Paul Dewar

[Health, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this year, 153,000 Canadians will learn that they have cancer. While lifestyle changes can help to reduce some risks of cancer, we have a responsibility to eliminate the causes of cancer before they start.

Yesterday, I joined with Prevent Cancer Now, a coalition of environmental, health, labour and social justice advocates, to urge the government to commit to making primary cancer prevention a national health priority.

A significant portion of the $260 million committed to the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control must be dedicated to cancer prevention. In the words of Prevent Cancer Now:

We are no longer prepared to grant that cancer has become a recognized disease of childhood; that our women friends are expected to stoically sport scarves and turbans while awaiting an uncertain fate from breast cancer; that young men are increasingly diagnosed with testicular cancer; and that workers in many occupations are dying in order to make a living.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the budget. There have been many comments made about missed opportunities and I want to look at a couple of those.

Before I do that, I want to take a couple of moments to talk about the philosophy behind the budget. Looking at it from a historical perspective, the budget is extremely interesting. In many ways it reminds me of the kind of strategy the Liberals used to take, and I go back as far as Marc Lalonde. There was a little for everyone, but in the end nothing for anyone. We have a lot of pronouncements about little things that might seem to be good on the surface, as many have mentioned, but when we look at the detail, there is little substance to what is delivered.

I refer back to the way that budgets used to be written. It is from a strategic, philosophical approach at odds. It is what is referred to by some political scientists as brokerage politics. It is broker this group, broker that group, be it regional, be it class-based, so the government can be seen as meeting the needs of everyone, but meeting the needs of no one in the end.

I will now go into more detail about what the budget does not do and the opportunities that were missed.

The opportunities missed were on child care. I take great exception with some of my Liberal colleagues who have said that so much would have been done if they just had another couple of months. Let us be real about this. There were 13 years of missed opportunities. Many deathbed conversions were made up until the last election, but Canadians were tired of that. The trust had been broken and as a result voters told the Liberals what they thought.

We did not have a child care act in place. We had child care agreements. Yes, that was better than nothing, but let us be clear about what it was not. It was not permanent child care. They were child care acts that, as we have seen with the new government, were taken away with the stroke of a pen.

What we have in the Conservative budget is not a child care act nor is it comprehensive child care. It is income support. While no one would critique the need for income support, particularly for those who are most vulnerable, we have to acknowledge that this is not what Canadians wanted and it is not what they asked for with regard to child care.

I think even within the Conservative Party some members would have to acknowledge that their mandate was not on the issue of child care, and it is a minority mandate. The issue for the Conservative government, and why I believe it was elected, was a consensus that a trust had been broken with the previous government and it was time for a change. I have heard this on talk shows, from people in my community and I have read it in letters to the editor. If people did vote for the Conservative Party, it was not because of child care or the $1,200.

My leader has said time and time again that it is important not just to oppose but to propose. What should we propose instead of what has been delivered? We have said is the $1,200 should be there, but it should not be seen as child care. It should be seen, as we had proposed in the election, as an increase to the child tax benefit. My predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, was the member who proposed that we eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. We know the sad story and record on that issue.

What we do know is the child tax benefit was a good, sound policy. We should have increased the amount of that benefit by $1,200 to attack child poverty. This is not what the government has put forward. It has said that the $1,200 is for child care and that is it.

The NDP has proposed that the government keep the $1,200 for the child tax benefit and do not tax it. Interestingly enough, the government is opening that up. We should ensure that we follow through with sound investments in child care. The NDP wants the government to bring forward a child care act, which will guarantee that no government can take away child care. It is so important and so crucial to our youngest citizens.

What would we have in the child care act? Beyond child care agreements with the provinces, we would have an agreement that would set out not only financial support, but standards as well.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about the budget. It is really important that Canadians take a precise look at the budget in the areas of what a former leader of the NDP used to call corporate welfare, and he had another adjective which I will not quote at this point. It is important because Canadians want to know the value for money argument. If large corporations are going to be given tax breaks and tax cuts, Canadians want to know where that money is going. They want to follow the money.

One of the concerns I heard expressed by economists is that the money that is going to corporate tax cuts is not going to be reinvested wisely and that it is going to go into excess profits. It is not targeted.

What kind of investments do we need to see from corporations and how might we get them to do that, if they are not going to be doing it in the manner that the Liberals provided and now the Conservatives have provided in their manner? How do we get good investment and reinvestment in our capital, for instance in terms of gas and oil, to make sure it is not dirty energy and that it is not going to harm our environment?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have to consider is that what our mission initially was and what it is now are entirely different. That is what we have to illuminate for Canadians. The mission is not with the NATO and UN; it is with Operation Enduring Freedom. Canadians know that now. That is why they will know that we should not be supporting this motion and why the NDP will be voting against it.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. All I can say to my colleague is that I do not know, but maybe someone else south of the border could tell us. This is not something that we as Canadians signed up for, it is not what we as Canadians understand to be our mission, and it is not what I as a member of Parliament representing my constituents will vote in favour of.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, those are all good questions. Furthermore, what we need to do is examine it in committee and bring in Canadians and experts to make sure this is a decision not made in haste. It is too important.

We deserve to bring this further than a six hour debate, to make sure that the resources are there and we are doing the right thing, and as I said before, to not be involved in what has been a failure in the south of Afghanistan. We need to work on something that is more constructive, that will build peace and not bring about more of the disaster that is occurring right now in the south of Afghanistan.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I began my comments by saying that I did not want to engage in jingoistic ballyhoo and I will not do that at this point. I will, however, point out to the hon. member that we do not need to take lessons about gender equality from his party. We do not need to take lessons about peace and security and building peace from his party.

What we do need to do is address the real concerns, the real questions about the mission and about the fact that bringing democracy to Afghanistan is a goal, not a military objective.

The Conservatives have not answered our questions. They have not brought logical questions to us and therefore have not convinced me that we should vote otherwise.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House as the member for Ottawa Centre, the son of a World War II veteran and the grandson of two World War I veterans. Personally, I have been in harm's way. I have experienced the theatre of war.

I share this experience with members because I believe that what we do in this place and the effects of the decisions that we make are ultimately about people, people who live in our respective communities and people around the world.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the NDP fully supports the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces and the important work they are doing around the world. Let us not sink into a debate, a jingoistic ballyhoo, when it comes to the issues of war. It demeans Parliament, it demeans citizens and it demeans the women and men who have served and are serving in our forces today.

Tonight we are here to debate and vote on a motion to extend our commitment to the Afghanistan mission beyond 2007. As many have already stated, the timelines and the process that have been provided to debate such a serious motion are not adequate considering the costs and considering the lives that hang in the balance.

In January 2002 Canada made a major commitment to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We supported that. From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the international assistance force, which had the aim of providing intelligence and security to allow for rebuilding and supporting the democratic process, something which eventually saw elections in the fall of 2005.

Canada ended this role in late 2005 and committed a battle group of about 2,000 personnel to Kandahar in early 2006. This is when things changed. The mission changed from being a UN-NATO mission to Canada then taking on the mission in the south under the American mission, Operation Enduring Freedom. It should be noted that the American Operation Enduring Freedom tactics have been to conduct aggressive search and destroy missions, aerial bombings and all-out offensives against alleged terrorist insurgents for the last four years with absolutely dismal results.

That is what we agreed to most recently take on: a role in the south of Afghanistan. It must be noted that it was the politicians who determined the mandate, not the soldiers.

When the government led by the member for LaSalle--Émard committed our forces to southern Afghanistan, it was on the assumption that NATO would be taking over from the U.S. led coalition in February 2006. It is now May 2006 and we still have no clear idea about when NATO is going to take over.

It has to be said that the reason for the delay of the Dutch and the British to join in the south stems from their concerns about the mission. Why? Because of the lack of clarity in the south, which has brought not more security but less.

It is imperative for us to recall that the NATO-UN mandated mission was not to go to war in the south, but rather to build security for ordinary Afghans through the backing of the Afghan police and military. That is what Canadians understood our forces were doing.

The Prime Minister has stated that a motion is needed to bring clarity to our role and our mandate. In the recent take note debate, our party asked some very specific questions on our role in Afghanistan. What is the military objective? What is the command structure? How long will it take to achieve these objectives? Those, among others, were some of our questions.

Sadly, these questions have not been answered with the clarity we need.

Let us take the question of military objectives for our troops. The government has stated many intentions, such as bringing democracy, fighting a war on terror, making Canada safer or allowing girls to attend school. These are laudable goals and they could and at some point should be arrived at, but for now it is not a military objective. It is not what is happening in Kandahar.

On the question of command structure, as I have already mentioned, there is no agreement in NATO about what the new mission will be. Even the British have stated that a search and kill combat role is incompatible with a peace support operation.

The question is, how can parliamentarians vote on extending the mission for two years when this mission lacks clarity? In fact, instead of signing up for two more years of a mission that lacks clarity, we should be urging the UN and NATO to look at a plan for real peace in the south, a plan that abandons the search and kill. That has failed.

We should be supporting the peace strengthening commission, which needs international support and has been championed by an Afghan Canadian. In fact, there will be no peace in Afghanistan unless a peace process is put together.

Finally, we must address the opportunity cost of the extension of this mission. In Darfur, the killing and the genocide in slow motion continue and we sit--and stand--silent. That is not good enough. That is not the Canadian way. We can, we should and we must do better.

There are over 30 countries already helping in Afghanistan. We are proud to help out in development and peace building there. If we are willing to continue to be there to build peace and shore up development, then surely we can answer the call to Darfur as well.

Citizens send us to this place to make responsible decisions. An extension of this mission as has been presented is not responsible and that is why it does not deserve our support.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the microscopic detail with which my colleagues are examining this. It is important. I think what we are referring to here is that when there is an outbreak, people are able to use products to help them with outbreaks within their own homes. I will simply refer again to the restriction of the cosmetic use of pesticides. Again, I will simply point to where it has been used in other jurisdictions. We are simply mirroring the concerns people might have about other appropriate uses. That is why it is there.

Asking about deciding where and when one applies repellent for insects is spurious, I think. This is about being able to use it effectively when there is a legitimate concern in an indoor setting. That is why this is there, and indeed, as it has been mirrored in Toronto and other jurisdictions where there are laws in place.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that 35% of Canadians are protected by such a law. This has not been an issue in terms of being concerned about it.

I reference the analogy of black helicopters flying around and conspiracy theories. The member should not worry. We are not into that. We are talking about what is in front of us today, and that is 35% of Canadians enjoy a law like this.

What we have to ensure for public health is that there is no unintended effect. If there is a need to use a pesticide because of an outbreak, those levers are there. It is straight and simple. That kind of provision has been provided in the bylaws of other jurisdictions and municipalities. Therefore, we are conforming to that.

If there is a need because of health concerns of an outbreak, then they would be allowed. That is why it is there.