Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Smillie.

Thank you, colleagues.

We're now going to proceed with motions. We have fifteen minutes for four motions.

We're not going to recess. We're just going to keep going with the motions to save time.

The first motion, according to the schedule that was given to you by the clerk, is a notice of motion by Monsieur Dosanjh.

Do you want to read your motion, Monsieur Dosanjh?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

The motion is before you. Do I have to literally read it, or do I just leave it and consider it read?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Just read it. It's not long.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

All right, the motion reads:

That this Committee hold hearings, starting at the earliest, for the purpose of evaluating Canada's mission in Afghanistan and determining how the mission can be balanced, in particular to engage in more rigorous diplomatic and development efforts.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do understand the need by the committee to discuss the mission in Afghanistan. It is important to recognize that Canada does not work in a vacuum; Canada works with other nations to be more effective, to be more of a voice, and to produce results.

Canada signed the compact in January 2006 with the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. The United Nations and 60 other nations around the world are a part of this compact. We have an integrated approach with this compact, to help Afghanistan do that.

In November I was in New Delhi for the regional conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We are not talking about the military one; we are talking about the reconstruction. Every other country surrounding Afghanistan was there, and all these countries committed with Canada and the compact to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

We all understand that reconstruction is a priority—no question about it. If you don't do reconstruction, and the Afghanis don't recognize there is value to these things, they will of course feel they have been left out. We recognize that very crucial part.

We also recognize that security has to be provided. You saw the report that came out the day before yesterday. Over 1,000 Afghans died—the majority killed by the Taliban. Insurgency is there. It is very important that we do not have just one view, that we can only do this in Afghanistan, the reconstruction only, without taking other factors—number one is also the security aspect. That is why NATO is there.

But, thirdly, most importantly, we have to also promote the democracy in this country. We must support the government of Karzai. If there is no government of Karzai, then you have a failed state.

So is the Canadian approach to Afghanistan on three levels? It's not. It is a balanced approach, working with the international community to get the results we all want. As far as the Government of Canada is concerned--and this is the first anniversary of the compact--we feel we are providing a complete and balanced approach to Afghanistan. That is why we can't support this motion unless the word “balanced” is removed.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I thought I was supposed to speak to the motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Yes.

I have Madame Lalonde, Ms. McDonough, and then back to Mr. Dosanjh.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'm sorry that the party in power does not agree. Given everything we have read, from all sides, it is extremely difficult to support Mr. Obhrai, who feels that the mission is balanced. If it is, then a study like this should not be of any concern. We only want to get the facts. If the mission is not balanced—and that is what we think—then it is extremely important, for those reasons raised by Mr. Obhrai, to rebalance it or attempt to do so, because, let's be clear, that rebalancing does not only depend on Canada.

Yesterday, The Globe and Mail stated that the retired former general, Lewis MacKenzie, a highly esteemed man, said that he was concerned that there would only be 650 more soldiers assigned, for the painful spring to come. You are aware that we in the Bloc Québécois have also worked hard and we also want a balance. That means providing sufficient security and sufficient reconstruction in order that Afghans feel that this is their project and that it is useful to them, so that they do not once again turn to the Taliban and condemn NATO's armies as invaders. If there is not apparent and perceived sufficient reconstruction, then that is what will happen—all the experts have said so.

Just because from time to time a child gives soldiers the thumbs up—as was reported by a reporter who is a fervent proponent of the war and the work going on in Afghanistan—it doesn't mean that there is not going to be an extremely difficult and painful situation. I think that there truly is a geopolitical interest at stake in Karzaï winning. As long as this conflict lasts, we have to provide the means, otherwise Karzaï will be abandoned by the Afghans. Let us not forget that many people in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Pachtuns. The Taliban do not constitute a nationality, it is the Pachtuns who are religious fundamentalists. It is absolutely necessary to provide sufficient reconstruction and sufficient security.

We should also be talking about Pakistan and corruption in Afghanistan, but I think that the motion that I tabled before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is an open motion. I could have specified what kind of rebalancing I wanted, but I did not do that. That gives us an opportunity to suggest the rebalancing if we feel it is necessary. That is our mandate.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. McDonough, please be brief.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to argue strenuously for support of this motion. I think it's long overdue. I actually tried to argue strenuously many, many months ago that this is a focus appropriate for this committee. There's nothing more serious than sending our troops into harm's way. There's nothing more important than for us to continue to be very clear about what we're asking thousands of young men and women to do on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of the people of Afghanistan. If that isn't appropriate activity for this committee, I don't know what is.

I think it's particularly urgent that we do this at this time. We know the U.S. is about to shift thousands and thousands of troops, more firepower, and more military hardware into Afghanistan as it pulls them out of Iraq, and it's more important than ever for Canada to be clear about what our commitments are based on, clear about what we mean by a balance of diplomacy, development, and defence. There is an incredible responsibility and onus on each and every one of us to take that seriously. That's why the foreign affairs committee exists.

I'd like to propose a very brief amendment to the motion before us. It would simply add “and accordingly that this committee invite the appropriate ministers, departmental officials, civil society representatives, and members of the diaspora to come before this committee in this process”.

I think it's very important that we be clear about a comprehensive approach. When I argued for this many, many months ago, I kept being told that the defence committee was doing that. No, the defence committee is not doing it; they are doing their job, which has to do with looking at the defence part of Canada's participation. For us to turn down this motion is to say basically that defence is all it's about and that there isn't an equal responsibility around our diplomatic and our developmental obligations.

I urge support for that friendly amendment. I hope the friendly amendment would be accepted by Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

That would be fine, Ms. McDonough, if you can add something so that it doesn't appear that I'm limiting it to those four groups. If you can add “other appropriate witnesses”—

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

We'll add “other appropriate witnesses”. I'd be happy to see it expanded.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

I just want to warn you that we've got three minutes left. If we're going to friendly amendments, nothing is going to go through, because we have the opportunity to go—For me, when we say “hold hearings”, that means hearings that include everything.

Now it's Mr. Dosanjh's time. After that I have Mr. Goldring.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I accept the amendment. I don't have a problem, because that amendment simply more specifically amplifies the motion.

I would just call the question. We can have this debate when we're holding the hearings or we should set aside two or three hours and have a go at each other. I have no difficulty with that. We all know the arguments. What we want to do is exactly what Ms. McDonough has said, so I simply say let's call the question.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Or another one.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

No, we cannot call the question like this. Unfortunately, there is an amendment. When there is an amendment, everyone is entitled to speak on the amendment. Now it's Mr.—

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

No, it's a friendly amendment—

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

It's friendly, yes, but your friendly amendment needs to be accepted on the other side also, Ms. McDonough. Yes, it needs to be. A friendly amendment is for all parties involved.

Go ahead, Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I would like to tell my honourable colleague here, who is a new member, that we are not going after each other, as he just said in his statement. We are not here to fight. We are here to come to an issue, so the words that we are going after each other are inappropriate. I'm not here to fight with any of you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Go ahead, Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I'm concerned that the motion presumes the need for the mission to be balanced without even hearing from the witnesses. I've just learned that a number of witnesses have appeared before the defence committee too, including CARE and Rights and Democracy and other groups, and here, reporting on this issue. There is the compact, and many other organizations have been working in a manner that we're presuming has been effective and is already balanced. I think it's wrong to presume that the mission is unbalanced before we even hear the witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I was talking about my motion, but Mr. Dosanjh's motion is the one before us.

I have a problem. I considered specifying how the mission would be rebalanced and in the end I decided to leave this open. I think that we can rebalance it while ensuring security as well. We don't know about this spring. Everything I am reading now indicates that there will not be enough NATO soldiers.

If all the testimony was telling us this, then we should also be making a recommendation about security, because without security, there will be no reconstruction. It is for that reason there has been so little reconstruction. If you do not include the words: “diplomatic and development efforts” and if you do not add the words: “for security”, then we'll end up simply with: “how the mission can be balanced”.

I would ask you to reflect on this because the motion is not satisfactory as it currently stands. I would also point out that my proposal takes all Ms. McDonough's recommendations into account except the mention of the diaspora.

It would be simpler to adopt my motion.