Tuesday December 7, 2004

    Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

    Yesterday we learned in the other place that apparently the government has no intention of keeping its election promise and throne speech promise to provide 5,000 more troops for peacekeeping, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Thursday December 2, 2004

    Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is quoted in the media today saying that he talked about the weaponization of space with President Bush and that the President assured him weaponization of space was not implied in the missile defence system. I am tempted to ask whether he also sold him some swamp land in Florida at the same time, but I do not want to be provocative

Thursday November 25, 2004

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and Housing. The minister has had some time to think about Zonolite since we asked him a question about it some time ago. This asbestos-containing deadly material has been found in homes on reserves but is also contained throughout many homes in the rest of Canada.

November 15, 2005 - Take Note Debate

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chair, I am grateful that the House has this opportunity to exchange views on the new situation for Canadian Forces in Afghanistan because it is indeed a new situation and deserves some parliamentary discussion.

What we are debating tonight is the fact that Canada has undertaken a change from its previous role in Afghanistan and is in the process of establishing what is called the provincial reconstruction team, henceforth known as PRT, in southern Afghanistan, the city of Kandahar, which involves moving the concentration of our forces from Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, to the southern city of Kandahar.

This raises a number of issues. The minister knows that this will involve more active force protection and counter-insurgency activity on the part of Canadian Forces. Our understanding is that some 1,000 plus soldiers will be deployed by February, not including members of the elite JTF2. This is a change too. I hope I will have some time to say more about this later.

There is a perception in the country that this is somehow in keeping with our traditional sort of peacekeeping role, at least our post second world war, post Korea role in world of peacekeeping. In fact, what we are doing in Afghanistan is quite different than that. I do not think the government has been fully upfront with Canadians about the difference in the rules of engagement and the difference in the situation to which Canadian troops are being sent, not only in Kabul but particularly now in Afghanistan.

This is certainly not peacekeeping. It might be called peace building, but it is more like war fighting. It is more like fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda and trying to maintain that state which has been established in the wake of the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban regime through the military activities of a coalition of the willing, of which Canada was a part. I do not think we have paid sufficient attention to the departure or the significance of the change in the role of the Canadian military that our activity in Afghanistan represents.

There also are some questions within the NGO community about the PRT itself and the extent to which humanitarian operations in that area have been placed in a very odd position, where they are subsumed to a military structure. NGOs have some concern about the militarization of development. We heard some testimony to this effect in the defence committee not so long ago. This is not just true there. They also expressed some concerns about the DART in that regard.

NGOs are very sensitive to the role they play in any given situation. They have to be seen as neutral. They cannot be seen as an extension of any one particular side in a dispute. In the three block war, to the extent that they are being subsumed on the development side, they are very concerned about what this means for the security of their own employees and for the effectiveness of their mandate.

Finally, and we have already spent some time on this, Canadian involvement with U.S. forces and in Operation Enduring Freedom means that Canada could be complicit in any torture that occurs and any use of banned weapons by the U.S. forces, and this is the worry that has been expressed here tonight.

I already have raised the issue of anti-personnel mines and there may be other instances where Americans have used weapons that we have signed conventions against. I am thinking of the use of white phosphorous. It was not used in Afghanistan, but I think there is some evidence that Americans have used it perhaps in the attack on Fallujah, which, granted, is different than Afghanistan. We are in this increasingly integrated, interoperable relationship with a country that continues to violate conventions to which we are signatories. It seems to me that the government should be more concerned about this than it is.

When I asked a question in the House not so long ago, the minister of defence was not here. His parliamentary secretary stood up. I raised the question in the context of these black sites that had been recently revealed, where Americans were allegedly sending detainees to be tortured. All got was a very simplistic and naive answer from the parliamentary secretary. He said that they were turned over to the Americans, that the government trusted them, that the Red Cross kept an eye on these things and that everything was just fine.

Frankly, I do not think that cuts it. I would hope the minister would express more concern than his parliamentary secretary did in that context.

I think the minister has received a letter. Perhaps he has not seen it yet. I received a copy of it. It is a letter from a Mr. Melville Johnston, a professor emeritus at Ryerson University. I will quote from the letter. He says:

" The Human Rights Watch has condemned the use of “torture shuttles” (airline flights to transfer prisoners to various countries that used to be under the influence and/or control of the former Soviet Union). The European Union and the International Committee of the Red Cross have called for investigations into the so-called “black sites”. Moreover, the Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe has stated that it finds these sites “very worrying”."
Mr. Johnston goes on to say:

Wednesday October 13, 2004

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who was asked a question by his former House leader about a report on the subs that existed prior to the purchase. The question was whether or not the government was aware of that report and whether or not it had presumably read it.

October 6, 2004

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It seems odd to us that at the same time as the government is contemplating the enormous expense of being involved in George Bush's national missile defence plan, we do not seem to have the money to properly and safely outfit our submariners. Therefore, at the same time as we express concern about the crew of the HMCS Chicoutimi, I want to ask the Minister of National Defence this. Is there an intention on the part of the government to go after the British government for having sold us this equipment in the first place and to go after it for the costs associated with what are obviously inferior submarines?

Friday September 30, 2005

 Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and it concerns Canadian policy in Afghanistan with respect to the handing over of captives, whether that be to the Americans or to the Afghan government.

I wonder if the Minister of National Defence could tell us how the Canadian government intends to ensure that Canadian troops are not in violation of Geneva conventions. Does he intend to work with NGOs, such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International, to make sure that Canada is not in violation of these conventions?

May 30, 2005

 Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the NDP defence critic I am rising today to call the attention of the minister of defence and the House to the contract for making shell cases which DND has with IMT Partnership.Formerly owned by IVACO and now owned by the former company president, this profitable company is demanding concessions, including a 12% rollback in wages, elimination of cost of living adjustments, reduction in vacation time and reduced benefits.
If the company does not change its attitude, DND should be looking to do its business with more socially responsible owners, instead of someone who is clearly out to bust the union.

In the interests of justice for the 136 workers of Steelworkers Local 2916 who are currently on strike, but who are facing the prospect of scabs, I urge the minister of defence to tell this company that this is not the kind of behaviour that DND will tolerate from its suppliers.

Decent wages and benefits are the backbone of a decent society. Governments that turn a blind eye to those who would constantly make people work harder for less are sanctioning a trend that is contrary to the common good.

Bill Blaikie, MP NDP Defence Critic

Ten years ago, the government of Canada released its most recent White Paper on defence, a white paper that in no way, if it ever did, accurately reflects the state of the world and the proper role of Canada within it. At the very least, the peace dividend that many expected with the end of the Cold War proved illusory, and we live in a world considerably more dangerous than that of 1994.

June 7, 2005

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the very serious need now for a full court press on Washington with respect to the Devils Lake diversion.