Bob Rae    MP for Toronto Centre

This is a transcript of a speech I gave Tuesday morning, September 30, 2008 at the Delta Chelsea in Toronto.

***

We are proudest as Canadians when we're setting a standard for the world.

Lester Pearson did that when he called on the United Nations to send peacekeepers to Suez.

Pierre Trudeau did it with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and with his determined efforts to bring the super powers back from the brink of nuclear confrontation.

John Turner did it with his principled stand to never sell Canada short.

Jean Chretien did it with his stand against the war in Iraq, his support for the Landmines Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and his determined efforts to build relations with China and India.

Paul Martin did it with his deep commitment to development in Africa and the need to bring newly industrialized countries into the councils of the world.

The last two years in foreign policy have been, by contrast, amateur hour on the Rideau, the least experienced and effective foreign policy team in the history of the country, an embarrassing cocktail of relentless ideology and gross incompetence.

Stephen Harper's government has taken Canada down a foreign and defence policy path unworthy of our great country.

Mr. Harper has put Canada's foreign policy in lock-step with the Bush foreign policy, which is now rejected by the great majority of the American public, and public opinion in the rest of the world. Let’s not forget this is the man who described the right-wing conservative movement in the U.S. as his “light and inspiration.”

The Liberal Party has always believed that Canada must have its own voice on the world stage.

Never was this more clear than in the run-up to the American-led invasion of Iraq.

We should all remember, in the face of the intense international pressure that Canada was under to send our troops to Iraq, Jean Chretien’s Liberal government of the day did the right thing and said no. Stephen Harper had this to say: “I don’t know all the facts but I think we should work closely with the Americans.”

Mr. Chretien and the Liberal Party made the right decision to keep Canada out of Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

At that time, Mr. Harper spoke out in favour of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, Stephen Harper -- as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition -- went to the U.S. to apologize for the government's failure to join in the war on Iraq.

In a House of Commons vote on a motion "that this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention" in Iraq on March 20, 2003 Stephen Harper led those who voted against the motion.

In fact, he spoke eloquently about his desire to join the Coalition of the Willing’s invasion and was lauded for the speech that he delivered in the House of Commons on March 20, 2003, urging Canada to join Mr. Bush’s war effort.

Pundits called it one of the best speeches of Mr. Harper’s career.

The problem is it wasn’t Mr. Harper’s speech; it was former Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8YwJC_nBgw

How does a political leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving the exact same speech as another country's leader, let alone one who was a key member of George W. Bush's Coalition of the Willing?

How can Canadians trust anything that Mr. Harper says now? How can they believe Steve? The decision on whether to commit troops to join the war on Iraq was by far the greatest test leaders across the globe faced this decade.

Mr. Harper couldn't find his own voice, so he borrowed someone else's. This isn't just deeply embarrassing for Mr. Harper - he would have been expelled from Richview Collegiate, let alone a university, for pulling this stunt (it’s called plagiarism) - but it speaks to the heart of what is deeply wrong with the Republican Conservative government of which he is the leader.

It's an ideological copy-cat of somebody else's idea of right and wrong. Whether on Iraq, or China, or human rights, or the death penalty, or trade policy, it's borrowed and copied from someone else.

The American right champions the death penalty, so Stephen Harper goes down the same road, abandoning forty years of Canadian leadership.

He has said it is perfectly acceptable for Canadian citizens to be killed by other states, as long as they're "democratic."

Stockwell Day has now become the final arbiter of whether a Canadian should live or die at the hands of a foreign government. So in effect Stockwell is the judge and the jury and the Harperites are letting other states be the executioner.

Apparently, Stephen Harper doesn’t believe that governments, even democratic governments, ever make mistakes. Apparently he is not familiar with names like Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard and Steven Truscott.

The arbitrary absurdity doesn't stop there. We have seen a trend develop in the past two-and-a-half years - Stephen Harper picks and chooses which Canadian deserves help when they are in trouble overseas.

If you’re unlucky enough to find yourself in trouble in the wrong country, you're out of luck.

Like Brenda Martin in Mexico who had to beg and plead to get more than just a photo-op with Jason Kenney.
Like Bashir Makhtal - a Canadian citizen imprisoned in Ethiopia for the past 18 months after being illegally detained in Somalia. Despite not being formally charged and not being able to see a lawyer, the Conservatives have said they are satisfied with the treatment he is receiving.
Like Omar Khadr - after every other Western government has intervened to get its citizens out of Guantanamo, after the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the detainees are not receiving real justice, after even John McCain has said the prison at Guantanamo should be shut down - after all of that, the Conservatives still think it is acceptable for Omar Khadr to remain detained.
Omar Khadr is now starting his seventh year at Guantanamo Bay. He was detained at the age of 15.

This summer, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the conditions of Omar Khadr's detention at Guantanamo, and I quote, “constituted a clear violation of fundamental human rights protected by international law.”

John McCain – this is the U.S. Republican Party – has said he would repatriate Khadr if Canada asks. The only barrier to this happening is Stephen Harper.

The last time I checked my Canadian passport, it didn’t say “valid only in certain countries” - it does not say “the government can choose to ignore this document if you don’t fit the right profile.”

Omar Khadr is a child soldier. His case should be settled in Canada, not in Guantanamo Bay.

Canada's foreign policy should be based on a knowledgeable, constructive, and engaged approach to the world. The Harper agenda is dominated by domestic politics, fitful, and erratic. There is an alarming superficiality to it all, as if it only mattered to a few people. We need something different and better, especially when we are dealing with issues that are so deeply critical to a peaceful world.

Our positions should be founded on international law and universal values and principles. Our ties of emotion and friendship are deep with many countries, and we must be proud of our own history, of our diplomatic achievements and commitments to human rights and the rule of law. Canada diminishes itself when it is less than it could be when it chooses to see the world through a narrow lens, when it turns every foreign issue into a partisan frolic, instead of an opportunity for statesmanship.

Our foreign policy needs to be clearly based on the need to reduce, and eventually eliminate, absolute poverty and disease; to prevent conflict and war and to be more effective in doing so; to ending nuclear and weapons proliferation; and to bringing countries together in an effective plan to fight climate change and environmental degradation.

Stephen Harper describes Kyoto as a “socialist plot.” But the Liberal agenda is the make Canada a leader in fighting pollution.

We can only achieve great goals together. They require a world order firmly based on extending the rule of law. They will be assisted by a world commerce marked by fairer trade with clear rules applied on an international basis.

For example, if Canada took seriously the notion of a responsibility to prevent conflict, as well as a responsibility to protect, we would be working more effectively in Darfur and Sri Lanka, where our voice and leadership have been lacking. We would be insisting on real peace talks, on real ceasefires, on real recognition of human rights and international law, and we would be insisting that our diplomacy and aid efforts be heading in the same direction to achieve those goals.

In the Middle East, an area that has been at the heart of the quest for peace for decades, Canada should have a clear, principled position. Our role should not be one of simple neutrality, because we are committed to values and interests about which there should be no doubt. We were advocates of the partition of Palestine in 1947 and 1948. Our commitment to an Israel living within secure and recognized borders free from terrorism and violence is not something about which any Canadian government will be neutral.

We are also deep supporters of the rule of law. We helped to craft Resolution 242 in 1967, which still remains at the heart of any long-term settlement.

Our friendship with Israel is deep and permanent. It transcends partisan differences. That friendship in no way means we can be indifferent to the Palestinian claim to a viable state, which is on the verge of being formed. We should be supporting it, and showing leadership in expressing what it will take to get there. It will need to be a country committed to democracy and human rights. But it will also need to be viable, with the capacity to build a strong economy and hope for its people.

Canada should be constructively present behind the scenes, as deeply engaged as we were in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and at so many other critical points along the way.

I want to close by discussing Canada's role and commitments in Afghanistan. We went there as part of a NATO and United Nations effort to create a more stable country after a quarter century of civil war, Russian occupation, and Taliban rule, and in particular to allow for the creation of a democratic government after the Taliban allowed al-Qaida to use Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorism.

Al-Qaida launched the attack on the World Trade Centre and the world had no choice but to respond. I would hope that all parties, including the NDP, would recognize the simple truth of that statement.

Canada's work in Afghanistan has been difficult. Nearly a hundred Canadian men and women have lost their lives, and thousands of Afghan civilians and troops from other countries have been killed as well.

The road to peace and stability is proving to be a great challenge. There would seem to be two major errors to be avoided. The first would be to think that there is a simple military solution to the conflict. We are not in Afghanistan to impose anything on anyone. We are there to answer a cry for peace and justice, to which we cannot be indifferent. But it is ultimately the Afghan people and their neighbours who must find their way to stability.

The second mistake would be to abandon the Afghan people to the forces of extremism before their government and army are ready to assume greater responsibility for the future.

That is why we urged Parliament to come together on a new, changed mission for Canada in Afghanistan until 2011, a mission that would put diplomacy and humanitarian intervention at the heart of our effort, and focus our troops on supporting that intervention and training the Afghan army and police.

Mr. Harper said in Quebec recently that he accepted the fixed date for the end of our military effort in 2011. This is the same man who said he wanted a fixed date for an election in Canada in 2009.

The Liberals have the team to make Canadians proud again. Mr. Harper doesn't have a team. He has a mirror for a cabinet.

The Stephen Harper who would have taken us into Iraq on the basis of someone else's exaggerated rhetoric is not the man who will take us out of Afghanistan by 2011.

Nor is the man who has cut funds for public diplomacy and culture capable of understanding what it will really take to curb fanaticism in the world.

When it was suggested to Winston Churchill that London's theatres be closed during the war he refused, saying "What else are we fighting for?”

John Kennedy said that "art is the great democrat, calling forth creative genius from every sector of society, disregarding race or religion or wealth or colour. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth."

Stephen Harper says that no one cares about artists or culture and none of it matters. Stéphane Dion and the Liberals say that it is precisely for our values as well as our interests that we are engaged in the world.

To coin a phrase - "Stephen Harper - not up to the job." Only the Liberals have the experience, the depth, the broad commitment and the understanding to do this job which Canadians want done.

The Liberal Party of Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Chretien, Martin, and Stéphane Dion is there for Canadians to get our voice back again. We are there for Canadians to build a country that can once again set a standard for the world. We are there for Canadians to make us proud.