. 
    We are now faced with a new motion to essentially to whitewash the actual sin of opposing that other motion. We do support this motion. All of the opposition parties actually voted for the earlier motion that I talked about.
    I have another example with respect to the government. Back in October the government promised to fix the glitch that has resulted in injured soldiers losing their danger pay. The minister said that it would take but a few weeks and here we are two months later and there is still no resolution. The fact is that the troops are continuing to be denied their danger pay, as they ought not to be. The minister has not been able to explain the position with respect to danger pay. Why is it taking such a long time to deal with this very important issue?
    I will now go to the issue around Afghanistan in general. That is the same government that tricked this whole House into passing a motion to extend that mission with only a six hour debate. Right in the middle of the remarks by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister issued a threat. He said, first, that whether or not the House passed that motion he would have extended the mission in any event by one more year and, second, that he could actually take us into an election.
    That is how the government works. It works by gimmicks, tricks and threats. As a result of the government's action in rushing that ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-prepared motion to extend the mission, we now have a situation where the NATO countries are not there to share the burden in Kandahar. The government did not ask the NATO partners for up front guarantees before we extended the mission for two more years for additional troops and for the removal of the caveats. The fact is that the government rushed into that extension without any thought or preparation whatsoever.
    The fact is that the Prime Minister went to Afghanistan, wore a flak jacket and started talking in Bushian and Rumsfeldian terms. He pushed us into this two-year extension for which the NATO partners are not coughing up additional resources and there has been a minor or superficial change in the caveats that should have been changed.
    In terms of the equipment, the government has talked a good line. The Conservatives have talked the line of transparency, openness and accountability. The fact is that we are not now spending billions of dollars on equipment that is needed but spending on sole sourcing and fake competitions. There was a fake competition regarding the C-17, the strategic lift. With respect to the tactical lift, all of the requirements were essentially going to go toward one logical conclusion. Whether it is the Chinooks or the Hercules, all of those billions of dollars are being spent without any competition whatsoever.
    We know that inside or outside of government, when there is no competition to obtain equipment or whatever else is needed, we do not get the best deals. The government obviously has forgotten that it had promised to deal with the procurement process, make it more open, make it more accountable, and make it more competitive. It has actually made it less so.
   In terms of the Conservatives' ability to get the equipment quickly, the Martin government actually made announcements to proceed on some of these purchases. The present government actually abandoned and delayed that process by several months. Therefore, our troops, in theatre or not, are not going to get that equipment as early as they ought to have received it. The government has essentially reannounced the joint support announcement and many other announcements with respect to this.
    The overall issue is that the government is rushing into buying equipment without competition, without a full defence capabilities plan. The defence capabilities plan is what actually defines or assesses the needs of the Canadian Forces and then puts the assessment of those needs in full view of the public for discourse and dialogue. The government has not had the courage, the conviction or the tendency to be open to allow the defence capabilities plan to be out in the open. I understand it is languishing somewhere on the cabinet table and it is not being made public at this point.
    The overall issue with the government is that in an unplanned fashion it has been dealing with the procurement process for the Afghanistan mission and the foreign policy questions. Whenever the government has no plans, it resorts to simply picking up policy from the shelves of the United States of America and sometimes goes further ahead of even the U.S. in pursuing U.S.-like policies.
   We have not been able to see any evidence of the government going to the table to NATO and saying the mission in Afghanistan is not working. There is rampant corruption in that government and there is a porous border with Pakistan. In Pakistan there is a Talibanization of northern Pakistan. Suicide bombers are coming into Afghanistan killing our soldiers and killing innocent civilians. 
  This government has not dealt with that issue or with the infiltration at the border with Iran into Afghanistan. It has not engaged in tough diplomatic efforts to deal with this. It has not engaged in tough dialogue with NATO to ensure that NATO reviews this mission and determines how we can succeed.
     Right now we are losing soldiers. They are making great sacrifices, but ultimately I do not see a huge amount of success in Afghanistan. We are not in Afghanistan just to educate girls. That is a great thing. There are dozens of other countries where that needs to be done. We are there to deal with terrorism, so that terrorism does not take hold again. We need to win the hearts and minds of Afghanis and Canadians. On both those fronts, this government is losing the war.
*The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  * 
    The hon. member for Vancouver South is an experienced parliamentarian. He was present in the House and heard me admonish the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke about naming a member of the House. The next time the member refers to the previous government, he might want to refer to it as the government of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and not name members of the House. I would like this admonishment to count for all members.
    The hon. member for Papineau.
*Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am astonished that it is necessary to make such a motion.
    In my opinion, and no doubt in the opinion of most members of our society, because our soldiers are required to work in such dangerous conditions, it follows that they must have the best possible equipment and the support they need. 
    Could it be that, for years, we have so neglected our basic duty to these soldiers, who risk their lives to preserve others' lives, that a motion is needed today in order for the government to provide them with an essential: quality equipment?
    But we are not talking about updating the army's equipment annually to keep step with technological advances, even though I feel that this is necessary in many respects. What we are saying is that it is unacceptable that soldiers should be at the front with outdated or non-operational weapons or equipment.
    However, this motion is warranted, because Canadian soldiers do not have the best weapons or the best equipment to do their jobs. An example of this would be the fact that Canadian soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan not long ago with the wrong type of camouflage. Such negligence puts them at greater risk and compromises their safety.
    In addition, soldiers are increasingly fighting for their survival, especially during the increasingly dangerous missions they are called on to undertake. They need equipment adapted to these new situations and the specific risks they face. For example, the Iltis jeeps proved to be unsuited to the Afghan mission. We must not forget that this cost the lives of at least three soldiers.
    Moreover, Canada lacks the clear foreign and defence policies that are needed before troops are sent on dangerous missions. With such policies, Canada could set specific parameters and more effectively plan for missions for which it would be called on to deploy troops. Preliminary studies would help in accurately determining needs, the type of assistance required from Canada, the number of soldiers we actually have and the appropriate equipment for conditions in the field.
    It goes without saying that the conditions in Kosovo were not the same as they are for the soldiers in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the lack of forecasting in our foreign policy and our defence policy indicates that the Conservatives are amateurs at this, just like the Liberals were.
    We realize there are budgetary constraints. We are in favour of mechanisms that ensure that we have the best equipment at the best price, namely by having open and honest tenders. In June, the government did not respect this principle in every procurement contract. The Bloc Québécois would like to see the taxpayers' money used wisely, which is why it is recommending the implementation of adequate control mechanisms, including the review in committee of contracts worth more than $100 million. I want to remind hon. members that the former Canadian Alliance members, who now make up the Conservative Party, were in favour of this measure when they were in the opposition.
    It is also important to plan for maximum spinoffs from the military contracts to benefit Canada and Quebec. The government's behaviour on that front has us concerned. It did not think it was a good idea to adopt measures to ensure that a significant portion of the planes would be made in Canada, in Quebec in particular, where 55% of Canada's aerospace industry is found. 
    Furthermore, we find that one way to minimize the need for military intervention is to focus on achieving the UN target of investing 0.7% of GDP by 2015 in official development assistance programs. This objective was adopted by the United Nations in 1970 and Canada promised to respect it.
    Nonetheless, since the early 1990s, the official development assistance envelope has not stopped shrinking, going from a little less than 0.5% in 1991-92 to 0.25% in 2000-01. In 2004, Canada ranked 14th out of the 22 countries that make up the OECD Development Assistance Committee, when it was sixth nine years earlier.
    In summary, weapons and materiel are only part of the equation. A good strategy on the ground, based on a proper concept of the international situation, is vital. Adequate development assistance is also a vital prerequisite. It seems clear that what is currently lacking in Afghanistan is not just equipment, but the means for reconstruction and programs likely to improve the living conditions of the average Afghan. That is what will ultimately keep the soldiers alive and make their mission a success.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2006)

Third Part:
*Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the NDP will support the motion before the House today. We support the Canadian military having the best equipment and support possible. At the NDP convention in September, during a plenary meeting on foreign policy, the party supported just such a motion and an even more specific motion, offering support to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.
    What does support for our troops really mean? Does it mean providing the best possible equipment and fair pay and benefits? Absolutely. In the 2005 budget, which my party renegotiated, NDP members supported an increase in military spending. We realized that the Liberal cuts of the past had hurt soldiers and their families and had undermined Canada's ability to carry out humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.
    Does it mean providing compensation and adequate support once our soldiers retire? Absolutely. That is why the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the NDP veterans affairs critic, put forward the veterans' first motion. That motion was passed in the House, but we have had no indication from the government whether it will respect the will of the House. His motion supports getting rid of the so-called gold digger clause so second spouses of Canadian Forces members and veterans have access to pension rights after veterans' deaths.
    It supports extending the veterans independence program to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the veteran's time of death or whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his or her death. It supports increasing the survivor's pension amount to 66% from the current 50% so military pensions are more in line with the pensions of civil servants. It supports eliminating the unfair reduction of the service income security insurance plan long term disability benefits for medically released members of the Canadian Forces. It also supports eliminating the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled Canadian Forces members. These are excellent proposals supported by a majority vote in the House and the government should move to implement them to really show support for our troops.
    I have asked the minister on several occasions, both here and in committee, about support for soldiers who get a pay cut when they are wounded and return to Canada. Members of the forces who are wounded and return from Afghanistan for medical reasons lose their danger pay. Along with the pain and anguish of having a wounded father or mother, families now have to cope with losing money that they were expecting and had planned on when they did their budgeting.
    The minister promised he would fix it. He told me in October that it would only be a matter of weeks. Now the weeks have come and gone and there is still no resolution to this problem. The government should show its support for the troops by simply fixing this problem. It cannot be that difficult.
    Supporting our troops also means telling our soldiers how long they will be away from their families. There have been claims made that to sustain our commitment in Afghanistan until 2009, we may have to extend rotations from six to nine months. There has been talk of re-rolling airmen and sailors to Afghanistan. In question period I asked the Minister of National Defence to clarify this and to give some assurances to military families about how long their loved ones would be deployed. He gave no definitive answer. He was very vague, in fact. 
   Does supporting our troops mean supporting each and every mission, without question, where cabinet decides to send the Canadian Forces? I think not. One of our main roles here as members of Parliament is to hold the executive of government to account. We cannot be mere cheerleaders for the spending and misadventures of the executive branch of government.
    The most significant decision that any government can make is to send our forces into harm's way in war. The most important role of opposition members of Parliament is to ask the tough questions, to prod the government to ensure that when members of the Canadian Forces are put in harm's way, it is done with good reason. There are many instances in our past where this decision was made for all the right reasons, but that cannot stop us from questioning the decisions of prime ministers to go to war.
    Many people may not realize that the military does not get to say no. When the previous Liberal government announced its deployment to Afghanistan, it gave the top generals 45 minutes notice, and they could not say no to the government. Questioning missions and motives is not the role of our soldiers. It is something that we must do as parliamentarians. Supporting our troops should be more than just a slogan. It should be more than just rhetoric. It should be real.
*Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to support the motion tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I point out all the fine work that my colleague, the member from Renfrew, has done when it comes to support for the military.
    When it comes to the defence critic for the opposition, the member for Vancouver South, I will not use the word “honourable” this time. The fact that anyone would stand in the House and politicize such a thing, as has happened today, is shameful and disgusting. With a friend like that to the military, it does not need enemies.

*   Mr. Charlie Angus:* You did not fight for the veterans. You have a lot of nerve.

*   Mr. Larry Miller: * There is another gentleman behind me who wants to—


*    Some hon. members:* Oh, oh!

*The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  * 
    The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has the floor. I need to hear what he has to say.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.
*Mr. Charlie Angus:  * 
    Mr. Speaker, we allowed the other speakers to speak. We made no mention of the fact of how they turned down the veterans charter. For them to now stand up and make a cheap remark like that—
*The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  * 
    I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. That was not a point of order, but a point of debate. 
    I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound could finish his remarks and then we will go on to the next speaker.

*Mr. Larry Miller*:  
    Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of politicization we should not hear on such an issue.
    On a more serious note, I acknowledge and recognize the family of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Michel Joseph Girouard who is here today. My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I realize I am not supposed to say the family is in the House. It was not deliberate.
     Unfortunately, Mr. Girouard was recently killed in battle in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family. Mr. Girouard was based in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and lived in the city of Owen Sound for five years, while based at the Land Force Training Centre in Meaford.
    The motion today asks that the House affirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and continue to provide it with the best possible equipment and support to carry out its responsibilities. 
    Canada has always been able to turn to its military men and women when we have needed them. Their tasks have been numerous and often dangerous. Whether defending our domestic shores, fighting forest fires in British Columbia, rescuing a floundering ship's crew in the Maritimes, providing flood relief in Manitoba or participating abroad in missions ranging from humanitarian assistance to combat, we have been able to count on the Canadian Forces.
   Although many people expected a declining role for the military in the post-Cold War security environment of the 1990s, the world remained a dangerous and unpredictable place. In the 21st century, Canada faces new security challenges like global terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failed and fragile states.
    I do not have to remind the House that 24 Canadians died in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, attacks in places like Madrid, Bali, London and Istanbul have reminded us of the terrible toll of international terrorism and the constant threat it presents. 
   The Canadian Forces stand ready to defend us at home and abroad. 
    More than 3,000 of our armed forces will celebrate the holidays this year deployed on overseas operations, away from their loved ones, their families and their friends. While many of us are busy making holiday plans and decorating our homes, at least 8,000 Canadian Forces members are preparing for, engaging in, or returning from an overseas mission. Here at home, another 10,000 soldiers, sailors and air force personnel are diligently working to defend our territory and its approaches, to assert our sovereignty and to serve our communities. This does not include the many soldiers, sailors and air force personnel working to provide support and assistance to ongoing operations.
    The demands of the Canadian Forces are significant. It is important that they know that our commitment to them and to the vital work that they are doing remains steadfast. The Canadian Forces are defending our national interests, the security of our country, and the economic prosperity of the Canadian people and promoting Canadian values, democracy and freedom.
    We have a clear need for a three ocean navy, a robust army, a revitalized air force and a responsive special forces, an integrated team standing prepared to defend Canada and democracy. The House must continue to provide our Canadian Forces the support they need to carry out these responsibilities. 
    Right from the beginning of the government's mandate, we have demonstrated our intention to rebuild and revitalize the Canadian Forces. The Minister of Finance announced an additional $5.3 billion for defence over the next five years in the 2006 budget. We must not stop there.
    We recognize the Canadian Forces have long term requirements that need to be addressed. The government is working to address the serious equipment, personnel, and infrastructure challenges created by many years of neglect. There is no denying that it is going to take time and a significant amount of investment to bring the Canadian Forces back up the level where they once proudly stood. We are looking for the House to support us in this important task.
   The government has moved to ensure that the forces serving in Afghanistan and on other deployments both in Canada and abroad possess the right training and equipment to deal with the challenges of their missions.
    In June of this year we moved forward with a series of equipment purchases and related support services valued at $17.1 billion. The Minister of National Defence announced the planned purchase of four strategic lift aircraft, 17 tactical lift aircraft, six medium to heavy lift helicopters and 2,300 medium size logistic trucks, plus three supply ships.
     We will increase the size of the Canadian Forces. Over time our military will grow by 13,000 regular forces and 10,000 reserves. By doing so, the Canadian Forces will have enough trained people to handle the many tasks imposed on them. To meet these targets, the Canadian Forces are expanding and streamlining our recruitment and training systems. This has brought significant success. In fact, as of this month, we are starting to see applications being processed within one week. Previously this was unattainable.
    Canadians are doing their part by visiting our recruiting centres and signing up to serve. Interest in the Canadian Forces as a career is growing. Last year the recruiting targets were exceeded by 6% and Department of National Defence officials are confident that we will hit its recruiting targets this year.
    We are also dedicated to taking better care of those who have readily and unselfishly pledged to defend and protect us. Canadians who have chosen a military career, those who have answered what our Prime Minister called the highest calling of public service, have more than just demanding jobs. They cope with significant stress. Their jobs are often dangerous. The physical demands can be daunting. They deal with long separations from their homes, their families and their friends. They miss birthdays, special holidays, first words and first steps, and as we all know, some have made the ultimate sacrifice. These burdens are shouldered by not only the members of the military but by their families.
     In April of this year we launched the new veterans charter. This represents the most profound transformation of veterans services and benefits since the second world war. This new charter builds on existing services and benefits to help traditional war service veterans live with dignity and address emerging needs of a new and different type of veteran. It contains provisions for job placement assistance to help military retirees transition into the civilian workforce. Our Canadian Forces have served with duty, honour, loyalty, integrity and courage, and they deserve our support during and after their military service.
    In closing, we must continue to provide them with the proper equipment. We must continue to reinforce their skills with the proper training. This government is showing that support. We will continue to show that support. I ask every member in this House to also show his or her support.
*Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, as a former defence minister, I had the honour of seeing our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces at work fighting forest fires in British Columbia, cleaning up the devastation from hurricanes in Halifax, doing their job in Bosnia, in Kabul, Most poignantly back in June 2002 I saw them under the most difficult conditions in Kandahar where the temperature was 50° Celsius but one hardly noticed the heat because of all the sand in one's eyes. Over all those experiences no one has acquired a greater admiration than I have for the bravery, the commitment and the dedication of those brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.
    I remember battling the bureaucracy once to fight a stupid rule which we managed to change whereby it was said that a soldier who lost his legs in the service of his or her country would get several hundred thousand dollars in compensation, but only if that person was the rank of colonel or above. No one has to be a genius to figure out that most of those likely to lose their limbs would be of a lower rank. We got that through but we had to fight the bureaucracy to do it.
    That brings me to my point about the government, because words are cheap. I find the government's actions lacking. If the government were true in its commitment to our brave men and women, it would have taken on the bureaucracy but it has failed to do so. I will give three examples. 
    First, on the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the government members all stood up like trained seals and voted against the measure which would have brought real assistance to current and past members of our Canadian Forces in terms of their pensions and disabilities. Why did they do that?
    The second example was already raised by my colleague. Injured soldiers in Afghanistan lose their danger pay. The Minister of National Defence said a couple of months ago that he would fix that quickly. He has not fixed it yet. The months go by. I know defence. I know the bureaucracy will give him 101 reasons why it cannot be done, but he is the minister and the Conservatives are the government. If they had the will to help those injured soldiers, they would order the bureaucracy to do it and it would have been done some time ago.
    We hear nice words from over there. Where is the action? Where is the fight against the bureaucracy to do what is right for our brave men and women in Afghanistan subject to those injuries?
    My third example has to do with the vote in the House of Commons some months ago to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Even though I as a former defence minister have huge support and admiration for our brave men and women, I voted against that motion on the grounds that it was blatantly political and exhibited disrespect not only to parliamentarians but far more important, disrespect to the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces. 
    When we are making life and death decisions, there are two ways to go. Either we do it through the cabinet, the defence minister and the Prime Minister who have access to all the information, or we do it though parliamentarians as they do in Holland. There it takes weeks or months. There are hearings and the parliamentarians then have the full amount of information on which to make an informed decision. Those are two legitimate processes.
    What is a totally illegitimate process is the few hours of debate in which parliamentarians were asked to vote with absolutely no information. Parliamentarians were asked to make life and death decisions after a few hours of debate as part of a blatantly political process in which no information was given.
    In my view such a move as the Prime Minister made is not only insulting to parliamentarians in asking them to vote with no information on a critical issue, but it is also insulting to our men and women of the Canadian Forces, that their fate would be decided on the basis of a process where those voting yes or no were not given any information.
    I will support this motion because no one supports our men and women of the Canadian Forces more than I do. However, I would challenge the government to not just deal with words but to deal with actions. I challenge the government to stand up for those who are injured and not allow their danger pay to be taken away; to stand up to the bureaucracy in terms of the levels of pensions and benefits; and when life and death decisions are being, made to do so with a process that is respectful of those whose lives are put in danger.
*Mr. Paul Szabo:  * 
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the House gives its consent, maybe we could see the clock as at the end of private members' business so the member will have a full period of time for his speech. He would be the first up next time.
*
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  * 
    Is that agreed? 
*    Some hon. members: * Agreed.
*    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):* The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. When we next deal with this matter, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will have the floor.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2006)

From 12 December 2006:
*National Defence *​  
*Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is about to spend $4.9 billion for aircraft that the Pentagon no longer wants because they have so many defects.
    Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence tell us that if Canada wishes to purchase these planes for $188 million, or three times the cost to Americans, who paid between $44 million and $67 million per plane, it is because the Lockheed Martin officials declared that they have fixed the main defects of these planes?
    We are about to pay three times the price for planes that the Americans no longer want. 
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I read the news reports. They are based on information provided by competitors that is basically fallacious. There are no technical problems with the C-130 and we are getting them at the proper price.
*Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, official U.S. reports list the main defects of these planes and the U.S. wishes to terminate its contract.
    Does the Minister of National Defence realize that he is no longer a lobbyist and that his job is not to maximize a company's profit at the expense of taxpayers, but to make the best investment with taxpayers' money?
    That is his work. Above all we must never repeat the error already made when we spent millions of dollars to buy old submarines that *never worked properly.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the requirements were set by the military. This aircraft meets the requirements. We will not purchase paper aircraft or paper trucks
-----------------
*National Defence  *​*Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, today Le Devoir reported on a controversy that has been raging in the U.S. It is over Lockheed Martin's C-130J, the plane that the Minister of National Defence seems to be determined to buy. 
   The Pentagon's inspector general describes the plane as one that cannot perform search and rescue operations, cannot perform night operations, and has difficulties in cold weather. How can it protect our Canadian Arctic?
    Will the minister please explain to the House how this plane fits into his national defence capabilities plan, the plan he still has not finished?
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this aircraft meets the requirements of the military as a medium lift aircraft and meets all the requirements, including weather.
*Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, that is not the opinion of the Pentagon. It is likely that these planes are going to turn out to be lemons, just like the Victoria class submarines.
    The minister has been running a closed shop on procurement. The Minister of Industry met with Boeing last spring in Washington, a closed door meeting, about helicopters. There are only two companies left to build support ships and the truck contract was written so that only one supplier could possibly fulfill it. 
    Inside the department, it is unclear who is driving this process. Is it the minister, is it Rick Hillier?
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take another acting lesson. 
    The requirements set for aircraft, trucks and ships are set by the military and go through a competitive process with the defence department, industry department and public works. We have followed all those processes. Whatever the results are, they are done through a fair, competitive and open process.
*Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the requirements identified by DND for the purchase of tactical aircraft were designed to eliminate all aircraft except the C-130J. This is very much like a contract directed to Lockheed Martin masquerading as a competition at the expense of the taxpayers.
    Given that the competition in defence procurement always favours better equipment at a better price, why was this process manipulated to limit the competition to one particular aircraft?
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question four times today, but I will try again. The military set the requirements for this aircraft. After a rigorous process, it discovered that the C-130J met the requirements and it was the only aircraft that met the requirements.
*Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, during the committee of the whole debate, the minister admitted that he was not aware of the price we were about to pay for the C-130J. The government's purchase price of $3.2 billion suggests a price of $188 million per plane. Italy is paying approximately $80 million for the same product. 
    Could the minister tell us why his government plans to pay $100 million more per plane? That is a scandalous $1.7 billion for 17 planes.
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I have also answered this question previously. The price per aircraft is $85 million U.S. That is what we are paying. All the other costs involve spare parts, training, project management, et cetera.
*Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question in French. 
    Just when the Department of National Defence is about to spend $4.9 billion, without a call for tenders, on planes that even the Pentagon no longer wants, we learn that the Lockheed Martin C-130J has neither civil certification nor the upgrading capabilities to meet the needs of our armed forces. Some experts even say this plane is dangerous and inadequate.
    How can the minister justify spending $188 million per plane, when the White House wanted to end its contract for these aircraft, which cost that administration under $80 million each? Why does he want to pass these lemons on to us?
*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, it might have been better if some of these members coordinated their questions today. They could have asked some other questions in Parliament. The answer is that the military set the requirements and the only aircraft that met the requirements was the C-130J. The military is quite happy with that choice.

*Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, let us try again the chief lobbyist, the defence man.
    Canada is about to buy expensive flying lemons. The minority Conservative government chose to buy, without any real competitive process, Lockheed Martin's C-130Js as a favour to its buddies in Washington. Not only are we about to pay more than double the original price, $188 million instead of $80 million per plane, but the technology in the flying jalopy has been ruled obsolete by the U.K. and unsafe by a U.S. military auditor.
    How does the minister justify spending $3.2 billion for 17 underperforming planes? Why such--
*The Speaker:  * 
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
*    Some hon. members:* Oh, oh!
*    The Speaker:* Order, please. The Prime Minister has been recognized to answer the question and everyone will want to hear the answer.
*Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence just pointed out the errors in the hon. member's question. We see here once again the Liberals opposing new equipment for our military under all circumstances, just as they did for 13 long years in office when they starved the military. However, it is amazing to what extent they are prepared to go to do it, saying that the White House and the Pentagon should pick Canada's planes. We are going to pick our own planes.
--------------------
*Foreign Affairs  *​*Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Globe and Mail carried a picture of the Prime Minister shaking hands with Afghan warlord Mullah Naqib, a man who admits using his influence to free a leading suspect in the masterminding of the suicide bombing that killed Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry and injured three of our soldiers.
    Can the Prime Minister explain Canada's relationship with Mullah Naqib and why he saw fit to meet with him?
*Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): *  
    Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I met Mullah Naqib when I visited the Canadian provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar, where he met me as part of a delegation of Canadian and Afghan officials. He was introduced to me as an individual who had been involved in the insurgency and was now working on our side.
     I would point out that if the hon. member reads the rest of the story carefully, she will see that much of the allegations in there are speculative.
*Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): *  
    Mr. Speaker, this situation gets worse. Not only did the Prime Minister stage a photo op with this shadowy warlord, he rolled out the welcome mat for Naqib to visit Canada.
    Is offering hospitality and a handshake to the warlord credited with subverting the police investigation into these tragic Canadian deaths the Prime Minister's concept of justice for the families of diplomat Glyn Berry and three of our soldiers wounded in action? Or, given Mullah Naqib's close association with the Taliban leadership, is this the Prime Minister's notion of dialogue with combatants? Which is it?
*Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  * 
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, I was introduced to Mullah Naqib, and in fact at the Glyn Berry room, at the provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. He was introduced to me as an individual who was assisting Canadian and Afghan government officials.
-------------------


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2006)

More from 12 Dec 06

*Canadian Forces Reservists  *​
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I was proud to participate in a Christmas parade of military vehicles along Whyte Avenue in my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona. The annual event was organized by Canadian Forces Reservists at the 15th Service Battalion Edmonton. 

    Led by Santa Claus in a light armoured vehicle, the procession made a stop at Edmonton Youth Emergency Shelter, where Santa and members of the unit distributed Christmas gifts. The parade ended at the Dianne and Irving Kipnes Centre for Veterans, where unit members hosted a reception for veterans and their families.

    Reservists raised money throughout the year and presented cheques worth $3,000 to both the Youth Emergency Shelter and the Kipnes Centre. This marks the battalion's ninth parade to share Christmas spirit and support worthy local charities.

    I am proud of the work our men and women in uniform are doing here at home and overseas. Our soldiers exemplify the highest ideal of public service, and it was an honour to support their efforts this weekend.

*   *   *​


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

Not much from 13 December 2006:
*Birthday Congratulations  *​
*Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, December 19 marks the 90th birthday of a great Canadian whose contributions to the arts, Canadian military history and Canadian diplomacy will long be remembered by future generations.
    Hamilton Southam was the founder and first director general of the National Arts Centre. Built in Canada's centennial year, Mr. Southam was on hand to witness its glittering opening night in 1969. 
    Mr. Southam is also a World War II veteran, serving in both the British Canadian Army and the Canadian Army. It was his determination that helped in the creation of a memorial honouring 14 valiant men and women. 
    Mr. Southam, as president of the Valiants Foundation, sought to recognize the contribution of our wartime heroes who gave outstanding wartime service to Canada during the last four centuries. 
    Unveiled in November of this year, the Valiants Memorial is another example of this remarkable man's contribution to Canadian military history.
     A true renaissance man, we salute Mr. Southam on this happy occasion.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Dec 2006)

The downside to posting these transcripts is that it makes me even more mental reading of the discusting political behaviour of our elected representatives.   

The Liberals criticizing actions that are virtually indistinguishable from theirs when in power (actually seeing support and equipment will mean a completely different result from their rule however), and the NDP continuing to yip, chihuahua-like, without needing to bother with reality because they will never be in power.

Kudos to Mr Miller:





			
				Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> *Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):* When it comes to the defence critic for the opposition, the member for Vancouver South, I will not use the word “honourable” this time. The fact that anyone would stand in the House and politicize such a thing, as has happened today, is shameful and disgusting. With a friend like that to the military, it does not need enemies.



Shame they have no equivalent concept of "actions not words," because even the NDP can obviously recognize the truth:


			
				Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> *Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):*  Many people may not realize that the military does not get to say no. When the previous Liberal government announced its deployment to Afghanistan, it gave the top generals 45 minutes notice, and they could not say no to the government. Questioning missions and motives is not the role of our soldiers. It is something that we must do as parliamentarians. Supporting our troops should be more than just a slogan. It should be more than just rhetoric. It should be real.






			
				Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> *Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):* That is the same government that tricked this whole House into passing a motion to extend that mission with only a six hour debate.


 Anyone "tricked" after SIX HOURS of what passes for debate in Commons is too stupid to have been allowed to run for election.   :


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2006)

Journeyman
I think that even with our collective IQ degrading due to reading HANSARD, I think it is part of the reason why.  We see, unedited and raw, what our elected officials are saying.  No sound bytes (or is it "bites"?) here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> From 22 Nov 2006:
> *Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):  *
> Mr. Speaker, the NDP has learned through access to information that a major fuel spill at the Canadian Forces installation at Alert went unreported at the time. The significant incident report which we obtained states that on September 6 of this year a flex expansion joint failed and 21,000 litres of jet fuel were spilled at Alert.
> Why did the government fail to inform northern Canadians? What actions has the minister taken to ensure this never happens again?
> ...



Where does the NDP find these nitwits?  Mr. Bevington, coming from the North, should know that all the _'northern Canadians'_ who might, possibly have been intersted in a fuel line break at Alert *are already in Alert*.  Alert is _waaaay_ far North of the northern most _natural_ Arctic settlement.

Sheesh!


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Dec 2006)

From the chamber of sober second thought, on buying planes, 13 Dec 06

National Defence
Procurement of Airlift Aircraft​
Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Actually, I wanted to ask it of the Minister of Public Works; he has been sitting there so quietly, not being interfered with by this side, I thought it was his turn. However, as he is not here today, I will address it to the Leader of the Government.

It is really a set of questions that our late colleague Senator Mike Forrestall asked me on October 18, November 22 and November 23 of last year. I always enjoyed Senator Forrestall's questions. He was quite knowledgeable about National Defence issues. He actually kept me up to date, although I was always running behind him to find the answers.

This question relates to the C-130J, which, it is clear from statements of the Minister of National Defence in the other place, is under serious consideration to be procured for the Canadian military. Of course, that aircraft, as Senator Forrestall knew, was being considered by the military when I was in the cabinet, and we had not completed our appraisals on the lamented day on which our government was defeated.

The question I am concerned about, however, is the same one that Senator Forrestall addressed, and that is an open and transparent process of procurement that provides the public with the comfort of knowing the reasons for which the aircraft is purchased and that it is the best plane for the purpose at the best price.

We have reports today that Europe's Airbus Military is proposing to sue the Canadian government over what it views as unfair tendering practices. It believes that it has not been given an open and level playing field in terms of competition with the C-130J, which is a Lockheed Martin aircraft.

Is the government assuring the Canadian public that the process will be and will remain open and competitive? To ensure that this is the case, because I know the minister cannot give a comprehensive answer at this moment, will the minister agree that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence would have the opportunity to examine Minister O'Connor and officials of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works so that the public can be convinced in the testimony they give that Airbus has indeed had a fair and equitable opportunity to compete for this contract?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in June, the government announced that it would require authorized, urgent equipment acquisitions by the Canadian Forces for obvious reasons. This morning, I saw the article to which the senator has referred. As he noted, I am not in a position to answer in detail. I will take the question as notice. I am quite certain that the ministers responsible — Minister Fortier as Minister of Public Works and Minister O'Connor as Minister of National Defence — like all ministers, are more than happy to appear before any committee when invited.

(1420)

Senator Austin: I thank the honourable leader for that answer. Three concerns have surfaced in the public domain: First, the American military are not prepared to contract for the C-130J; second, neither the C-130J nor the Airbus alternative has received its certificate of airworthiness; and third is the question of price. It is alleged that the government is proposing to pay exorbitant premiums in order to be the recipients of early delivery. I am not asking the leader to respond to those comments but, rather, I note that those issues will need be to considered.

Senator LeBreton: I thank Senator Austin for those comments. Certainly, I will include that information when the question is referred for a detailed response.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Dec 2006)

Senate, Delayed Answers to Oral Questions, 14 Dec 06
Link to transcript

Afghanistan—Visits by Parliamentary Delegations—Entertainment for Troops—Delivery and Allocation of Aid
(Response to question raised by Hon. Tommy Banks on November 8, 2006)​
The Government of Afghanistan elaborated its National Development Strategy (ANDS) to guide development efforts and measure progress over the next 5 years. The best and most lasting development progress is achieved when Afghans themselves are leading the way. Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), supports Afghan designed and led National Programs that bring benefits and basic services to Afghans across the country.

CIDA is implementing a two-track plan of stability in Kandahar, and nation building countrywide. While Canada's military engagement may be limited to the southern part of Afghanistan, Canada's development commitment and engagement supports Afghanistan and its citizens as a whole. Canada allocated $100 million for development in Afghanistan this year. The CIDA contribution to Kandahar is currently estimated to reach $20 million this year, based both on our support to National Programs, which will benefit Kandahar Province this year, and specific initiatives we are launching in Kandahar.

The majority of CIDA's funding support to reconstruction and development is directed towards supporting Afghan National Programs that are led by the Government of Afghanistan and planned and implemented in collaboration with international organizations and NGOs. In a fragile state like Afghanistan, supporting nation-wide programs reduces the potential of political and financial risks, and helps consolidate gains made in other, more secure parts of the country, ensuring that they do not fall into instability. Additionally, the institutional capacity to absorb $100 million in development funding is not currently in place in Kandahar, given the precarious security situation in the province.

The majority of CIDA's funding is channelled through reputable and well-managed partner organizations including the World Bank, UN organizations and internationally recognized NGOs. Each partner organization undertakes rigorous accounting and reporting procedures. Canada does not generally provide direct funding to the Afghan Government. There are two exceptions: 1) a small, 3-year pilot program management office, at a cost of approximately $1 million per year; and 2) an alternative livelihoods pilot project in Kandahar ($1 million, initially), which is implemented through the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. The institutional capacity of the Government of Afghanistan is continually improving, which will eventually enable them to take on a more substantial role in financial management.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2007)

From 30 Jan 07

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence was not forthcoming with Canadians about the nature of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.  Perhaps the Minister of Foreign Affairs can tell Canadians: Are we there to get retribution and revenge or are we there to destroy the Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan? Will the minister agree to our call for comprehensive parliamentary hearings on the mission to keep Canadians informed on an ongoing basis?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, of course we are there to help the people of Afghanistan. That is exactly what we are doing. We have in place an extensive network of NGOs working with Canadian officials on reconstruction, on efforts to elevate the people of Afghanistan in the areas of good governance, and in the areas of being able to provide more for their own in terms of education, policing, and building their own Afghan army capacity.  There has been ample debate here in this place. I am sure this will continue in parliamentary committees. We look forward to further debate and further discussion informing Canadians about the good work Canadians are doing in Afghanistan.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):   Mr. Speaker, on January 20 the Minister of National Defence said “this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution”. Yesterday in the House he insisted that he was right. These kinds of statements hurt the reputation of Canadians internationally. They undermine our efforts in Afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of the population.  Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not believe that his government needs to clearly reject the views of the Minister of National Defence on this very issue? 

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the Afghanistan compact that has now been in place just over a year, we are seeing economic development. We are seeing development that is making an enormous difference in the lives of Afghans.  We are seeing young girls in school for the first time in decades. We are seeing more women accessing microcredit. We are seeing roads built. We are seeing water put in place. We are seeing all sorts of economic development, coupled with the infrastructure that the Afghan people need.      There are a lot of naysayers on the other side. The member opposite was there recently and saw with his own eyes the progress that is being made.next intervention previous intervention

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to get the job done in Afghanistan when the government seems to be so unclear as to what the job is. Now we see an information strategy that is for five years. It goes right up to 2011. Will the job be done in 2011 or is there really no exit strategy at all?  

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday, but I will answer it again. The military produced a campaign plan based on the Afghanistan compact and upon government direction. The Afghanistan compact is five years, but in the plan it says specifically that it is committed to the end of February 2009 and that is it.  

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, yet again the defence minister seems to be the face of our role in Afghanistan. Therefore, why do we need information strategies? Why is the minister posting jobs for 80 image technicians in order to be able to explain to Canadians what we are doing there? When will the government join our call for full parliamentary hearings for all of the three d's of diplomacy, development and defence, so that Canadians can be part of defining our job there?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will certainly not be one of our image consultants.  The military, as I said, has built a plan. It has also built a communications plan because soldiers, when they return to Canada, unbridled, tell Canadians about their experiences. So far their experiences are quite positive. They believe in the mission and they believe in what they are doing.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Feb 2007)

Thanks for picking up the slack while I'm on course...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2007)

No worries!


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Feb 2007)

From 1 Feb 07

NOTE:  These appear to be the links Minister Verner is referring to:
CIDA Page on AFG 
CIDA’s Approach to Accountability and Risk Management in Afghanistan
Current Projects
Results

Afghanistan   

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   It is not only in terms of climate change that this government is embarrassing Canada abroad. A few days ago, the Minister of National Defence adopted thevocabulary of neo-conservative Americans when he said that our soldiers were in Afghanistan in retribution for the attacks of September 11.  The Prime Minister has still not denounced those remarks by his minister. I will give him the opportunity to do so today.  Can he declare that Canada will always intervene in the world, not for retribution, but to help preserve peace and security for all people? 

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, of course, we are there to help the Afghan people; but, once again, the leader of the Liberal Party is trying to change the subject of the environment and his failures that are documented in the 10 reports of the former Commissioner of the Environment.  The leader of the Liberal Party has said himself what would happen if he were returned to power, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don’t think I will make it”.  He did not make it and he still has no intention of succeeding in the future. 

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, how can the government represent Canada overseas if it cannot even explain to Canadians at home what we need to do in Afghanistan? This mission is not about retribution; it is about reconstruction. It is not about revenge; it is about rebuilding.  What is the minister of defence doing to re-balance the mission to increase development and reconstruction, so that our military efforts can actually succeed in building support for the Karzai government in the Kandahar region?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    Mr. Speaker--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Speaker:  Order, please. It is Thursday; it is not Wednesday. Hon. members should calm down. The Prime Minister has the floor to give an answer to the question.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:   Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what this mission is about. It is about the best traditions of this country: brave men and women putting on the Canadian uniform, defending freedom and democracy, and protecting the rights of people around the world. That is what they are doing. Our job is to support them. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows that, and he should tell his leader that.  

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, Canada has committed $100 million for development in Afghanistan, but this House remains completely in the dark about how those funds are being spent.  Can the Minister of International Cooperation tell us what accountability measures are in place to ensure that the funds dedicated to assistance and reconstruction are being spent wisely and for the direct benefit of the Afghan people? 

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):   Mr. Speaker, as we know, at the request of President Karzaï, the Government of Canada has made a commitment to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.  I would like to invite the member to consult the very complete Internet site that we put in place yesterday. He will find not only the amounts invested in Afghanistan, but also the results and the progress that we have made since we, on this side, committed $100 million per year.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2007)

From 6 Feb 07

National Defence

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, on the very first day the House convened last year, we asked for an emergency debate on the treatment of Afghan prisoners because of a deal that had been signed by the Chief of the Defence Staff during the middle of the last election, with the backing of the Liberals. It is a flawed agreement. It does not live up to the standards that Canada sets for human rights.  Today very serious allegations of abuse have been made against the Canadian Forces. Could the government tell us that the investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission will not be interfered with and that it will be a public investigation?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Forces are professional and well disciplined and they live by the best values of society. The alleged incident reported in the media today is under investigation and those investigations will determine the facts, whatever they are.  I assure the member that I do not interfere with, nor will ever interfere with, any investigative process.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does talk about openness and transparency frequently, but his government has introduced Bill C-7, a bill that would gut the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission. The forces have been through enough with what happened in Somalia and the allegations and the cover-ups.  Can the Prime Minister and the government not see that this time we have to set things right? We have to be above reproach here. What will be the timeline of the commission? Will it be a public investigation, and can we be sure that National Defence will disclose what really happened here?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, first, the Military Police Complaints Commission has not even determined whether it will get involved. It is investigating it right now.  However, I can assure the member that any board of inquiry, any reports that come from the investigations will be made public.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I also have a question regarding those allegations of possible violence by the Canadian Forces toward detainees under their guard.  According to article 7 of the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Canadian Forces must keep written records of detainees such as medical condition. Now it appears that some of these reports are missing.  Will the Minister of National Defence immediately table these missing reports and was he aware of these allegations before the official complaint of Mr. Attaran?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, there are two investigations going on, and perhaps three investigations, to find out whether there is any truth to this allegation. At the moment we have an allegation, which will be investigated. If there is truth to it, corrective action will be taken. If there is no truth to it, it will pass away.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, our support for our soldiers in Afghanistan is undeniable. I know they have to do superhuman work in extremely difficult conditions. However, the allegations on the condition of certain Afghan detainees are troubling. Our fellow citizens expect our Canadian Forces to reflect our values abroad and to respect international conventions.  I have two questions. When the Minister of National Defence caught wind of these allegations, was he already aware the situation before Mr. Attaran complained? And what does he intend to do to shed light on the matter?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I have just said that there are two investigations, possibly three investigations, going on which will determine whether records have been adjusted or not. We will have to wait for the outcome of the investigations.  

(...)

Afghanistan

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, today the media reported that Canadian soldiers in Kandahar mistreated Afghan prisoners. Such accusations are troubling and require speedy action on the part of the government.  Will the government commit here and now to fully investigate these serious accusations and not to imitate the Liberals who did everything in their power to hide the reprehensible conduct of soldiers during the events in Somalia?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are two investigations going on and potentially a third. Whatever results we get from these investigations will be made public. We will get at the root of the matter, if there is something to get at.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, there is another problematic aspect concerning the Canadian mission in Afghanistan: following up on the prisoners Canada transfers to the Afghan authorities.      Can the Minister of National Defence tell us why Canada does not have an agreement similar to that signed by the Netherlands, which enables them not only to follow up on what happens to prisoners, but also to visit them once they are turned over to Afghan authorities?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, we had an agreement signed in December 2005, which details the handling of prisoners. It also says that all rules of war must be followed. The Red Cross has reviewed this document. It has also reviewed our handling of prisoners. The president of the Red Cross said that we were doing outstanding work.

(....)


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2007)

From Hansard, 14 Feb 07

*Afghanistan* 

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, the release 
this morning of a study on Afghan hospitals by the Senlis Council again underscores
the imbalance between the military side of the mission in Afghanistan and the 
humanitarian side. We need to remember that in Bosnia, $325 per inhabitant was 
spent annually on humanitarian development, whereas in Afghanistan, less than 
$50 per inhabitant is being spent.  How many reports like this one will have to 
be issued before this government decides to rebalance Canada's mission in Afghanistan?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie 
and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did when we took power was 
to increase the budget for development in Afghanistan. In this way, we made sure we could 
do what we had set out to do in Afghanistan.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for 
the minister.  The disgraceful condition of the hospital in Kandahar, as described in this 
report, dramatically illustrates the weakness of the humanitarian side of the mission. We 
are talking about a place of death, not a hospital.  Given that the Taliban could launch 
an offensive in the spring, does the government not believe that investing in medical 
infrastructure would send a strong message that Canada is there to help the Afghan people?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie 
and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member does not seem to understand yet 
that Canada is there to provide Afghanistan with development assistance. We are closely 
monitoring the situation at the Kandahar hospital.  As you know, we are working with our 
partners in the field. As soon as needs are identified, we allocate funds so that projects 
can be carried out.



*National Defence*  

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, last week a senior DND official gave 
testimony at the defence committee that nothing had been done to implement the Conservative 
promises to 5 Wing Goose Bay. That is right, nothing, zilch, nada or, as we say in our part 
of the country, not a darned thing. He also said that Indian Affairs, not National Defence, 
is the lead department on northern and Arctic sovereignty.  Since the Minister of National 
Defence has washed his hands of the file, I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern 
Development this. What are his plans for his base at 5 Wing Goose Bay?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I find this the height 
of hypocrisy. It was this member, a member of the Liberal Party, whose intention was to close 
the base in Goose Bay, who is asking these questions. It is our government that is maintaining 
Goose Bay. We will maintain it into the future and we will give it an operational requirement, 
not those people.

(....)

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence knows a lot 
about hypocrisy and I say to him that if my question is not for him, then stand down, general. 
My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.  If he cannot 
remember what he promised the people of 5 Wing Goose Bay, I can send him a DVD. He promised 
a UAV squadron and a rapid reaction battalion for Goose Bay, perhaps the same battalion of 
rapid reaction he wanted to send to five other places across Canada.  I ask the Minister of 
Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is now in charge of defending the north, will 
he honour the Goose Bay commitments made by his absent-minded colleague in the Department 
of National Defence?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker:  Order. We will have some order. The Minister of National Defence now has the 
floor. We will have order please.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, we will meet our 
commitments to the north. We will meet our commitments to Goose Bay, unlike the previous 
government which was planning to cut Goose Bay and eliminate all the jobs.

(....)

_ NOTE:  Here's the 15 Jan 06 news 
release outlining the CPC's campaign platform on Atlantic military presence:_



> .... Under the "Canada First" plan, a Conservative government will:
> 
> - Improve the Atlantic Fleet by purchasing two new replenishment ships, a new transport ship,
> and frigate and submarine upgrades. A program to replace the existing frigates and destroyers
> ...



_*SHAMELESS SELF PROMO ALERT: *  News Releases issued during the last election campaign 
by the CPC on defence issues can be found here._


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2007)

From Hansard (Commons), 15 Feb 07

Star of Military Valour

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Sergeant Patrick Tower, 
who served at CFB Wainwright, will become one of the first ever recipients of Canada's Star of 
Military Valour.  In true soldier fashion, Sergeant Tower insists that he was just doing his 
job when he led two of his comrades through 150 metres of enemy fire to help a group of Canadian 
soldiers who were pinned down and had suffered heavy casualities.  Later that day Sergeant Tower 
learned that four soldiers, including his best friend, were killed during the battle. His courage 
and selfless devotion to duty figured significantly in the survival of the remaining platoon members.
A soldier since the age of 17, Sergeant Tower is proud of his troops, his country and his mission 
and he humbly points to those who did not come home as the true heroes.  However, when heroes do 
manage to come home, like Sergeant Tower, it is a privilege to recognize and thank them for their
service to Canada, to peace and to democracy, and I am humbled to do so today.  Thanks and well 
done Sergeant Tower.

(....)

Juno Beach Centre  


Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Juno Beach Interpretation 
Centre in Normandy, France is an excellent facility that commemorates the role and the sacrifice 
of Canada's military during the second world war.  A group of World War II veterans formed the 
Juno Beach Association and with their president, Garth Webb, they were the driving force behind 
the creation of the centre.  It is acknowledged as a forum for learning and building awareness 
of the role of Canada in the world.  Increased demand has created financial challenges for the 
centre. What is the government doing to assist in the operation of the only facility in Europe 
where Canada commemorates the second world war?

Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance 
to pay tribute to our veterans, the corporate citizens and more than 18,000 individual Canadian 
donors who made the Juno Beach Centre a reality. They were determined to have a lasting memorial 
to honour the men and women who made remarkable efforts during the second world war. The centre 
was built on the Normandy coast.  Today, at Lester Pearson Catholic High School, the Prime Minister 
and I had a chance to recognize veterans like Garth Webb and, to show our unwavering support, we 
announced $5 million in funding over the next decade so the Juno Beach Centre will never again be 
in jeopardy.

(....)

From Hansard (Senate), 15 Feb 07

(....)

National Defence

Cost of Recruitment Advertising

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to 
continue with the questions concerning advertising asked yesterday of the minister. Can the 
minister tell us the total cost of the recruitment advertising campaign for the Canadian Forces 
this year?

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would like to 
remind senators of rule 24(1), which states:  When the Speaker calls the Question Period, a 
Senator may, without notice, address an oral question to:  (a) the Leader of the Government 
in the Senate, if it is a question relating to public affairs, (b) a Senator who is a Minister 
of the Crown, if it is a question relating to his ministerial responsibility, or (c) the 
Chairman of a committee, if it is a question relating to the activities of that committee.  In 
this case, the question is for the minister, and she is not here at present.


Industry

Purchase of Military Aircraft from Boeing Company—Regional Spinoffs

Hon. Francis Fox: Honourable senators, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and 
Government Services and pertains to the awarding of the contract for the C17 aircraft about 
which we spoke a while ago. Could Minister of Public Works and Government Services enlighten 
a number of observers and analysts in this country on the value of this contract's economic 
spinoffs?  The figure of $3.4 billion in economic spinoffs has been mentioned, but then the 
$1.6 billion maintenance contract was awarded to the U.S. Air Force. Rather than this contract 
going to Montreal or Winnipeg, it has been awarded to the U.S. Air Force and the contract value 
is reduced to $1.8 billion. The engines for these aircraft will be purchased in the United States, 
which does not help Canada's aerospace industry. In the end, we have a contract worth only 
$800 million.  The analysts at Le Devoir, Mr. Sansfaçon among them, and Quebec union leaders, 
including Mr. Massé, are wondering about the actual spinoffs from this contract. The government, 
of course, refuses to say whether there will be spinoffs for specific regions.  There are doubts 
about the real economic spinoffs for the Montreal region. Could the minister shed some light on 
this matter for all Canadians because it seems that he is the only one who understands what 
these significant economic spinoffs are for this region, when others see them going elsewhere, 
especially to the United States.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cite rule 24.1.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the question was for the minister.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I could also cite the Speaker's recent ruling of 
October 19, 2006.

Senator Fox: Point of order.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The Speaker's ruling confirms the point of order with 
respect to questions addressed to a minister. This time I really did hear Senator Fox 
pose a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The minister 
is in the chamber and may choose to answer or not.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, the question was directed to the Minister for 
Public Works, but the question had more to do with Industry Canada. Since the question 
was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is a question that has to do with 
national defence, and those questions, as you know, are directed to the Leader of the 
Government in the Senate on behalf of the departments.

Senator Fox: Your Honour, I will repeat the question. The question was directed squarely 
at Canada's Minister of Public Works and Government Services. He signed the contract as 
the minister responsible for public works and it is as such that the question was asked 
of him. To not answer it would be an affront to Parliament.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I want to remind you of rule 24(1):
When the Speaker calls the Question Period, a Senator may, without notice, address an 
oral question:  (a) to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, if it is a question 
relating to public affairs, (b) to a Senator who is a Minister of the Crown, if it is a 
question relating to his ministerial responsibility, or (c) the Chair of a committee...
This is what we have done until now. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is 
not in the chamber at the moment. The minister has the choice to respond or not.

(....)


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Apr 2007)

From 23 April, 2007 (My apologies for missing so much time.  Course will do that to you)  

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail raises shocking allegations about the treatment of Canada's Afghan detainees, including savage beatings, electrocution and extreme cold.
    Before the Prime Minister smears those who dare raise questions about our mission in Afghanistan, he might consider the simple question on the minds of Canadians today: Are these detainees being tortured?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, obviously we are aware of these allegations. In fact, very recently, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government signed a new detainee transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan, with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. 
    Obviously, officials of our government will be following up these allegations with officials of the government of Afghanistan. What we will not do is what the Leader of Opposition suggested earlier, that we bring Taliban prisoners to Canada. That will not be the position of this government.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will certainly say that, as things stand at present, we cannot turn detainees over to the Afghan authorities. Even the chair of the Afghan independent human rights commission has said that his agency is unable to monitor the treatment of Afghan detainees.
    How can the Prime Minister be sure the local authorities will honour the Geneva Convention?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, we recently signed a new detainee transfer agreement with the Afghan government. We are going to hold talks with the Afghan authorities to monitor progress and make sure the new standards are met.
    At the same time, we are not going to consider the proposal made by the leader of the Liberal Party to bring Taliban prisoners here to Canada.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, in that case, we will have to keep them under our control in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister cannot tell Canadians that he will continue to turn human beings over to the Afghan government as things stand now.
    As for his Minister of National Defence, first he tells us that the Red Cross will monitor the treatment of detainees. Then, he tells us that the Afghan independent human rights commission will do the monitoring. But the commission says that it is unable to do so. And now, despite these statements, there are more and more signs that detainees are being tortured.
    Will the Prime Minister demand that his Minister of National Defence resign?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, these are serious allegations, and the government takes them seriously.
[English]
    Once again, we take such allegations seriously. That is why we have concluded an agreement with the Afghan government. It is why we will be in discussions with them to pursue this matter and to ensure that they have the capacity to undertake their terms of the agreement.
    At the same time, I am not sure precisely what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. We are not going to bring Taliban prisoners to Canada.
    As for the Minister of National Defence, his job is to make sure our forces in Afghanistan have the tools needed to do their job, and he is doing that job.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of National Defence said that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission would guarantee the treatment of detainees. The minister must have known that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has no capacity to do any such thing. Then the House leader said that the government had given the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission $1 million to carry out its duties. The government had done no such thing and CIDA had to contradict them.
    This is just one part of a staggering picture of misinformation and mismanagement. What is being done now to get the situation under control?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    In fact, Mr. Speaker, as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows, the government has signed a new agreement.
    The previous Liberal government had an agreement in place that has proven to be inadequate despite the Liberals' assurance, and despite what the deputy leader of the Liberal Party himself said last year. He said:
    I have been in places of Afghan detention myself and have seen the work that the International Committee of the Red Cross does, and I believe it is the best guarantee of their safety and freedom from abuse.

    He gave that assurance himself.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, I have been in Afghan places of detention and I have no confidence in the capacity of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to protect prisoners.
[Translation]
    They were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked, electrocuted. These are very serious allegations, and Canada's honour is at stake.
    When will the Prime Minister replace his incompetent Minister of National Defence with a minister who can make sure our allies and Canada itself respect the Geneva Convention?
[English]  
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that our forces in Afghanistan treat the detainees with proper care. They follow all the rules. 
    We have made a recent agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and it has guaranteed that it will report to us any abuses of any detainees we transfer. I have the personal assurance of the leader of the human rights commission in Kandahar and the national level.

Afghanistan    
  Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, the revelations concerning torture victims in Afghanistan are positively appalling and Canadians are very concerned about this. The NDP raised this issue a year ago. Afghan authorities use torture in order to mentally and physically break their victims.
    Will the government finally do the right thing, which is to immediately put an end to the transfer of prisoners, launch a public inquiry and dismiss the Minister of National Defence today?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, we take these rumours seriously. We are asking our officials to investigate this with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and with the Afghan officials.
     I might remind the member for Toronto—Danforth that we recently had an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. It has promised to advise us if any of our detainees are abused.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Prime Minister was enumerating the responsibilities of the Minister of National Defence. He forgot to mention that one of his responsibilities is to ensure that Canada is abiding by international law.
    The fact is the minister has, by his own admission, misled the House. He stated himself that it was his responsibility to ensure that transferees were handled properly at our end and at the Afghan end.
    Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and instruct his Minister of National Defence to stop the transfer of prisoners now and get a full inquiry going, and then ask for his resignation?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, we have the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission which has the authority to go into the Afghan system. It will advise us of any abuses. We said that we would provide any logistics support it needs to carry out that function and that is our stand.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back.
    The Minister of National Defence recently said that Canadian troops could stay in Afghanistan for over a decade. Additionally, last week he confirmed that cabinet has not even discussed this issue.
    For months the government has given confused and conflicting messages about the Afghanistan mission. Will it now be clear with Canadians and support the Liberal motion that establishes 2009 as the end of our combat role in Afghanistan?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the member alleges things that I never said. I said that the current military commitment is at the end of February 2009.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians and our allies deserve a clear and honest answer on when Canada's combat duties in southern Afghanistan will end.
    Tomorrow there is a vote on the Liberal motion that gives the government an opportunity to be straightforward for a change and yet all we hear from the minister is rhetoric.
    The question is not one of support for our troops. We all support them and their good work. The question is, will the minister do the right thing and commit to end Canada's combat role in Kandahar in 2009 and inform NATO allies of this deadline immediately?
  Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the opportunity to welcome the hon. member back. We are all delighted to see that he is looking in good health.
    As I said last week in answer to this question, the government's position is clear. Our allies, the international community, the Afghan government, nobody is asking us to make a decision on 2009 this week.
    I have to say that only the Liberal Party would consider a clear position to be a position that we must withdraw two years from now right away.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, this minority Conservative government has never been clear about the mission in Afghanistan and has never bothered to think about when or how this mission will end.
    The Minister of National Defence now says that the Canadian Forces could pull out on the condition that the Afghan forces double their size, which seems very unlikely to occur by 2009. 
    Will the minister finally admit that he has no intention of pulling the Canadian Forces out of Afghanistan in 2009?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our position is that the military commitment is until the end of February 2009. At an appropriate time our government will discuss any possible changes to that commitment.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to be completely inconsistent when it comes to Afghanistan.
    The minister says one day that we are not at war and then says the exact opposite the next. One day, he says we are in Afghanistan to exact revenge, and the next day, he says we are there to beat the Taliban. In the past, he has said that we would not beat them with military force.
    Given that the equipment recently purchased will not arrive in Afghanistan until a few months before 2009, will the Minister of National Defence finally admit his secret intention to extend the mission in Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about flip-floppers, they are over there. The Leader of the Opposition voted against the extension in Afghanistan; now he supports it. Members over there are flip-flopping all the time. They are the ones who have no consistent position. That party has had three positions in the last year.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, last March we pointed out the dangers of turning over prisoners to the Afghan authorities. In April, we took it a step further and referred to a report by the U.S. State Department, which listed all the corrupt practices found in Afghan prisons.
    What has the Minister done since then? Nothing, even though a colonel responsible for human rights in the Afghan forces stated, “In some cases, individuals have to be tortured, otherwise they do not talk”.
    In light of such serious accusations, the minister did nothing. There is only one thing for him to do—resign.
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has done something. We have signed an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and it has promised to inform us of any abuses of detainees in its system. This is a unique agreement that only Canada has.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, Canada's representatives advised the prisoners to provide true information in order to avoid being mistreated. Even the Minister of Public Safety was informed of this on his last visit to Kandahar.
    Why did the Minister of National Defence not take action sooner? What is the Prime Minister waiting for to ask for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence?
[English]
   
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. It will inform us of any abuses in the system.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence no longer has the credibility to manage this department. He has been hiding the truth for several months.
    My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will he assume his responsibilities and does he intend to take action so that Canada will stop transferring prisoners to the Afghan authorities until such time as he has negotiated a new agreement that guarantees the safety of prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as has been stated a number of times already by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, Canada does take its responsibilities very seriously. These allegations that have been published today have not been confirmed by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. 
    We are looking into the issue. I fully intend to take this up with my counterpart. Other officials will be consulted as well. Canada will continue to do its best to see that definitively Afghan prisoners are not tortured nor abused.
[Translation]
  Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot get out of this one because he is responsible for the application of international treaties. Other countries, the Netherlands in particular, have succeeded in ensuring the safety of prisoners. I would like to remind you that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Convention against torture.
    Will the minister undertake to do everything possible to stop the transfer of prisoners until he obtains an agreement with guarantees, like those the Netherlands has achieved, to monitor and have access to prisoners no matter where they are in Afghanistan?
      
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I said that the Government of Canada still intends to work with the other countries and participants in this agreement. Obviously we still need to research the information and consult with the other countries and other people, particularly those from the government of Afghanistan.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Apr 2007)

From 24 April, 2007:

*Afghanistan  *​   
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, last month—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
The Speaker:    
    Order, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor. We want to be able to hear his question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff:    
    Mr. Speaker, last month, the Minister of National Defence went to Kandahar to look the head of the Afghan Human Rights Commission straight in the eyes.
    Yesterday, he told this House that the Commission “has the authority to go into the Afghan system”. Today, we learn that their people cannot even set foot there.
    Why does this government refuse to immediately stop transferring prisoners until an assessment is done?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that our government and our forces in Afghanistan are in communication with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. We are continuing to offer all possible assistance. Until now, we did not have the information that is being reported today in the papers. If there are problems, the government will work with the independent Afghan commission to solve them.
[English]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):    
    So, Mr. Speaker, the transfers will not be stopped. That is unacceptable.
    We have heard from minister after minister that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission will monitor prisoners transferred by Canada. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the government would “ensure that they have the capacity to undertake their terms of the agreement”, but this is ridiculous.
    The Afghan commission has seven staff and no access to prisons. Why did the Prime Minister not ensure that the commission had this capacity before signing the agreement and before telling the House, on countless occasions, that it could do the job?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, once again, our officials are in ongoing communication with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. We have offered any help that is necessary. We are not at the moment told of the problems that have been reported in the papers today. Obviously, if there are such problems, we will act.
     However, we have an arrangement. We are working on that. We believe we are moving forward on the arrangement.
     I can say once again for the hon. member, the suggestion by his leader that we would bring Taliban prisoners to Canada is not the position this government would take. We are in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from coming to Canada.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, so the transfers go on. Once again, it is unacceptable.
    The government's handling of the whole affair has been disgraceful. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence do not seem to understand that the honour of Canada is at stake. We need to ensure that our military uphold the best traditions it has always upheld, of complying with the Geneva convention.
    There is no conceivable reason to keep this mission under the control of a minister who does not seem to know which way is up. Will the Prime Minister stop this sickening charade and fire that Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, once again, as I said, officials from the Government of Canada and from the military are in constant communication with not just the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, but with other agencies of the Government of Afghanistan to ensure that the arrangements are being respected. If they are not being respected, we will obviously act.
    However, I should say this. I think what is disgraceful is to simply accept the allegations of some Taliban suspects at face value. That is not appropriate for a Canadian member of Parliament. I will tell the House what else is inappropriate, the position of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who said that he—
The Speaker:    
    The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government cannot skate around this question. It is the government's duty to inform Canadians immediately.
    What is the status of Afghan prisoners? How many have been transferred? What is their current situation? Have they been tortured, yes or no, and is there any risk of torture? Canada's reputation is at stake. It is time the minister answered the questions Canadians are asking.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, there are some serious allegations. At the same time, we are working with the Afghan government and the Afghan independent human rights commission to ensure that such things do not happen.
[English]
    Mr. Speaker, what I do have to say, and you did not give me a chance to say it, is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said that he favoured “indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war”. Those are the exact words of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. Those are not the positions of the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:    
    Order, please. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. We will have a little order.

Hon. Lucienne Robillard:   
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister remains true to form. He has never been able to take responsibility for his own actions. He is being asked some very simple questions here today. Since the Conservative government signed the new agreement, what has been happening to detainees and prisoners? Has anyone visited them? In what conditions are they being held?
    If the Minister of National Defence is incapable of answering some simple questions, why does the Prime Minister continue to place his trust in that minister?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is charged with inspecting the Afghan prisons. If there are difficulties in the Afghan prisons, the commission will inform us. To this date, it has not informed us.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, first the Red Cross was supposedly monitoring the prisoners transferred to the Afghan authorities. That was not true. The minister is now saying that he has concluded an agreement with the Afghan independent human rights commission, which will report to him on the detention conditions of the prisoners. Today we learn that the commission does not have access to all the prisoners, that it lacks resources and that it cannot report to the Minister of National Defence.
    How can the Prime Minister still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence when he is telling us falsehoods about the commission, just like he did with the Red Cross?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, again, I know there is regular contact between the Canadian Forces, the Government of Canada, the government of Afghanistan and the independent commission. To date we have no evidence that supports the allegations. However, I have asked the officers to continue their consultations and to establish whether there is a problem. So far the allegations have not been substantiated. 
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence described stories of torture as rumours while the Prime Minister, yesterday and today, spoke of serious allegations, and therefore risks. Under the Geneva convention, the transfer of prisoners is prohibited in situations where there is torture, and even in cases where there is a risk of mistreatment.
    In light of these serious allegations, does the Prime Minister realize that he may be asking the troops to break the law and that he is shirking his responsibilities by not respecting the Geneva convention? 
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces take their responsibilities seriously. That is why we have a new arrangement and that is why they continue to consult the Afghan authorities to ensure that we are assuming our responsibilities. The allegation that the Canadian Forces are shirking their major responsibilities is irresponsible. The Leader of the Bloc Québécois has no evidence of that.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence declared that he had received personal assurances from the representative of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission that all mistreatment of transferred prisoners would be reported to Canada. That same representative also said that he does not have enough staff and that he himself had been refused access to the prisons. That means there is a problem.
    In light of all of these disturbing facts, how can the Prime Minister justify his inaction? Is he aware that the Geneva Convention has been violated and that he is endorsing this treatment of prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our military officials in the Kandahar area are in regular contact with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission representatives there. They have not raised any issues of abuse. We have offered them all the support with respect to resources or access to the Afghan system if they need it from us.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada said that Canadian prisons in Afghanistan were out of the question. 
    If Canada cannot have prisons in Afghanistan, and if it cannot transfer prisoners to Afghan prisons where they will be tortured in violation of the Geneva Convention, what is the Prime Minister planning to do to solve this problem once and for all?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with the Afghan government. We also have an arrangement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. The way we will operate is we will enforce these arrangements. We will make certain that the Afghans do their part as we do our part.
[Translation]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):    
    Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canada is not well served by a Minister of National Defence who does not have a proper understanding of the Geneva convention, a minister who will say anything to hide his incompetence, a minister who is now asking our troops to continue transferring detainees to torturers or so-called torturers. That is not acceptable.
    When will the Prime Minister put an end to this farce, stop the transfers and fire the minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces are operating and consulting with their Afghan counterparts. They are honouring their commitments and constantly consulting with their counterparts to ensure that we fulfill our obligations.
    Allegations to the effect that we are not living up to our responsibilities are only being made by the Taliban. I do not accept these unfounded Taliban allegations.
 [English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence misled the House again yesterday. He claimed that these allegations were simply rumours and that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission would be responsible for the situation. Now we learn that the head of that commission is barred from going to the prisons.
    What more does it take for the Prime Minister to issue an instruction to his incompetent Minister of National Defence that the transfers should stop now pending the truth? Why will he not stand up and make that instruction today?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Very simply, Mr. Speaker, as I have repeated several times, our forces, the Government of Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs are in constant touch with their Afghan counterparts on these very issues. We do not have evidence that what the hon. member alleges is true.
     To suggest the Canadian Forces would deliberately violate the Geneva convention and to make that suggestion solely based on the allegations of the Taliban is the height of irresponsibility.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):   
    How low can one go, Mr. Speaker?
[Translation]
    Since late 2004 and early 2005, a special team established by Canada's Department of National Defence has been directly advising President Karzai in order to put in place a governance and development monitoring structure in Afghanistan. Sixteen Canadian Forces officers are helping the Afghan government to establish the rule of law. This is far from being a military operation.
    Can the minister confirm that this strategic advisory team—Operation ARGUS—that reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff was aware of the situation of the Taliban prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the strategic advisory team in Kabul advised the government on organization. It has explained to the various departments how it gets projects accomplished, how it achieves goals.
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, we will come back to that.
[English]
    There is more evidence that the defence minister is incompetent. We had to learn about the treatment of 30 detainees through the media and not through the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, as the minister assured us we would.
    I again look the minister straight in the eyes. Will the minister admit that he learned about allegations of torture through the media and that his arrangement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is a sham? When will the Minister of National Defence realize that the only way to protect our reputation in the world is to resign?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is in regular contact with our people. If it needs any assistance, we will provide that assistance. To date, it has not asked for any assistance.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, for nearly a year, the Minister of National Defence has misled this House about the role of the Red Cross, insisting that it was responsible for supervising the treatment of detainees transferred to the Afghan authorities.
    When the international Red Cross publicly corrected the minister, he was forced to apologize to this House.
    Could the minister tell Canadians what immediate steps he is taking to verify that detainees captured by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and transferred to Afghan authorities are being properly treated?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our government has asked a number of officials to contact the various elements of the Afghan government that have to do with detainees to confirm whether there is any truth to the rumours and allegations that are in the media and they will report back to us. If there is any foundation for this, we will be dealing with the Afghan government to ensure that they are corrected.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the minister has repeatedly said that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which has publicly admitted to only having seven staff members and no capacity to monitor prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, is looking after things. 
    Once again, the defence minister is either greatly misinformed or is simply misleading this House. The minister was not aware of the role of the Red Cross. He was not aware of the inability of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to do its job. Now he says that he is unable to answer questions about the abuse of detainees.
    Does the Minister of National Defence still have the confidence of the Prime Minister?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:    
    Order, please. The hon. the Minister of National Defence now has the floor to answer the question he was asked. We will have a little order so the member for Kitchener Centre at least can hear the answer.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, both the leaders of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in Kabul and in Kandahar have confirmed that they can do what we have asked them to do. Our people are in constant contact with them and they have not asked for any help. They are on sort of a regular basis meeting with them but they have not asked for any help because they believe they can do what they have been tasked to do.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Apr 2007)

More from 24 April 2007:

Afghanistan​  
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has been careless with the facts and incompetent when it comes to defending the government's murky foreign policy positions and responding to Canadians' concerns. 
    Whether it is the treatment of detainees or the scope and length of Canada's current Afghan mission, in terms of clarity, the government continues to mislead Canadians. 
    Last summer, Parliament voted to extend the combat mission to February 2009. Will the Prime Minister respect the results of today's upcoming vote--

The Speaker:  
    The hon. Minister of National Defence.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, our military commitment is to the end of February 2009.

[Translation]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians want straight answers to questions about Canada's international reputation and our troops' involvement in southern Afghanistan.
    When will Canadians finally see a clear plan to end the combat mission?
    Does the Prime Minister plan to wait until it is too late to withdraw our troops from southern Afghanistan before making a decision?
[English]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, I will be as clear as I can. Our military commitment at the moment is to the end of February 2009.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, the government pressed Parliament into extending the Afghan mission to February 2009. Our motion before the House simply confirms that commitment. However, we know that the government is getting ready to vote against the motion today.
    Why is the government refusing to provide clarity to Canadians and to our troops on an end date for the combat role in Afghanistan?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, we are providing clarity. We support our troops and we support them in their mission and we will provide whatever they need to accomplish their mission.
    Again, the military mission at the moment is committed to the end of February 2009.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, among other things, the Minister of National Defence keeps insisting that the government will pull our troops out in February 2009. 
    If this is true, when does he plan on informing our NATO allies that this is the case so they have the time they may need to prepare for the end of our combat role in Afghanistan?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, our military commitment at this moment is to the end of February 2009. I do not know how many times I can say that but I will keep saying it as long as they keep asking.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Apr 2007)

The vote:

Afghanistan    
    The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker:    
    Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 19, 2007, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Bourassa relating to the business of supply.
 [Translation]
     (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division 
YEAS
Members 
Alghabra
André
Asselin
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Barbot
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blais
Bonin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carrier
Chan
Coderre
Cotler
Crête
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Graham
Gravel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Ignatieff
Jennings
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lavallée
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
MacAulay
Malhi
Malo
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Merasty
Minna
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Neville
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Peterson
Plamondon
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Scarpaleggia
Sgro
Silva
Simard
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Turner
Valley
Vincent
Wappel
Wilfert
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 134
NAYS
Members 
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Angus
Arthur
Baird
Batters
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Benoit
Bernier
Bevington
Black
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blaney
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrie
Casey
Casson
Charlton
Chong
Chow
Christopherson
Clement
Comartin
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cummins
Davidson
Davies
Day
Del Mastro
Dewar
Doyle
Dykstra
Emerson
Epp
Fast
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Godin
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Layton
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Manning
Mark
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Mayes
McDonough
Menzies
Merrifield
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nash
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Paradis
Petit
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Priddy
Rajotte
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Savoie
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Siksay
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Stoffer
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Verner
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 150
PAIRED
Members 
Bellavance
Bezan
Devolin
Finley
Lalonde
Picard
Total: -- 6
The Speaker:    
    I declare the motion lost.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Apr 2007)

From 25 April 2007:
Afghanistan    
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government was told by its own officials that Afghan detainees face a high risk of torture and extrajudicial executions. However, yesterday the Prime Minister told this House that he had no evidence at all to support these allegations.
    Why did the Prime Minister hide from Canadians the fact that he had received this damning report?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that annual reports on governance, democratic development and human rights have been prepared by our embassy in Afghanistan since 2002. They document general concerns and the various actions that the government and its officials are taking to deal with those concerns.
    We have no evidence of the specific allegations that appeared this week in the The Globe and Mail but, obviously, as I have indicated, we take any such allegations seriously. Officials are working with their Afghan counterparts and, I am told, receiving full cooperation in getting facts.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    I have some questions, Mr. Speaker.
    Who told foreign affairs officials to release only positive sections of this report? Who told them to black out those sections that warned about these potential abuses? Who told officials to deny the very existence of this report on human rights issues in Afghanistan? Was it the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I wondered how long it would be until we got the conspiracy theories going but here is the reality.
     The Leader of the Opposition, who is a former minister of the Crown, knows the process. The process is very simple. When it comes to access to information, these decisions are made by government lawyers. They do not consult politicians or ministers. They act according to the law and their decisions can always be appealed through the Information Commissioner.
    I have to note that the previous government received reports since 2002 and some of these problems had no policy on detainees until January 2006.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has repeatedly told this House that the government had no information about any abuse Afghan detainees might have been subjected to. We now have proof that this was not true.
    The Prime Minister no longer has any choice. Will he finally fire his Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as I have just said and have said on many occasions this week, we have heard these allegations. We always take these allegations seriously. That is not the same thing as assuming that every allegation made by the Taliban is true. We are, however, consulting with our partners in Afghanistan and, so far, we have had full cooperation in finding the facts. 
 [English]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, first, there is no proof that these detainees were Taliban and, second, it is impossible to believe the government did not know.
    We now have a report by officials warning the Conservative government of torture, abuse and murder in those prisons. After first denying the existence of the report, the document was released with disturbing sentences blacked out.
    Who among the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs saw the report and, above all, who ordered the cover-up?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered the question on the process. I suppose the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who has not been in government does not understand the access to information process. 
    As the member knows, this is a general report prepared for the last five years on some of the challenges in Afghanistan and some of the actions taken. I want to quote another section of the report which also said:
--judges and prosecutors are being trained, more defendants are receiving legal representation, courthouses and prisons are being built or refurbished and the capacity of the permanent justice institutions has been enhanced.
    We are not under any illusion about the big challenges in Afghanistan but progress is being made.
[Translation]
  Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has told us repeatedly that the Afghan commission could deal with this issue, but the commission itself admits that it cannot do so. He has told us that the government had no evidence of abuse, but we now know that he had an internal report confirming such abuse. This is a scary tale of incompetence and deceit.
    When will the Prime Minister assume his responsibilities and dismiss his disgraced minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, military leaders in Afghanistan are constantly in contact with their counterparts and with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. So far, they have not indicated to us that they have encountered these problems. Of course, we made it clear that we are there to help to any extent necessary.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said he did not have any evidence to substantiate the allegations that Afghan prisoners have been tortured. The Minister of National Defence told us a number of times that everything was going very well, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he had confidence in the Minister of National Defence.
    This morning we learn that a report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs confirms that executions and torture are commonplace in Afghanistan. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville, special advisor on the Middle East, suggested in a press release that this was part of Afghan culture.
    How can the Prime Minister minimize such things and be so irresponsible?
    
    Mr. Speaker, these reports have been prepared annually since 2002. There are many challenges to governance, democracy building and human rights in Afghanistan. This is a general report that also contains the actions taken by the governments in response to these problems. We will continue to work with our departments and agencies to ensure progress.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, since April 2006, the Bloc Québécois has asked 36 questions about the fate of the Afghan prisoners. Each time we were told falsehoods—the Red Cross?false; the independent human rights commission? false. Now we are being told about senior officials, but this is being minimized: the report is not important. His so called special advisor on the Middle East says this is part of the culture.
    Does he realize that the reports from these senior officials are causing Canada to violate the Geneva convention? Does he realize the position the Prime Minister is putting Canada in?
     (1430)  
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the purpose of this report is to minimize the challenges in Afghanistan. On the contrary, this report admits that there are many challenges to governance, democracy building and human rights. Furthermore, there is a report on the actions taken by the ministers, the departments and the officers in response to these problems, and these efforts continue.
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told this House that he was looking into this issue and that the allegations of torture had not been confirmed. Yet, we now know that he had a copy of the report in his possession and that it was senior officials from his own department who informed him of the matter.
    How could the minister cover up evidence on Monday concerning the allegations, when we now know that he had received the report from his own senior officials?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the truth is that I did not have the report in hand. I have since reviewed the report.
    Having said that, of course we take these matters extremely seriously and I communicated that to the ambassador from Afghanistan. We have asked that officials look into these allegations immediately and if in fact this practice is in place that it cease immediately and that they send in officials specifically trained to get to the bottom of this. He has assured me that process is under way.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):    
    Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit here in this House that he and his fellow ministers deliberately hid the existence of that report? Why did he and his fellow ministers, when asked about this matter, fail to inform the House? Will he admit that he and the other ministers knowingly hid the truth, not only from the public, but also here in this House?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, that is patently false. These reports are received, reviewed and redacted in exactly the same fashion as they have since 2002. The previous government went through the same process. 
    There are lawyers and officials in all departments who make these decisions independent of the political branch of government.
    There were no ministers and certainly the Prime Minister was not involved in any redaction and decisions made as to what information was to be redacted in the reports.
[Translation]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: the government knew what was happening to detainees who were transferred. The secret documents are not Taliban documents; they are Department of Foreign Affairs documents published in the Globe and Mail. They confirm that extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are commonplace. 
    They know about this. Why does the government not stop transferring detainees to situations where they will face torture?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, Canadian military personnel do not send prisoners into situations where they will face torture or anything like that. The NDP's allegation is unfounded.
[English]


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Apr 2007)

Continued....



Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, brushing off these allegations in such a casual manner by the Prime Minister is simply not acceptable and is not in line with the responsibilities that he has as the leader of this country with respect to the Geneva conventions and other matters.
    What he should be doing is firing his incompetent Minister of National Defence. What he should be doing is stopping other ministers or any other officials from blackening out government documents that tell the truth. What he should also be doing is stopping the transfer of prisoners that could be going into torture this very day.
    Will he do it or will he deny his responsibilities?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, these are serious allegations and we treat them seriously.
    A full level of consultation is going on, both from here and on the ground in Afghanistan, to determine the facts and to determine whether there is any basis for any of these allegations.
    At the same time, the leader of the NDP likes to talk about responsibilities but he has no evidence. There is no evidence at all that anyone in the government has the ability to black out reports.
    At the same time, he also accuses the Canadian military of somehow violating the Geneva convention. He does not have proof of that and he should take his responsibilities seriously and not make such accusations.
     (1435)  
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his government knew about the reality of Afghan prisons and they chose to hide the truth from Canadians. It is impossible that he did not know of the foreign affairs report from his own government which states that “extrajudicial executions and torture” are common in Afghanistan.
    Did the foreign affairs minister ever read his own department's report or was he wilfully blind? When, if ever, did he tell the defence minister?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as has been previously stated by the Prime Minister, these reports have not materially changed since 2002. The same practice is in place.
    They are a general report about the situation on the ground with respect to positive and negative situations as they exist. They are used for the purposes of government to adjust their capacity building exercise in Afghanistan with other countries.
    These reports are made available. These reports are done for the purposes of giving Canada the capacity to help Afghanistan in that mission to the best of its ability.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know about it? That is unbelievable.
[Translation]
    Canadian diplomats are not the only ones who have sounded the alarm about detainees being tortured by Afghan authorities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, also considers torture to be a violation of human rights. The Prime Minister and his government chose to ignore Ms. Arbour's comments on the subject.
    Why did the Minister of National Defence choose to act as though the High Commissioner had not said anything, and why is he, even now, transferring prisoners. Will he resign?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, at the heart of all these questions is a suggestion that our military will knowingly hand prisoners over to torture. This is an aspersion on the Canadian Forces. Our Canadian Forces operate at the highest level of conduct and I stand by their actions.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, somebody said once that the first casualty when war comes is the truth. It is very difficult for me to stand here on behalf of Canadians and listen to the gibberish that froths from the mouth of the Minister of National Defence.
     The minority Conservative government has misled the House and Canadians. Why has the defence minister allowed the situation to worsen? Foreign Affairs originally said the report did not exist. Now we know it does.
    Did the Prime Minister's Office order the document erased? When will the Prime Minister erase the Minister of National Defence from his portfolio?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear. No one has denied that reports exist. There was a general application for all reports.
    I just heard something in the House from a former finance minister, who has called the Minister of National Defence a chicken. This is a man who has served his country in uniform for over 30 years. 
    The only thing that member has led is an army of carpetbaggers and fundraisers.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
The Speaker:    
    Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Order, please.
[English]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, that comes from somebody who called a member of this House a dog. I am impressed.
[Translation]
    Canadians are involved in every aspect of the Afghan government. Through his strategic advisory team, the minister has a direct connection to President Karzai. He is working with the police, the prison system and the justice system. He has a team of Correctional Service of Canada officers, who are experts in human rights, working on the ground. They can tell him everything he wants to know about the situation in Kandahar. He even has his own intelligence service.
    Why the cover-up? Why does he want to—
The Speaker:    
    The hon. Minister of National Defence.
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as the member previously said, the first casualty in these kinds of games is the truth, and he is the first casualty.
    The military's strategic advisory team in Kabul is a team that advises on how to organize government and how to achieve objectives. It does not get involved in the justice system.
    The other suspicion or suggestion the member is making is about cover-ups, and a cover-up means that the military is somehow involved in not identifying abuses. I reject this completely.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr.  Speaker, while the Minister of National Defence had a damning report from the Department of External Affairs that talked about torture, summary executions and arbitrary detentions, the Minister of National Defence continued to spew rhetoric about trusting completely the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Now we are told that no one saw this report. The Minister of Foreign Affairs did not see it. The Prime Minister did not see it. The Minister of National Defence did not see it. That is a bit much. 
    If they did not see it, how could they have censored it?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated very clearly, these reports have been done in the same form and fashion. They have been reviewed and redacted in the same way since 2002.
    The interesting point to make with all the chatter coming from the members opposite is that when the Liberals were in government they had no policy on detainees until one month before they left office.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is not the only one who does not know what is going on and who is attempting to mislead this House. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister himself are misleading this House.
    Does the minister still have enough of a conscience to realize that by remaining silent, when he had such a report in his hands, he lost the little credibility he had left? The minister knows what a code of honour is. Will he respect his code of honour and immediately tender his resignation? 
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, these reports clearly state that there are positive and obviously negative areas within the Afghanistan capacity to deal with not only detainees but areas of development and areas of security.
    That has been the case since 2002 when this reporting process was put in place. We use those reports, as did the previous government, to determine how we can assist in the building of capacity in Afghanistan. That has not changed. 
    What will change is that we will be accountable. We will speak directly with Afghan authorities to see that the positive changes that have to take place do in fact occur.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, with today's disclosures we have proof that Canada violated the Geneva convention. The Prime Minister must face the facts: this report was not written by the Taliban but by senior officials at Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs.
    Does the Prime Minister intend to announce the only possible solution in these circumstances, which is to immediately stop transferring prisoners to the Afghan authorities?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, what simplistic thinking to suggest somehow that Canada is in violation of international obligations or the Geneva convention. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
    We are taking action. We are working directly and collaboratively with Afghan authorities to see that this situation is remedied. We will do so based on actual factual information in our possession, not on allegations made by the Taliban and not on allegations made by the Bloc Québécois.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, there are limits. In light of this report, Canada is clearly violating the Geneva convention, not only because there is torture but also because there is the risk of torture.
    The Prime Minister has two options: either he defends the indefensible by violating the Geneva convention, or he shows responsibility and some humility by admitting that he was wrong and stops right now the transfer of prisoners. 
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the report says no such thing. 
    I have spoken directly with Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada. I have advised him of our concerns with respect to those sections of the report. I have indicated to him that we expect word back from them as to the facts they have. We indicated quite clearly what we expect, that if any practice such as alleged is taking place, it cease immediately and changes be made to remedy that.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, international law, including the Geneva convention, expressly prohibits the transfer of detainees into situations of torture and inhumane treatment. There is clear evidence of such torture and inhumane treatment. Indeed, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has not only corroborated these allegations but has acknowledged that it cannot monitor, let alone protect, the detainees.
    Will the Canadian government abide by its international obligations and cease and desist from these transfers, in the interests also of protecting our own soldiers, of protecting the integrity of our mission and of protecting--
The Speaker:    
    The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, obviously it is in everyone's interest that the Afghan government comply with its international obligations, with its own law, and with all obligations as they pertain to human rights. That is exactly what the Canadian government and in fact all NATO allies are attempting to do in working with the Afghan government to build the capacity, both in prisons and with respect to their Afghan national army and policing.
    That does not happen overnight. That member, more than anyone, should know that the strides and progress that have been made in Afghanistan are extraordinary.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, international law not only prohibits the transfer of detainees to conditions of torture, but requires that the government take all necessary measures to protect detainees already transferred or to have them returned into our protective custody.
    Since it is clear that those already transferred have been tortured and since the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has acknowledged that it cannot protect them, will the government secure their protection, or will it continue to be soft on compliance with international law, soft on detainee protection, and soft on protecting the rights of our own Canadian soldiers?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:    
    Order. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor. A question has been asked and he has the right to respond.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, members of the Canadian military are in constant communication with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and with their other counterparts in Afghanistan to assure themselves that the allegations the hon. member makes are not the case. We do that at other levels, at the level of corrections, and also at the level of foreign affairs. 
    Any suggestion that the hon. member or other members have that the Canadian military is deliberately violating the Geneva convention is false and without any foundation.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government claims not to have known about the abuse of detainees, dismissing them as Taliban rumours, but foreign affairs knew, Madam Justice Louise Arbour knew, the Afghan government knew, and Corrections Canada, with officials on the ground, knew. Even the Prime Minister's floor-crossing personal adviser to Afghanistan knew.
    How is it that the only people claiming ignorance sit on the Conservative frontbench?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as a member of the previous government, the hon. member would know that these reports are routinely returned to officials. These reports are used for the basis of determining what progress needs to be made, what areas are lacking, and how to go about building that capacity. These reports are done to gauge the advancements that are made in human rights and to find the shortcomings and then address them. 
    We have spoken directly with the Afghan government about this situation. We intend to have a full report back to us.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has a history of misleading the House. 
    The government refuses to ensure international law is respected and it is putting Canada's international reputation at risk. When will the government admit that once again it has misled Canadians on the issue of Afghan detainees? When will the Prime Minister fire his incompetent Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the mission, this government, like the previous government I would expect, has regularly raised concerns about capacity building and human rights issues. We continue to do that.
    Reports such as this are used generally to make policy. The specific allegations here are being examined closely. They will be looked into in Afghanistan. They will be gauged for future consideration. This is an attempt by the government to point out its own shortcomings.
    When we examine the fact that those members did not have an agreement in place on the transfer of detainees, they are trying to detract from their own shortcomings.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Apr 2007)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, 30 years after the immoral war in Vietnam, Canada must make a moral choice to give refuge to people who refuse to be accomplices in the American war in Iraq. I have the honour to table a petition with a thousand signatures of people in my region who are calling on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review its policy on war objectors and allow them to obtain refugee status in Canada.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasting Act ​
    The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  
    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion.
*   *   *
    And the Clerk having announced the result of the vote:

Mr. Mark Warawa:  
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought we were calling the vote for those opposed so I voted twice. I vote in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Colin Carrie:  
    Mr. Speaker, I would also like to register my vote as opposed.

Mr. Brian Jean:  
    Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but for five seconds I was confused, *as the Liberals have been about Afghanistan for five years*. I wish to register my vote in opposition as well. 
----------------------------------------------------------


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Apr 2007)

From 26 April 2007:

Privilege ​   
Ministers' Responses Regarding Afghanistan    
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave the appropriate notice to the Speaker with regard to a matter of a question of a breach of privilege in relation to the whole matter of Afghanistan and more specifically with regard to Afghan detainees.
    There can be no question about the confusion of the House in this matter. I believe there appears to be some indication that the misinformation to the House may have been deliberate and in fact has breached my privileges and those of other members of Parliament.
    I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit at page 66, in which it refers to the issues of privilege and contempt. It states:
	    Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions;....
    I also had an opportunity to look at Erskine May, at page 144, which repeats much the same information and guide for members. It does say, though, that “the Members or its officers” must be free “from improper obstruction or...interference with the performance of their respective functions”. 
    There can be no question about the issue of Afghanistan, the recent deaths of nine of our soldiers and the allegations with regard to the torture, coercive interrogation and in fact execution of Canadian prisoners turned over to Afghan authorities. Yesterday in question period there were 23 questions posed in the House with regard to this matter.
     The Prime Minister answered 10 of those questions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered 11 of those questions, and the Minister of National Defence, who is the principal responsible for this matter, answered only two questions. In fact, I noted in Hansard--I will not quote it, but members and the Chair can certainly look at the responses given--it was basically deny, deny, deny from all those who provided answers to the questions of parliamentarians.
    When Parliament is told that all is well, there is no cause for concern and there is no evidence of problems with detainees, members of Parliament must take that at its face. We operate here on the premise of the presumption of honesty. That involves not only what is said, but it also must, I argue, relate to what is not said.
    Mr. Speaker, you will know that within an hour of the end of question period the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs had before it the Minister of National Defence. I was not there. I did observe on news reports, but it is also reported in a print publication, and I would like to read into the record what transpired. The article states:
	    The Minister of National Defence yesterday announced Canada had struck a new deal to monitor Afghan detainees, but the existence of the arrangement appeared to catch the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Chief of the Defence staff [Mr. Hillier] by surprise.
    It goes on to say:
	    [The defence minister] made what appeared to be an improvised announcement of the new detainee-monitoring deal after intense questioning at the Commons foreign affairs committee.
    It states that he said at committee:
	    Within the last few days we have basically made an arrangement with the government in the Kandahar province so that we can have access to our detainees. So henceforth, our military, but it can be anybody, can have access to our detainees.
    This is not information that was disclosed to Parliament during direct questioning in question period just an hour before. 
    In fact, the Prime Minister, in answering 10 questions, and the foreign affairs minister, in answering 11 questions, made no mention and gave no indication, but simply continued to deny that the allegations were true and that there was any problem.
    I believe that the House, I as a member of Parliament and all members of Parliament in fact have had their privileges breached. When questions are asked directly of the government on matters of national importance to all Canadians, Parliament is entitled to receive information directly.
     What should happen? 
    Not only did the minister make some detailed disclosures within committee, but then after the committee meeting when he was chased down the halls and was cornered in an elevator, he gave another account of details with regard to this apparent deal.
    There is a contradiction. There is an apparent cover-up. It may, in fact, as far as I can see, involve dishonesty. It may involve contempt. It may involve incompetence. It also may be all three.
    It is my view that we need to have this matter fully aired and that Parliament should be advised of what was the truth. Parliament was not given the full information. It was deny, deny, deny, when in fact the Prime Minister must have known. The foreign affairs minister must have known. The Chief of the Defence Staff must have known. 
    But it seems, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Defence is alleging that he is the only one who knew of this deal. He said it was several days ago. I take him at his word. If it was several days ago, he has had the opportunity all week to make that representation to Parliament to allay the fears of Canadians and to represent the best interests of the Canadian military.
    Mr. Speaker, if you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I am prepared to make the necessary motion.
The Deputy Speaker:    
    The government may wish to respond now, or if it did not have notice of the motion it may wish to respond at another time. The Chair is prepared to reserve judgment. It is up to the government.
  
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):    
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me in response to my hon. colleague. I would make a couple of points.
    Number one, we will be making a response to the hon. member's contention of breach of privilege, but I would suggest it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not give adequate notice so we could have had the appropriate ministers on hand to respond today.
    However, I also want to point out to the House and to anyone who may be watching that in response to the hon. member's allegations that the Prime Minister answered 10 questions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered 11 questions, and the Minister of National Defence answered only two out of the 23 questions posed by the official opposition, the report in question was a report issued to the Department of Foreign Affairs. So it is only appropriate that the minister responsible for foreign affairs take the majority of the questions. 
    The member is trying to imply by his line of questioning that the Minister of National Defence should have been the one standing up and fielding these questions when in fact the very report he is alluding to was a report given to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
    I would suggest that what we have here, quite frankly, is the hon. member playing petty politics with an issue far too important to the lives of our Canadian troops and to the lives of Canadians in general to play this type of partisan politics game in this House. 
    We will be responding in due course, but I would suggest to the member opposite that the next time he tries to promote his own partisan politics on an issue of such importance, he do so in a manner that is a little more respectful.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, in brief, I wish to join this debate to support the member for Mississauga South. The Bloc Québécois also has the impression that parliamentary privilege has been breached by the attitude of the Minister of National Defence, who could not have been in the dark about what was happening in Afghan prisons. A report prepared by senior officials at Foreign Affairs and International Trade has been available since 2006. Therefore, it is a question either of incompetence—and in my opinion, of breach of parliamentary privilege—or of hiding the truth. The latter seems more plausible to me.
    This morning in Le Devoir, a journalist spoke of the collective duplicity of the government. For example, after the Bloc Québécois asked 40 questions on what happened to Afghan detainees, we were given the impossible answer that it was all rumours and allegations, even though this report actually does exist. 
    The proof that the government and the Minister of National Defence acknowledge that we were right to ask these questions is that we were told yesterday that a verbal agreement with the Afghan authorities on the treatment of Afghan detainees was made between 3 and 4 o'clock.
    Therefore I am also joining the debate and saying that the Minister of National Defence breached parliamentary privilege and therefore I am asking the Speaker to call him to order.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
     Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports the position that the privileges of the House have indeed been challenged by the behaviour of the minister. 
[Translation]
    The situation with respect to the transfer of detainees has now turned into a circus. We must call on the government to deal with this situation.
[English]
    When we have a situation where questions are asked on a specific topic in the House of Commons and only two or three hours later, down the hall in a committee room, we have a minister giving information that is clearly contrary to what happened in the House, every Canadian and every parliamentarian needs to be asking what is going on.
    We support the challenge put before the government to respond. We believe that the privileges of not only the House, but of Canadians, are being violated here. We support the call for such a ruling.
The Deputy Speaker:    
    The government has given notice of its intention to respond at a later date. In any event, the Chair would have taken the question of privilege under advisement and come back with a ruling later, so that is what we will do. 
    I thank hon. members for their interventions. We will proceed now to orders of the day.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Apr 2007)

More from 26 April 2007:
Business of Supply    
Opposition Motion—Afghanistan ​   
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP)    
     
moved:
Whereas,
    (1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;
    (2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan can not be won militarily;
    (3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada;
    (4) the government has neither defined what ‘victory’ would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission;

The entire debate can be seen here:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2874604
therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Apr 2007)

More from 26 April:

Defence Science​  

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, today I stand to recognize the 60th anniversary of defence science in Canada.
    In April 1947, the Defence Research Board was established as a single civilian research body within National Defence. The Defence Research Board evolved to become Defence R&D Canada, the research and development agency of the Department of National Defence.
    After 60 years, the work of Defence R&D Canada continues to ensure the safety of our soldiers and the security of our nation.
    Canadians directly benefit from the defence science and technology. 
    Our defence scientists created the “Bombsniffer”, used to chemically sniff out hidden explosives. They invented the “Franks Flying Suit”, the world's first anti-gravity suit to prevent pilot blackouts. In 1985, Canadian defence scientists were at the forefront of an incredible technology when they were the first to open an Internet gateway in Canada.
    Today I am proud to pay tribute to the 60th anniversary of defence science in Canada.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Apr 2007)

Question Period, Part I:
ORAL QUESTIONS    
 [Translation]
Afghanistan    
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a parliamentary committee, less than one hour after question period, the Minister of National Defence proclaimed that he had made an agreement giving our military access to Afghan detainees.
    Later, he was a little more forthcoming in an elevator, and even later still in a press release.
    Was the Prime Minister aware of this agreement before his Minister of National Defence announced it in such an impromptu and confused manner, and is this a verbal or written agreement?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I have said several times this week that the Leader of the Opposition should get his facts straight before speaking. 
    Canadian government officials consulted their counterparts in the Afghan government. The latter did not block access to prisons, as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition. That is a false and irresponsible allegation. He should apologize to the Canadian military.
[English]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, it is even more confusing than ever. I would laugh if it were not that the lives of human beings are at stake.
    The Minister of National Defence said that “our military can have access to our detainees”, but the Chief of the Defence Staff, not aware of the so-called agreement, said, “That's not our area of expertise”. He said, “It wouldn't be soldiers” who would monitor the detainee situation.
    Who is right? The minister or the general? And if there is an agreement, why will the Prime Minister not show it to Canadians right now?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, once again, I suggest to the Leader of the Oppositionthat he have the facts before making allegations against the Canadian military.
    The truth of the matter is that we have consulted with the government of Afghanistan over the past several days. We have found no evidence there is any access blocked to the prisons. In fact, not only are Afghan authorities agreeing to access to the prisons, they actually agree that they will formalize that agreement so there is no potential misunderstanding.
    These allegations were made recklessly. They were made without information. The Leader of the Opposition should apologize to the Canadian military.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
      [Table of Contents] 
The Speaker:   
    Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff--
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:    
    Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. We have to be able to hear the next question.
Hon. Stéphane Dion:    
    Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff was not aware of the deal. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was not aware of the deal. When caught off guard, he said. “Having just heard about it myself, do I think it's a good idea? Sure”.
    Now the Prime Minister is saying that we do not need a deal because we always have access to the situation of the detainees. It would be a joke if it were not so serious.
    My question for the Prime Minister is this. Does he still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, who I do not have confidence in is the Leader of the Opposition. 
    We will conclude a formal agreement so that we never again face these kinds of baseless accusations. 
    The fact of the matter is this. The real problem is the willingness of the leader of the Liberal Party and his colleagues to believe, to repeat and to exaggerate any charge against the Canadian military as they fight these fanatics and killers who are called the Taliban. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Prime Minister believes the allegations are baseless if he has not investigated them at all.
    The defence minister said yesterday that they had reached an access agreement with the government in Kandahar province. Then he released a statement saying the arrangement was actually with NDS, the intelligence police accused of torture in the foreign affairs report released last week. 
    Now we have two conflicting stories, plus an improvised arrangement with an outfit known to practise the torture we are trying to prevent. I know the Prime Minister hates to admit when he is wrong, but this farce has gone on long enough--
The Speaker:    
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
      [Table of Contents] 
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as I said, this government would take the time to get the facts. Public security has consulted with its counterparts in the Afghan prison system. National defence has done similarly. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been in touch with the Afghan government and other Afghan agencies. I gather today that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission held a press conference in Kabul to correct the record on some of these matters. 
    The only person wrong is the deputy leader when he made allegations that we could not get access and nobody could get access to prisons in Afghanistan. That is false, and rather than repeat it, he should withdraw it.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw the allegation because the issue is whether the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has the capacity to investigate these abuses, and it is plain, in fact, that it does not.
[Translation]
    Yesterday, the Prime Minister rose in the House and stated that none of his ministers was responsible for the decision made by officials, first, to lie about the existence of a damning report by Foreign Affairs, and then, to censor the content.
    Why is the Prime Minister refusing to take responsibility for these misleading statements and this cover-up?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, all the member of the Liberal Party of Canada has come up with are difficulties and allegations.
[English]
    I also have to address this. Once again, we have these random allegations about the fact that reports may be covered up or not released or blacked out by ministers. If that member is making an allegation against me or any member of this government that we have interfered in the access to information process, the member should have the guts to make it outside or withdraw it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh! 
The Speaker:    
    Order, please. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Continuing with question period.
[English]
    If the hon. President of the Treasury Board and the House leader for the official opposition wish to continue their dialogue, I would invite them to do that outside so we can proceed with question period. 
[Translation]
    The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte Marie now has the floor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe:    
    Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. No one here is criticizing the Canadian troops. Those being criticized are the Prime Minister and his ministers, especially the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is our duty to criticize them because they are causing confusion. That is what is happening.
    We have ministers who do not read briefs as important as the summary of troop activity in Afghanistan in 2006. Yesterday we were told there was a new verbal agreement.
    My question is for the Prime Minister. Is there an agreement or not? If so, can we see it?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, this government alone is supporting the Canadian Forces. This government alone is giving the Canadian Forces new equipment, contrary to the wishes of the opposition and the Bloc Québécois.This government alone is supporting the mission in Afghanistan when our troops are in danger. This government alone is supporting and defending the Canadian Forces. 
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, and it is this Prime Minister who is not answering the questions. It is this Prime Minister who is doing everything to discredit Canadian troops. It is this Prime Minister who is a pale imitation of George Bush.
    I say to him that, if there is an agreement, then he should table it. If there is one, then that proves there was not one before and that he was in violation of the Geneva convention. That is what the Minister of National Defence did yesterday. I hope he realizes that.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the separatists are claiming to be the real defenders of the Canadian Forces. After making such a statement, they then accuse our military of breaking the Geneva convention.
[English]
    The separatists get up and accuse our military of breaking the Geneva convention and the Liberals applaud. Shameful.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):    
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the Prime Minister. The Bloc Québécois is not accusing Canadian soldiers of violating the Geneva convention. We are accusing the government because of all its confusion. We are accusing the Prime Minister and the other two ministers of misleading the House. They are the ones we are accusing of violating the Geneva convention. We are not accusing anyone else.
    The Minister of National Defence acknowledged the agreement with the Red Cross and looked the chair of the Afghanistan independent commission straight in the eye. Then, yesterday, sometime between three and four in the afternoon, he picked up the phone, called over there and, presto, a new deal. This can mean only one thing: previous agreements were worthless. Why are we waiting to ask—
The Speaker:    
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our troops in Afghanistan are doing very difficult work in dangerous conditions. I reject any suggestion that our troops are violating our international agreements. On the contrary, our troops from Quebec—the Van Doos—and from the rest of Canada are Canadian heroes.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):    
    Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that he is defending the indefensible, that his Minister of National Defence completely discredited himself and that, by defending his discredited minister, he is discrediting himself? Is he aware that with this supposed new verbal agreement, he is admitting that Canada violated the Geneva convention?
    Can the Prime Minister not see that there is already plenty of evidence and that he should ask for the Minister of National Defence's resignation today?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is making irresponsible allegations. The facts indicate that, contrary to what the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties are saying, Afghan authorities have not blocked access to prisons. The only ones discredited by these allegations are the opposition parties and the member.
[English]


more...


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Apr 2007)

Question Period, Part II:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):    
    Mr. Speaker, let us just consider what is taking place right here, right now. We are watching policy being made on the fly having to do with international law and Canada's responsibilities in that regard. 
    Yesterday the Minister of National Defence said there was an agreement. There was no agreement. He misled Canadians, crystal clear, after having said for ages that we did not need one. Now the Prime Minister is saying we do not have one now, we have had access all along and we are going to get an agreement anyway.
    Have we used the access? Have we used it? Have we fulfilled our responsibilities, and when is he going to fire--
The Speaker:    
    The hon. Minister of Public Safety.
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker--
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:    
    Order. The Minister of Public Safety has the floor; however enthusiastic or otherwise members may be, he has been recognized and we will hear him.
Hon. Stockwell Day:    
    Mr. Speaker, they are always intent on wanting to hear false allegations, but when it comes to hearing the truth, they try to shout it down.
    I can tell the House that for a considerable period of time now, our own Correctional Service Canada has had corrections officers working in Kandahar. As a matter of fact, I talked with one of them two days ago. Fifteen times already she has had access to the prison facility in Kandahar. She has full access. She also made a visit yesterday to the detention facility. Improvements are being made. It is difficult, but it is moving. It is difficult, but improvements are being made.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, why was this information, these so-called facts, not brought up in this House before? What is going on here? Are we seeing fabrication on the fly? Are we seeing serious policy making? Are we seeing responsible government? The fact is, no. We are seeing day by day a patchwork quilt of inventions and fabrications. 
    Canadians want some responsibility here. When is the Prime Minister going to first of all make the decision to stop transferring detainees? That has to happen. And when is he going to fire his Minister of National Defence who cannot even answer the questions?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I said repeatedly to the leader of the NDP and others in the House this week that the allegations they were making did not accord with the facts as we understood them. I undertook that we would consult over the next few days to see what the facts are. I can tell him that the allegation that there is no access to the Afghan prisons turns out to be completely false, and I understand the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has denied other things today that were reported about it.
    The question is why the leader of the NDP does not simply withdraw the allegation rather than continuing to bash the mission and the Canadian military.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, everybody is trying to understand the new story of the government. It is not the Red Cross any more; it is not the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan any more; it is us, it is Canada, Canadians monitoring to protect the detainees to be sure that their rights are respected according to the Geneva convention. It is Canadians doing that but it is not soldiers since the general said it is not soldiers. So who is doing it? Is the Prime Minister able to guarantee that these detainees are indeed being treated according to the Geneva convention?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I will spell it out for the Leader of the Opposition. For four years, in spite of repeated reports about these kinds of concerns in Afghanistan, the previous Liberal government had no policy on detainees whatsoever. In the dying days of that administration an agreement was signed. We have since improved that agreement and we are working with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission on that agreement. 
    We have subsequently received additional information and willingness from the Afghan authorities to open any prison to any branch of the Canadian government through a formal agreement. We will pursue such a formal agreement. 
     I wish the Leader of the Opposition, rather than continuing to justify the accusation, would just withdraw it.
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government claims it had no knowledge of detainee abuse and yet we now know that foreign affairs knew, the Afghan government knew, and Correctional Service Canada knew. The defence minister continued his strategy until he panicked and pulled out his so-called new arrangement out of the air yesterday. 
    Does the minister honestly think Canadians are buying any of this? Why should Canadians trust anything the government tells them about this mission?
The Speaker:    
    The hon. minister of state.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Order. I know sometimes ministers rising in the House are greeted with great enthusiasm, but we have to have some order. The hon. minister of state has the floor.
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the opposition members have been making false accusations all week. Rather than continue to repeat these false accusations, they should simply apologize.
     We confirmed for the opposition that there was no blockage to access to the detainees. We also had conversations with the Afghan authorities who have offered to proceed with a formal agreement. We will have the Department of Foreign Affairs proceed with drafting that formal agreement.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the original Canada-Afghanistan agreement included a prohibition against the transfer of detainees into situations of inhumane treatment and torture. There is evidence including from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission that detainees have in fact been tortured in a culture of impunity.
    Is the government continuing to transfer prisoners in violation of international law? Is the government seeking to have the return of detainees transferred in conformity with international law? Why should we trust any unseen agreement with those implicated in the torture itself?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, we are asking why they put so much trust in false allegations. 
    We want to be sure that whatever act the prisoners may have committed, they are extended their human rights. In all the visits our Correctional Service officers have done, they have not actually seen the evidence. 
    There is something the opposition should be aware of. The Taliban are like the al-Qaeda. Taliban members train with them and use the same manual procedures. Members of the Taliban have been told, trained and instructed to lie if asked about being tortured. As a matter of fact, they are told directly to say they were tortured even if they were not. That makes it difficult, but we want all prisoners' rights protected.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government has said that it takes its responsibilities under international law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seriously.
    Why then has the government in Federal Court moved to dismiss an action by Amnesty International to determine Canada's obligations under international law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why has the government sought to claim that the plaintiffs do not have standing before the court? 
    The government should not say that it cannot answer the question because the matter is before the courts. Why is the government trying to remove the matter from being judged by the courts?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, now that they have been exposed as believing false allegations, they are trying to backtrack.
     We are concerned about prisoners' rights everywhere. When British soldiers were captured by a regime that tortured and killed Zahra Kazemi, we heard nothing from the opposition about those prisoners. We hear nothing about the prisoners in Cuba and concern about what happens to them in prisons there. 
    The Taliban are the most serious killers in the 21st century. All we hear on the Taliban question is the suggestion a little while ago from the Leader of the Opposition to build a Guantanamo north here in Canada and to bring them here. Why? Why do they get that kind of attention?
 [Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):    
    Mr. Speaker, even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the government representative responsible for signing treaties, was surprised yesterday to hear that there was a new verbal agreement on the treatment of prisoners. This same minister said yesterday that he had not read the report from his senior officials on the torture carried out in Afghan prisons.
    Does the minister think this is a normal state of affairs? Does he plan on finally assuming his responsibilities?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, last February, I was very proud when I said goodbye to two of our federal prison system officials who are now in Afghanistan. The official I spoke to two days ago said that he had been to the prison at least 15 times. This is not an easy job, but the officials are present.
    We take the rights of prisoners and the human rights of all people very seriously, and we will continue to use this prison system.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the problem is that none of Canada's agreements contain the right to access at any time throughout a prisoner's detention. That is what is missing, and that is what I was asking the Minister of National Defence yesterday.
    Did he read the agreements? Why did he not ensure access at any time? The 15 times the minister is talking about took place after a request was made for access at any time. 
    Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs plan on assuming his responsibilities and ensuring that there is a real agreement that upholds the rights of soldiers and prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I wonder why opposition members did not read the information that I and others were putting out about corrections officers going to Afghanistan. We put that out a long time ago. They were never interested in that. They never wanted to talk to our corrections officers. They never wanted to heed the very laudable reports that even prisoners gave about how they were treated by Canadian soldiers. But when somebody makes a false allegation with nothing to back it up, those members are so quick to believe it. 
    We have been putting the information out there about our corrections officers visiting those prisons. Opposition members have never asked one question about that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot guarantee that this verbal agreement his colleague is talking about will turn into a written agreement that he can table here in this House.
    Can the minister assure us that this agreement will lead to compliance with the Geneva convention, which Canada has signed, and that he will make sure it applies throughout Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, yes. In fact, to assure there are no such reckless, false accusations going forward, foreign affairs officials will proceed in drafting a formal agreement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence claims to have reached an agreement recently with the authorities in Kandahar to allow Canadian emissaries to visit Afghan detainees and make sure they are being well treated.
    How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to make sure that all the prisons, even the ones outside Kandahar, can be visited, so that Canada does not violate the Geneva convention?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our intent is clear. We are going to continue doing what we have been doing for a long time. Yesterday, federal corrections officials and Foreign Affairs officials were in the Kandahar detention facility—not in the prison itself—and again received an open invitation to visit anytime to make sure no one is being tortured—we hope—in these places.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were unaware of a new agreement that would give access to prisoners transferred by the Canadian Forces. Now we know why: there was no agreement.
    Now, we are being told that there will be an agreement, but when? When will we have details about this new agreement? What will the government do to make sure these prisoners are being well treated?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the millions of viewers who are glued to their television sets right now cannot see the panic on the opposition side as those members are backpedalling, changing notes and changing questionnaires because they realize that they have been caught.
    They have been caught for leaking false allegations and for not coming to us and asking what the real situation is. Time and again we have confirmed what we have been saying. They have been caught red-handed in believing false allegations about our brave and dedicated troops.
    We will continue the process of respecting prisoners' rights and ensuring their rights are respected, regardless of false allegations from the opposition.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, we want to talk about panic. First it was the Red Cross, then it was the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, then it was some other body and then last night we heard we would have a new agreement. I have heard that Correctional Service Canada will be involved.
    Will Correctional Service Canada be the body charged with monitoring full time the conditions of detainees? When will we see this agreement?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, it is common in debate, when someone raises his or her voice in panic and just fires out a bunch of questions, that the person has lost the issue. That is what we are seeing across the way.
    As I have already indicated, Correctional Service Canada has been involved for some period of time. We have let people know that but they have never been interested in asking what our Correctional Service officers are observing there.
    A supposed or purported Taliban prisoner, they will believe right away, but dedicated Correctional Service officers who actually are putting their lives on the line even going to Afghanistan and some of those areas, they will not listen to and will not believe. We believe in our dedicated people.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, prison officials in Kandahar, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, distinguished Canadian, Louise Arbour, and the government's own highly censored foreign affairs report have all warned that detainees in Afghan prisons are routinely tortured and abused, contrary to the Geneva convention.
    In the so-called inspections by Correctional Service Canada, have all the detainees under Canada's responsibility been accounted for per date, yes or no?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, only yesterday our Correctional Service people and the foreign affairs individuals who went into the National Directorate of Security facility, which is where detainees are usually held for a month to two months, asked that question and the registry was shown to them. We do not know for how many years or whether it was always intact but there is a registry of all the names and our officials were allowed to inspect those names.
    Medical officers visit that facility once a week. Family members are notified when their relatives are in there. 
    In terms of that particular facility, yes, they saw the registry yesterday.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, the registry is one thing, the people are something else.
    The minister cannot say how many detainees Canada is responsible for nor can he say who they are, where they are or what condition they are in. 
    He has repeatedly given false information, as has the Minister of National Defence who, yesterday, claimed to have some new agreement that we know today is not true.
    Will the Prime Minister support our courageous forces in Afghanistan by picking, from any number of his more talented backbenchers, a new defence minister to be a leader that our troops can finally respect?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, these are serious matters so it is hard not to find it a bit humourous when the member gets up with his first question thinking he has us on the registry and then, when I say that the individuals saw the registry yesterday, he says that the registry is not important.
    The individuals also saw the people who were detained. Now he is saying that we are lying and I hope he apologizes for that. 
    We saw those people. We are concerned about those people. Two of the individuals talked to our officials about their treatment and our officers raised the issue of their being in leg irons. We do not think they should be in leg irons.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Apr 2007)

More from Question Period:
Afghanistan    
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to confirm the new, new, new version of his government.
    The Minister of Public Safety said that, in the last weeks and months I guess, it has been Correctional Service Canada that has protected and ensured that every detainee was monitored regarding their rights under the Geneva convention. It has been done. These are not paper records. These are people who have been protected.
    After all these weeks of our asking questions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, they did not say so because I guess they were not aware of what the security minister was saying.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I committed to the opposition earlier in the week when these allegations were first made that the government would consult with its officials and with its Afghan counterparts and that we would respond with any evidence we received. We are doing that and we have done that today. More is to be learned and I will have further reports for the House. 
    What is obvious is that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are making up their QP lineup as they go today.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, we are only trying to follow the contradicting versions of the government.
    The Prime Minister must understand. His security minister not only said, “We have no proof of the allegations”, he also said, “We know that it is false that people have been tortured”. He knows that this is false because they have monitored the situation with Correctional Service Canada. This is his new version.
    Does the Prime Minister confirm this new version?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has totally lost it today.
    However, I just want to say that I said that we were upset about the false allegations and that how very quick they are to believe a Taliban individual but are not prepared to believe the hard-working, dedicated men and women in our military and in our correctional services.
    I want to make it clear. They believe false allegations. We want to ensure prisoners rights are respected. Now they are taking what we have said today and trying to torque it and twist it again into something else. We are there and we are observing. We cannot provide perfect protection, but we--
The Speaker:    
    The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Apr 2007)

From Friday, 27 April 2007:

*ORAL QUESTIONS  *​   
 [English]
Afghanistan    
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister demonstrated yet again his contempt for this House. He repeatedly rose to say that access to prisons in Afghanistan has not been denied. This bluster was contradicted right away by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which confirmed yet again that access has been denied for some time.
    When the Prime Minister got it so wrong, was he relying on the Minister of Public Safety's false information about the activities of Correctional Service Canada? Was he relying on advice from his incompetent Minister of National Defence? Or was he making it up as he went along?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the confusion and disappointment on the opposition benches is desperation at the loss of their issue. They were wrong. They said that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission did not have access to detention facilities. It does. They said that Canada did not have access to detention facilities. We do. 
    The fact is they keep restating false accusations again and again, and they are doing it today, after they have been proven wrong again and again. Would they please apologize to Canadians, to the troops, and stop repeating falsehoods?
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Safety added a new chapter to this evolving tale of incompetence, disinformation and cover-up. He said that two Correctional Service Canada officers have had access all along to monitor the condition of detainees in Kandahar prison. Then the minister's own spokesperson contradicted him, and the ambassador of Afghanistan contradicted him, making it clear that before yesterday Canadians did not have the right to visit Afghan detainees.
    Is there anyone in the Conservative government prepared to stand up and tell the truth about this matter?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the opposition continues to restate falsehoods, although the record has been made clear. 
    The reality is that the previous Liberal government, which had sent our troops into Afghanistan, had for almost the entire period it was in government no policy whatsoever on detainees. Only at the eleventh hour did it enter into an arrangement which allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross access, an arrangement that the Liberals later attacked as inadequate, their own arrangement that they entered into. 
    We have since made arrangements with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to have access to detention facilities and now we are confirming the arrangement that we have with--
The Deputy Speaker:    
    The hon. member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore.
[Translation]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, once again, these answers are disappointing.
    The top Correctional Service Canada officer on the ground in Afghanistan said that she “was not naive enough to believe” that there is no torture in Afghan prisons. It seems that the only people naive enough to believe this are the members of the Conservative government.
    For the sake of the mission, for the sake of our brave soldiers and for the sake of Canada's reputation, will the Prime Minister put an end to this circus and immediately dismiss this incompetent Minister of National Defence?
 [English]
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the opposition members should really stop inventing stories to help the Taliban. If they have any proof, they should put it on the table, and they should put it on the table now instead of repeating falsehoods.
    I will quote this authority:
	    Therefore, it was not imprudent on the part of the government, in the context of our fight against terrorism, to side with a nation that was attacked and not become the defenders of terrorists, as the [opposition] has.
    Do they know who said that? It was Jean Chrétien.
  Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, this has been a week of chaos, confusion and cover-up for the Conservatives, a political gong show at the expense of our international reputation and the Canadian military. 
    The Prime Minister and his ministers have all stated that Afghan detainees were not abused. The international community has stated otherwise. Evidence of torture is undeniable.
     The government is in utter disarray. When will the Prime Minister stop misleading Canadians, tell the truth, do the right thing, and fire his Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I am stunned that the opposition continues to repeat false accusations and undermine our troops.
    I reference the following CBC report. Responding to news that Canadians have a new arrangement to inspect detention facilities, Dutch Major General Ton van Loon said he has not heard of any specific cases of abuse in the six months he has been in charge of NATO troops. “'I have not been given any reason to think that they would take place,' van Loon said”. He and his officials talk regularly with Afghan police and the country's intelligence service, and with a name like van Loon, I have to respect him.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government must realize that it is in complete chaos. It is a disgrace. 
    The Conservatives do not know how many detainees have been turned over to the Afghans. They do not know where they are. They do not know who is holding them. They do not even know what prisons they are in. How can they claim that these detainees were not abused?
     When will the Prime Minister show some leadership, take some action, and fire Canada's version of Donald Rumsfeld?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, in the Sarpoza prison facility just west of Kandahar city there are 838 detainees, alleged terrorists, and 138 of them are kept in what is called the national security component of that particular facility.
    There are 40 alleged terrorists and other suspects in the national directory security facility, which is a separate one, and in the third facility, which is run by the Afghan police, there are 35. We have had access to those three facilities.
     The opposition should cease making these false allegations and should cease carrying these allegations that are brought forward by Taliban suspects because they are hurting our troops.

xxxxxxx

More....


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Apr 2007)

More from 27 April 2007:

*Afghanistan  *​   
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has refused to admit that his Minister of National Defence has become a liability to soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. The daily changing story and the chaos that the minister has created are surely grounds for dismissal.
    However, it gets worse. For over a year, the NDP has been asking Correctional Service Canada for information on the officers who supposedly report on Afghan prisons and prisoners but DFAIT and DND claim no knowledge of this and have produced no documents.
    How is it possible that three government ministers have three stories and none of Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):        Mr. Speaker, when the opposition continues to make false allegations and repeat false allegations there is no wonder the story keeps changing. Every day we get a false allegation and then we must chase it down and put the facts on the table.
    When we keep answering false allegations with facts there is obviously a change in the story.
    If the Liberals and the other opposition parties would stop repeating and misstating falsehoods, we would no longer have this issue of changing stories because the straight truth would be coming from one source, this government.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, it is the government's story and information that keeps changing every day in question period.
    Correctional Service Canada has told us that it will release the documents requested today or Monday but it will not matter because the access coordinator has told us that the whole document will be blank.
    This is outrageous. The story would not keep changing had the government simply told Canadians everything. The truth will set them free.
    Why does the government continue to confuse Canadians? Why does it not simply tell us what is really going on in Afghanistan?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to hear a member of the NDP say that there was no document about our officers going over there.
    When we sent out the press release about our officers going over there, I thought the NDP members would be so proud of our corrections officers putting themselves in harm's way to go into these facilities that they would be asking for more detail. I also thought they would want to know more after I talked to the media in Afghanistan. It has been published in newspapers in Canada but I thought they would want to know even more. However, they did not ask one question about what our officers were doing over there. They believe allegations promulgated by people--
The Deputy Speaker:    
    The hon. member for Saint Boniface.
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, first we were told that the Red Cross would ensure that detainees were not tortured, but the Red Cross said that was not true. Then the minister told us that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission would do the job, but again not true. Then the minister suddenly announced, out of thin air, that he has a new deal, but again not true. Then the Minister of Public Safety stands up and says that now Correctional Service Canada is doing the job, but again that is not true.
    When will the government tell the truth, stop changing its story and fire its incompetent Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as we saw yesterday, when the Liberal accusations were proven absolutely false and we asked for an apology, we received nothing.
    Now the member stands and says that it is not true that corrections officers are in those facilities. That is true. I said yesterday that they had made 15 visits. They have now made 17 visits.
    I would like him to stand and take responsibility for false allegations and say that he is sorry. Those officers are there. I want him to stop maligning our corrections officers and our troops. Will he please do that?

Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the apology should come from the minister.
[Translation]
    On Monday, the Prime Minister said that detainees were not being tortured. Tuesday, he said that a new agreement to ensure their protection was unnecessary. Wednesday, however, the Minister of National Defence concluded an agreement, first with the Kandahar government, and then with the National Directorate of Security. Thursday, the Prime Minister said that he was still working on that agreement and that our Correctional Service officers had been able to see prisoners from the beginning. We all know that this is not the case.
    What is going on? What stories will they make up for us today?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, he is again repeating things that are simply not true.
    It is the responsibility of all members, whenever they say something—especially something as important as the name of our soldiers and our federal corrections officers—to not continually repeat false statements.
    I would like the member to rise and apologize, and to say that he supports our soldiers, the very brave men and women who are on this mission.
[English]
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Afghan agreement on the transfer of detainees prohibited Canada from transferring detainees into a condition of torture and inhumane treatment.
    Why did the multiple reports of such treatment not immediately set off alarm bells in the government? Why did the government ignore those reports, deny those reports, censor those reports or falsely characterize them as Taliban reports when these reports were coming also from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission?
    The facts were clear. Our responsibilities were clear. Why did the government dissemble rather than implement our responsibilities?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about reports. In fact, there were five reports and four out of five reports were given to the previous Liberal government. What did the Liberals do with those reports? They did absolutely nothing. They implemented a policy one month before Canadians fired them.
    When we became the new government, we took hold of that policy, implemented it and enhanced it.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government's entire conduct this week has been a pattern of contradiction, misrepresentation, misinformation and disinformation, and it is still continuing, and, at its core, undermining the very integrity of the Afghan mission and our responsibility to protect our own soldiers.
    Why is the government seeking to blame everybody else but refuses to accept responsibility for its own action or inaction? Why does the new government not finally act as a responsible government and implement our responsibilities under the Canada-Afghan agreement and under international law? Why does the government not act responsibly?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, it is Canada's new government that has acted responsibly with respect to Afghanistan. 
    What Canadians deserve to know is why it is the Liberals in the opposition continually take what the Taliban, the alleged terrorists, have to say to be the gospel truth but when Canadians, brave Canadian men and women, say something they ignore it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, over the past few days we have been treated to a real festival of contradictions. First, the Minister of National Defence called in the Red Cross and then the chair of the Afghan human rights commission. Then there was a new agreement; then there was no agreement. The latest is that Correctional Service Canada is there. However, they do not have the mandate to monitor the prisoners.
    If the government were truly dedicated to the troops and the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, then would the suitable story of the day not be the resignation of the Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service Canada officers are there to help improve the conditions in the prisons and in other institutions, to help train the Afghan officers to work in the prisons and also to verify and ensure that there is no torture. They are there. They have made a lot of visits and they will continue to do so.
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, while the story keeps changing to suit the Minister of National Defence, the abuses continue.
    If, as the Prime Minister claims, the government has the interests of the troops at heart, what is he waiting for to stop transferring prisoners and dismiss the minister?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, there are two things that have not changed. First, our commitment to see conditions improve has not changed, and we are seeing improvements. These are slow improvements. It is a third world system over there but we are seeing improvements.
    The other thing that has not changed is the continued flow of false allegations, where members opposite prefer to take testimony from those who are suspected terrorists, some of whom have been instructed and trained to lie, and they run with that. They will insult our military. They will automatically say that the suspected terrorists must be telling truth. They should start believing our troops.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the level of disinformation that this government has reached this week on the issue of Afghan prisoners is quite unacceptable. We have heard a myriad of unlikely stories. This government, which campaigned on openness and transparency, has used every form of manipulation.
    What is the government waiting for to pull itself together and put an end to this culture of secrecy that seems to be its trademark?
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, again, how many times must we ask the opposition why it listens to the Taliban and chooses to believe that what it says is the absolute truth? The Taliban, the alleged terrorists, are the people who are there to kill our brave men and women. 
    Opposition members might just want to think about that and might just want to give our Canadian brave men and women the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Apr 2007)

Even more from 27 April 2007:
*Afghanistan *​    

Mr. Raymond Gravel (Repentigny, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Safety stated yesterday that the correctional service officers have access to the prisoners in Afghanistan.
    Can the minister tell us how many officers are there to conduct these visits and how long they have been there?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have two corrections officers over there and they have been into three facilities presently. One is just west of Kandahar city, which is the prison facility. There are 838 prisoners there, many of them suspected terrorists. There are 138 in a separate national security section. The NDS site, the national director of security site, has another 40 people there.
     The Afghan police are being trained by our RCMP. We have never heard a word of congratulations from opposition members about the good work the RCMP is doing over there, training Afghan police. They have 35 in—
The Deputy Speaker:    
    The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 May 2007)

From 30 April, 2007:

*Afghanistan  *​   
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, last week we had story after story after story regarding Afghan detainees.
     This weekend we had the latest story, with the government House leader saying that he has “yet to see one specific allegation of torture”.
     Allegations, Mr. Speaker, they are everywhere, and nobody except the government House leader denies the existence of these allegations.
    Will the Prime Minister finally give us a straight story? Is he going to ensure that the rights of the detainees transferred to Afghan authorities are respected?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, the government has arrangements both with the government of Afghanistan and with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
    The knowledge we have to this point indicates that those agreements are operating as they should, and that there have been some general allegations, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. The government of Afghanistan has committed to investigate those, and of course the Government of Canada will assist in any way that we can.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, at least the government is not denying that there are allegations. That is one point.
[Translation]
    The secretary general of NATO said he supports the idea of an investigation into the allegations of torture.
    Will the Prime Minister insist that Canada and NATO take part in such an investigation, not just the Afghan government?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, once again, there is no evidence to support these allegations. As I have said many times, the government takes these allegations very seriously. At the same time, we have arrangements with the government of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. So far, these arrangements have been operating as they should. The government of Afghanistan has promised to launch an investigation and the Canadian government will help out wherever possible.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, I hope it will do more than just help out. I hope it will participate fully and convince NATO to take part, as well.
[English]
    Last week, the Ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and Public Safety spoke in the House. They gave a different story each time, only to be contradicted by their officials, by foreign agencies, by the media, by each other, and even by the Prime Minister. It is clear that the government has lost control of the situation. 
    It is obvious that everybody has lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for this mess in the first place. Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think I have been clear with regard to these questions. The government of Afghanistan will look into those matters and will have our full cooperation.
    When we talk about changing stories, I would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition still holds by his position that the way to solve this is to bring Taliban prisoners to Canada.
    Once again, we are in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban out of Canada.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government this past week has shown a flagrant disregard for the truth on the detainee issue.
     On the question of who is responsible for monitoring detainees: confusion. On the question of whether Canada is funding the human rights commission: disinformation. On whether the commission did have access to the prisons: false claims. On whether a report from our embassy in Afghanistan existed: a cover-up. On whether Correctional Service Canada has actually been monitoring detainees: pure make-believe.
    When will the Prime Minister end this mismanagement and dishonesty and get some control over this mission?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question.
     I do not know what the position of the Liberal Party is here. The Liberals have changed their position several times. They said the agreements that we had in 2005 were adequate. Obviously they have not been adequate, because this government has improved those agreements.
    We will continue to move forward. The bottom line is that unlike the members opposite we do not automatically assume that any allegations made by the Taliban against Canadian Forces are the unvarnished truth.
[Translation]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, given his reply to the previous question, it is obvious that the Prime Minister agrees with the official opposition that the Minister of National Defence is no longer capable of carrying out his duties. NATO is going to undertake a new offensive, insurgents are attacking our soldiers and the Prime Minister is looking for the right opportunity to get rid of his minister.
    Why is the Prime Minister not putting our soldiers ahead of his own interests? Will he immediately fire his incompetent minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the official opposition that the solution is to bring Taliban prisoners to Canada. We are in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from having a presence in Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we learned that the Liberal government knew as early as 2002 that torture was common in Afghan prisons. The prime minister at the time decided nevertheless to enter into an agreement to deliver all prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers to the Afghan authorities. If the Liberals had known since 2002 that the Afghan authorities were torturing prisoners, then the Prime Minister must have been informed when he was elected 15 months ago.
    How could he let his Minister of National Defence mislead the House by saying that he was not aware that prisoners were being mistreated?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we have arrangements with the government of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Vague allegations have been made in Afghanistan for a long time. We need specific proof. The commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission says that he has heard only rumours and that he does not report rumours to the Canadian authorities.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, there are serious allegations and therefore risks. We are told that there is no proof. Of course not; there is no investigation. The Afghans are going to be allowed to conduct their own investigation into allegations that they use torture. Reports are written by senior officials. As far as I know, there are no Taliban among the senior officials. Neither the previous government nor this one reads the reports. In my opinion, they prefer not to read them so that they can say they know nothing.
    Will all these ludicrous stories stop? Should the government not decide to stop turning prisoners over to the Afghan authorities?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is talking about general evaluations prepared by officials with the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is not the same thing as specific cases. There are no specific cases. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has informed us that there have not been any specific cases since our new arrangement was put in place. At the same time, the government of Afghanistan has committed to conducting an investigation, and the Government of Canada will assist with that investigation.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the Prime Minister began the week by saying that he was aware of what he calls allegations of torture, but he referred to the February agreement, which did not allow access to detainees. On Wednesday, the Minister of National Defence announced a new agreement with access rights. On Thursday, the Prime Minister prevented him from speaking and said that no such agreement existed. He and his ministers contradicted themselves all week. There is no agreement to ensure compliance with the Geneva convention with respect to the treatment of Afghan detainees.
    Will the Prime Minister put an end to this disinformation campaign and assume his responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the Geneva convention?
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, our members of the military on the ground take their job very seriously. They will continue to do the good work they are doing and that includes conforming with international law. We believe that things are working very well on the ground.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, we must be very careful. The things being said in this House are serious and frustrating. Once again, there are many contradictions and the government is trying to hide the truth. We feel this very deeply. Canada is a signatory to the Geneva convention, yet it is not respecting its obligations under that convention, and as a result, its soldiers are in danger. That is the truth, not a rumour.
    Will the Prime Minister negotiate an agreement that protects detainees? Will he put a stop to transfers until such an agreement is negotiated, thereby respecting the Geneva convention?
[English]
] 
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):        Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I note that the hon. member has herself decided to take the word of Taliban detainees as the gospel truth.
     Our members of the military on the ground are doing an exceptional job. They take their work very seriously. They are conforming with international law.
[Translation]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, media reports say that the Government of Canada has known for quite some time that detainees transferred to the Afghan authorities face torture. These are not new reports. The Liberal government was informed of this when the members for Toronto Centre and Markham—Unionville were in charge of the situation.
    Why do the minister and the Prime Minister not launch an investigation to find out what is really going on? More importantly, why does the Prime Minister not demand that his minister put an end to prisoner transfers or else resign?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our information indicates that so far our arrangements with the government of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission have been operating as they should.
    The government of Afghanistan has made a public commitment to conduct an investigation, and the Government of Canada is prepared to help it in any way possible.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, incredibly, it seems as though the Prime Minister remains in full denial on the situation of detainees in Kandahar. I will ask him about some other detainees.
    Since 2003, Canada has been sending warships to the Arabian Sea to participate in the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom. We learn now, due to documents that we have obtained, that the government signed, on October 12, an agreement regarding the transfer of prisoners taken during these operations. We tried to find out what the terms of the agreement are but the Department of National Defence has blackened out all the terms. 
    Where are the detainees going, Guantanamo?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have anything to add to this subject at the moment, but I would hardly want today to pass without a rare chance for me to quote Buzz Hargrove on the good work that the Minister of the Environment is doing.
    Buzz Hargrove said:
	    I believe [the minister] tried incredibly hard to find balance between the economy, the concern working people have for their jobs and the environmental concerns that concern every Canadian. I think he took a major step forward today that will deal with some of the environmental concerns that will not throw tens of thousands of Canadians out of work.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, in another damaging revelation, we learned today that the government was warned last year about the treatment of detainees handed over to Afghan prisons. 
    Human Rights Watch wrote to NATO, copying our foreign affairs minister, on November 28, 2006, saying:
	    We have received credible reports about mistreatment of detainees...in some cases the treatment amounted to torture.
    Why did the Conservatives hide this memo for almost five months?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):        Mr. Speaker, the real question is why the previous Liberal government, since 2002, chose to ignore reports on Afghanistan. I remind the hon. member that he was a cabinet minister. There were five Afghanistan reports, four of them received by the previous Liberal government, and the Liberals chose to do nothing until the month before Canadians fired them.
    We implemented the policy they put in place. We have enhanced the policy. We will continue to do so.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the government was warned and did absolutely nothing. The government has an obligation to thoroughly investigate all allegations of torture and it did not. 
    Human Rights Watch told the foreign affairs minister to work with NATO to develop a common policy for better monitoring to “investigate allegations of prisoner abuse” and “to publicize the names of detainees”.
    Why did the Conservatives cover up what Human Rights Watch was telling them for five months?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):        Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The NATO commander has said that he sees no evidence to back up any of the allegations. There have been general allegations for years, of which the previous Liberal government is aware, and it has taken the Conservative government to not only implement the policy but work to enhance it.
    We have a relationship and an agreement with the Afghanistan government and with the Human Rights Commission and we will continue to work very closely with them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, we are stunned by revelations that the Conservatives knew five months ago about torture in Afghanistan.
    The Minister of Public Safety boasted that there was no need to worry about the 40 detainees in the custody of the NDS, the Afghan secret police. Last November, Human Rights Watch said that the NDS was an irresponsible, abusive institution whose detention centres did not meet international standards. Why did the Minister of Public Safety boast on Friday about turning Canadian prisoners over to the NDS?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that our Correctional Service officers have received an open invitation to visit the site my colleague mentioned. The officers can go and work with the alleged terrorists, and they can also make recommendations.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, this is pathetic. The government knows that over half the NDS personnel are former KHAD fighters from the Soviet era, notorious killers and torturers who were trained by the KGB.
    Human Rights Watch has called on the government to work with NATO to develop a common policy and get involved in all stages of the detention process.
    Why has this Conservative government covered this up and ignored the recommendations of Human Rights Watch?
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, again we have general allegations. We have yet to receive any specific allegations. 
    We have arrangements with the government of Afghanistan and with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. We believe that these arrangements are working well. 
    If the government of Afghanistan requests our assistance, we will be pleased to give it to them.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 May 2007)

More from 30 April 2007:
Afghanistan    
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Public Safety told the House that officials from Correctional Service Canada had access all along to monitor detainees in Afghan jails. However, his ministerial spokeswoman contradicted him, as did our Correctional Service officer, Ms. Garwood-Filbert, who is one of the two officials in Afghanistan. Even the Afghan ambassador denied what the minister was saying.
    Why can the government not just tell the truth for a change?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the innuendo here because my colleague who just raised the question did not have the opportunity to discuss with the ambassador from Afghanistan, as I did, what is happening with our Correctional Service officers in Afghanistan. 
    The Afghanistan ambassador in Canada and I are totally on the same page as far as the good work our Correctional Service officers are doing over there.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):    
    Mr. Speaker, that was not my question but let us look at what other people are saying about the detainee situation. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville, the Prime Minister's Middle East adviser, said, “Torture a fact of life in war-torn Afghanistan”. A Correctional Service officer in Afghanistan said, “There hasn't been any significant work done with the prisons”. 
    When will the Minister of National Defence take responsibility for this farce and resign? When will the Prime Minister take responsibility and fire him?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):    
    Mr. Speaker, our Correctional Service officers, only having been there since February, have already reported some progress. They have the ability to go into these facilities to help train Afghani officers in the prisons. They have been able to look at recommendations on how these prison facilities, which are basically third world facilities, can be improved. They have had the opportunity to talk to suspected terrorists who have talked to them about their treatment there. It has not happened overnight but progress is being made. I am glad they are in those facilities helping out.
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, echoes of the general's incompetence, contradictions and impulsiveness in this scandal concerning the treatment of prisoners in Afghan prisons have made it all the way to Europe.
    While the Prime Minister and his Conservative government busied themselves with their daily cover-ups, the secretary general of NATO seemed to take the prisoners' situation very seriously at the Brussels forum. The hon. Fawzia Koofi, a member of the Afghanistan parliament who was also present, agreed with me when I spoke to her about the allegations of torture in Afghan prisons.
    It is very troublesome that our international reputation is being tarnished.
    When will the incompetent general be dismissed?
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):       Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we need to stand in the House to explain to the previous Liberal government that its inaction with respect to developing a policy on the transfer of detainees is unacceptable.
    What also is extremely unacceptable is the fact that far too often the opposition is so ready to take the word of Taliban detainees over our brave Canadian men and women. Canadians are finding themselves offended at this.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, what is unacceptable was the smile on her face when she answered that question.
    After a Human Rights Watch letter, the U.S. state department issued a report a year ago that states that a credible observer reports “that local authorities in Herat, Helmand...and other locations...routinely torture and abuse detainees”. He goes on to say that we are talking about “pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil...sexual humiliation...”. 
    When was the foreign affairs minister aware of that report? Since the government has proven itself incapable, when can we expect a NATO agreement that respects human rights and the Geneva convention?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):        Mr. Speaker, the accusations from the opposition are irresponsible. We have arrangements with the government of Afghanistan. We have arrangements with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. We believe the arrangements are working.
    The Afghanistan government will be investigating these allegations and we will be working with it in this investigation.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2007)

From 1 May 2007:
Petitions  
Canadian Forces ​Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 4,179 Prince Edward Islanders concerned about events relating to friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan. Because of the nature of these unfortunate incidents, the integrity, professionalism and reputation of members of the Canadian Forces have been called into question. 
    Therefore, the petitioners call upon the minister and the Prime Minister to take immediate action to ensure that members of our Canadian Forces be given the full respect they deserve, that they are not treated as common criminals, and that all efforts be made by the Canadian government to protect the reputation, livelihood and mental health of those individuals when such incidents occur.
-----------------------------------------------
*ORAL QUESTIONS *​  
[Translation]

Afghanistan  
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence, yes or no? 
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly that it is the Leader of the Opposition in whom I lack confidence.
    What leads me to that conclusion today would be reading a copy of a letter I received from Ed Morgan, the national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, noting that his colleague, Elizabeth May, has diminished the Holocaust, used the Nazi analogy that is demagogic and inappropriate, while belittling Canadians of faith.
    The Leader of the Opposition hitched his wagon to this individual. I hope he will distance himself from those kinds of remarks.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be able to say if, yes or no, he has confidence in his Minister of National Defence. The entire nation wants to hear the answer.
The last time the minister was allowed to speak was in an elevator. Now the Minister of Public Safety is inventing policy in an elevator. Maybe we should get the Prime Minister in an elevator to get an answer from him.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, all ministers serve the government with distinction. He will know that the Minister of National Defence has served his country with distinction for virtually his entire adult life, including in a uniform in the Canadian Forces.
I think the Leader of the Opposition should be able to say that he believes that diminishing the Holocaust and using Nazi analogies are inappropriate. I would like to again give him a chance to distance himself from these remarks by his colleague, the leader of the Green Party.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, to speak about the credentials of the minister is not enough. Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence, yes or no?
[Translation]
    I suggest that the Prime Minister should no longer have confidence in his Minister of National Defence. He was wrong about the Red Cross, wrong about the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, wrong about the alleged new agreement with the Afghan government and wrong about the treatment of prisoners.
    Will the Prime Minister fire his Minister of National Defence and give our soldiers a better minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, obviously I have confidence in the Minister of National Defence, someone who has served as a member of the Canadian Forces.
    It is no small matter to diminish the Holocaust or use Nazi analogies, as the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, has done. The Canadian Jewish Congress has denounced this. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will—
The Speaker:  
    The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
[English]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, changing the channel will not work. 
    The Prime Minister and his ministers have persisted in their denials that the government had any specific knowledge of allegations of torture. Then yesterday the Minister of Public Safety admitted that the government did know about specific allegations of torture and that Correctional Service Canada officers in Afghanistan had told him last week. We have a startling new admission.
    When is the Prime Minister going to end these obvious fabrications, fire his incompetent Minister of National Defence and appoint somebody able to get some control over this ridiculous spectacle?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, the problem once again is that the opposition continues to have its facts wrong.
    The deputy leader has just claimed there is some new allegation here. I am reading quotes from Hansard last week where the Minister of Public Safety said exactly that Canadian corrections officials had been in prisons in Afghanistan, had heard some of these allegations, but had not seen any evidence to substantiate them. 
    It is right on the Hansard record of April 26. The member should actually listen to something that is being said in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Public Safety called the detainees “cold-blooded murderers”, ignoring the Geneva convention provisions on presumption of innocence. Canada must protect the detainees, no matter what the government thinks of them.
    Does this government believe that the fundamental guarantees of the Geneva convention can simply be ignored?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, the constant practice of the member from Harvard from Etobicoke is to take something that was said and twist it and torque it into something else. I never said that all the suspects who were captured were cold-blooded murderers. I did say that Taliban terrorists were cold-blooded murderers, but I did not say that all the suspects in jails were that.
    Is the hon. member saying that he supports Taliban terrorists? Is that what he is saying? That goes in line with his leader supporting the comments of Elizabeth May.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, in 2006, Human Rights Watch sent NATO members a report confirming the use of torture in Afghan prisons. A 2006 report produced by senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs came to the same conclusion. Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety said that two correctional services officials had provided statements from detainees who claimed to have been tortured by Afghan authorities. In light of this evidence, will the Prime Minister stop transferring detainees to the Afghan authorities, and will he call for an independent inquiry?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, last week, here in the House of Commons, the Minister of Public Safety said that Correctional Service Canada officials who visited a prison in Afghanistan heard detainees make allegations.
    However, there is no proof confirming the allegations. As we just said, the Afghan government is committed to investigating the matter, and the Government of Canada will help with the investigation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying that the Afghan authorities will investigate the allegations, yet the Afghan police are the ones suspected of using torture to make detainees talk. That is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
    Will the Prime MInister stop transferring detainees to the Afghan authorities, and will he demand an independent inquiry?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, we have an arrangement with the Afghan government and with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission concerning the transfer of detainees. We are reviewing these agreements, but so far, they seem to be working the way they are supposed to.
    As we said, the Afghan government is taking its responsibilities seriously. It will investigate the allegations and will accept Canada's help in this matter.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, after spending more than a week denying the allegations of torture of Afghan prisoners, yesterday the government, in the person of the Minister of Public Safety, acknowledged that it had been informed of two instances of torture. There are two reports: one sent to the former Liberal government in 2002 and one sent to the current Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2006.
    Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that by denying the truth so often, his government is showing how little interest it takes in protecting the prisoners? Will he admit that he is not complying with the Geneva convention by leaving the Afghan authorities to take sole responsibility for—
The Speaker:  
    The hon. Minister of Public Safety.
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated that our corrections officers had heard allegations of torture in two cases, but there is no proof.
    Our officers are there to observe and help improve conditions in the prisons. We have already seen improvements. We have to take things one step at a time, but we have seen improvements.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  
    Mr. Speaker, we now know that legal action is being taken against Canada here and abroad, with more to come, to prevent future transfers of Afghan prisoners. 
    According to many experts, the federal government no longer has a choice, in light of the repeated violations of the Geneva convention. It must stop prisoner transfers.
    Why does the Prime Minister have to wait until the courts force his hand in order to comply with the Geneva convention, which Canada signed? 
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, prisoners' rights are extremely important to us. In addition, the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces said that it was preferable for the Afghans to continue developing their ability to receive and handle prisoners, and that is exactly what is happening. It is happening very quickly, but it is happening now.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  
    Mr. Speaker, with respect to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to provide answers concerning the agreement with the Americans for prisoners captured at sea.
    After denying it for many days, the Minister of Public Safety finally said that he had received reports from our experts, our correctional offers, about torture in Afghanistan.
    Why are detainees still being transferred? Why does the Prime Minister not stop these transfers immediately?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety admitted these things last week during question period in the House of Commons. He said that officials from Correctional Service Canada had passed on these allegations, but that there was no proof.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been caught repeatedly misleading the House on this whole affair of the transfers.
    The Minister of Foreign Affairs has so many different positions on this, it is impossible to know where he stands, despite the warnings from Human Rights Watch and his own department. 
    Now we have the Minister of Public Safety who first tells us that there are no reports of torture and then turns around a couple of hours later and tells us that there are.
    This whole fiasco has reached the point where the Prime Minister has to take some action.
    Why does he not shuffle the whole bunch out of there and put some confidence in his cabinet for a change?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, all I can do is quote exactly what the Minister of Public Safety said last week. He said that corrections officials were in these prisons in Afghanistan and had not observed torture, had received some allegations but saw no evidence that those allegations were correct. 
    That was revealed last week in the House. The opposition members have their facts wrong. I would love to shuffle them around but it is not within my power.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for the past two weeks to get clear answers to straightforward questions. The government, however, prefers to change its story from one day to the next. 
    I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a very simple question. How many prisoners has the Conservative government handed over to Afghan authorities?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:  
    Order, please. The hon. Minister of Public Safety has the floor. Everyone would like to hear his response. The minister has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, what is interesting here is that when I published the fact in February that we had corrections officers in the prisons in Afghanistan, the opposition members were not even interested and never asked a question.
    When I was in Afghanistan myself and was talking to the media there and talking about the hard-working corrections officers there, they never asked a question.
     When I talked in the House of Commons about our corrections officers and how they had talked to two individuals who talked about allegations, there was not a question. 
    However, when the opposition read one snappy little headline yesterday that this was the first time anybody had known about this, they all leapt at it.
    Why do they not trying leaping for the truth?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is incapable of answering this question, even though it claimed to have access to everyone being held by Afghan authorities. 
    The government has had a full week to conduct its research. Can the government inform this House and Canadians at this time?
    I repeat my question. How many people have been transferred to Afghan authorities? Where are the prisoners? How are they? What is their condition? Who has spoken to them recently?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, the numbers of prisoners and the details about prisoners are operational matters and are not revealed to the public. 
    However, if the previous Liberal government wants to admit how many prisoners it transferred, we are quite open to hear it.
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, the secretary general of NATO himself admitted that he is taking the allegations of torture in Afghan prisons very seriously. 
    Meanwhile, this government continues its parade of ministers, each one telling a different story, depending on that days' preferred cover-up.
    My question is for the Prime Minister. According to the Conservative government's logic in this file, does he now believe that the secretary general of NATO is listening to the Taliban or will he too finally start to take these allegations seriously, fulfil his obligation and ensure that the Geneva convention is respected? 
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, our military takes its role very seriously on the ground in Afghanistan. It is working incredibly hard and doing an incredibly good job, and that includes conforming with international law.
   We believe that things are working very well on the ground.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  
    Mr. Speaker, these are serious allegations. Unfortunately, even the Minister of National Defence seems to have gone AWOL. Maybe his staff will send another inspired e-mail to the press today.
Canadians are demanding a straight answer from the government and they are wondering why NATO is taking these allegations more seriously than the collection of ministers across the floor.
When will the Conservative government drop the tired, Bush-style rhetoric, be accountable and work with NATO to determine the truth of the allegations and to ensure that we always comply with the Geneva convention obligations in Afghanistan?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):  
    Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, our military personnel on the ground ensure that they conform with international law. 
     The NATO commander, as the member so often likes to refer to, has said that he sees no specific evidence to these allegations. Yes, there are general allegations, but there are no specific allegations. 
    There is an arrangement with the government of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. They are investigating and we are assisting in that investigation.


----------



## TCBF (4 May 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> but I suspect there must be local (read civilian) workers at the station?



- The only way for a civilian to get to Alert is with military permission.  Think of Alert's reason for being there, and all becomes clear.

Would you consider 600 miles or so "Local" ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 May 2007)

Even the Senate is at it -- from 2 May 07 (highlights only because of length)
Hansard link

National Defence

    Afghanistan—Treatment of Detainees—Confidence in Minister

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, our Canadian forces meet exceptional standards of excellence and professionalism .... This is why we have been shocked at the allegations that prisoners captured by Canadians in Afghanistan have been abused, tortured or even summarily executed after having been handed over to Afghan authorities. To wash our hands of the fate of these prisoners would go against our values and those of our armed forces. Our government has denigrated our values and let our troops down. We now know that the government had been made aware of the possible abuse, torture or execution of prisoners transferred to Afghan jails. These warnings came from our consular officers in Kabul and several international organizations ....  My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is this: Why does the Conservative government not take appropriate steps to fulfil its obligations under the Geneva Convention and ensure that the rules for handing prisoners over are followed, thereby protecting the good reputation of Canada abroad?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, I share the pride of the Leader of the Opposition in our Canadian Armed Forces. My own son has served in the Canadian Navy for a number of years. I am very proud of his service in the forces and the good training he received.

With regard to her question in regard to detainees in Afghanistan, these are only allegations. While this government takes these allegations very seriously, I wish to emphasize that they are just allegations.

Before coming into the chamber today, I had an opportunity to see a press conference from Afghanistan where General Hillier was commenting on these very issues. He quite rightly pointed out that our government and officials of our government are following up with Afghan officials, and with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission on this matter, and will offer any necessary assistance in terms of getting to the bottom of these allegations.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette:  .... My question is very precise. When will this government stop covering up the facts, and give a clear and final answer regarding the measures it plans to implement to protect our soldiers from the lack of political leadership in this file?

[English]

Senator LeBreton: I do not accept the honourable senator's comment at all with regard to the government trying to hide something. There is nothing to hide from. These are allegations.  The previous government did not have an agreement in place with respect to the transfer of detainees until one month before it left office, which was in December 2005.  

(....)

Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer: .... My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is the following: Why have we given up the standard of not accepting torture anywhere? Why are we now not being careful as to what is happening to Afghans under our responsibility?

Senator LeBreton: The government is not giving up the standard to which the honourable senator has referred. I think the only person that ever talked about torture was a member of the honourable senator's own party, and that person is now the deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff ....  As General Hillier pointed out today, there are genuine success stories in Afghanistan. The Canadian military, CIDA and the many people working in Afghanistan as part of the UN-sanctioned NATO mission can be very proud of Canada's efforts there. We are making a difference in Afghanistan, and we should be celebrating successes and not looking for failures ....  The fact is that Canada is part of NATO in a UN-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan. We are making a difference. These are allegations only. As the head of the NATO command in Afghanistan said the other day, they, like all NATO countries, are concerned about these allegations.

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley:  .... Can the minister tell us whether she thinks Canadians and, more important, the men and women in our Canadian Forces, can have confidence in this Minister of National Defence?

Senator LeBreton: I thank the honourable senator for the question. Of course, Minister O'Connor is an outstanding Canadian citizen. He served in the military for many years before offering himself for public office. If honourable senators will recall, the minister gave a full apology for inadvertently providing inaccurate information on the roles and responsibilities of the International Committee of the Red Cross with respect to detainees turned over by Canadian authorities, but the minister has been forthcoming and has worked hard with the military officials to get to the bottom of these allegations.

(....)

Hon. Terry M. Mercer:  .... My question deals with the report published in The Globe and Mail last week with respect to this issue. Canada's "growing-old" government at first denied such a report existed. When it was finally released under an Access to Information request, it was heavily blacked out. The report now has been referred to the Information Commissioner because there is a concern that some sections were blacked out only because they were politically embarrassing. That matter is serious in its own right. The report revealed that the government knew our officials in Afghanistan had concerns about torture in Afghan jails. Yet, they have continued to say there is no credible evidence such abuse is taking place.

(1410)

My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is simple. Does the honourable senator believe her own government officials would raise such serious issues and concerns unless they felt they had credible reasons to do so, or is the minister saying that Canada's growing-old government does not trust its own officials?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, this question, of course, relates to the issue of Afghan detainees. I have some sympathy when I look across at Senator Eggleton, because he dealt with this issue as the Minister of Defence when he was in government.

With regard to the issue of the blacked-out part of the Access to Information Act request, as government and opposition members know, when it comes to the information provided on these access requests, lawyers for the government in the bureaucracy make decisions on what information is sensitive and therefore should not be accessible to the public. There is nothing more and nothing less than that.

(....)

Hon. Jim Munson: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If this lack of clarity continues, Afghanistan will turn into our Vietnam. It does a tremendous disservice to our troops on the ground. The answers have not been clear today. There are no answers as to why we are there, what we are doing and how long we will be there. These are simple questions. We need the government to be clear on this matter.  With all of this controversy, how long can we expect Minister O'Connor, the former defence lobbyist, to survive in his job?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, obviously Minister O'Connor does not have the same job security as Senator Munson has, as a former communications director to a prime minister ....  We cannot predict, in 2007, what the progress will be in Afghanistan in 2009. We have committed ourselves to being there until 2009. At the appropriate time the government will put before Parliament the facts as they are at that time and Parliament will make the decision ....


----------

