House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was afghan.

Topics

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my personal sorrow and the sorrow of all members of the House at the death of our brave soldier today. I also want to express my unequivocal support for the troops in Afghanistan, for the mission and for the renewal of the mission. However I do so in explicit disagreement with the New Democratic Party.

I support the mission precisely because it is the moment where we have to test the shift from one paradigm, the peacekeeping paradigm, to a peace enforcement paradigm that combines military, reconstruction and humanitarian effort together. I have been to Afghanistan and I believe this new paradigm can work.

I have three questions for the minister. First, I support the mission but I want to know whether it is the mission that the Liberal government signed on to or whether it is a new mission. Therefore the questions are: Does the renewal of the mission imply more troops? Does it imply a change in the strategic direction of the mission? Does it imply a change in the balance between the military component, the reconstruction component and the humanitarian component?

My support for the renewal of the mission is dependent upon believing that this proposal is continuous with, and not a departure from, the existing mission of the former government.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by echoing the sentiments expressed by my colleague opposite for the loss of one of our brave women in the armed forces today. I also want to commend the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his unequivocal and unrelenting support for this mission, which he has expressed on numerous occasions both inside and outside the House.

With respect to his question, we are seeing tangible progress and any changes in the mission will be calibrated on the ability in which the security allows for capacity building, allows for the extension of the development into areas which are currently not available to NGOs, to people from CIDA, to the effort that is there to provide direct assistance in tangible ways to the people of Afghanistan.

Will the mission change? This is very difficult to gauge as far as military involvement. The Minister of National Defence is well situated to talk about the successes that have been made. There is no immediate plan whatsoever to commit more troops, nor has there been any asked.

Will there be a change in command? Yes. This will happen as expected and as part of the rotation that will take place through the NATO commitment. As the mission moves from Operation Enduring Freedom to the ISAP mission there will be changes. Does that mean that Canada will play a different or continuing role? Certainly, but again it will be calibrated on our ability to secure certain regions within the country.

However, what is most important is that this democracy building, this effort to provide direct assistance in the area of development is brought about because of the security and the continued presence of our military, along with our international allies.

I again commend and congratulate the member opposite for his commitment to this mission tonight.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore asked if the mission would change. The mission has changed. That is what we are debating tonight.

We are discussing a change in the role that Canada has played in Afghanistan, which has been a fantastic role in terms of our ability to rebuild that country. We are now involved in a counter-insurgency operation under Operation Enduring Freedom. Canadians want to know why we are under this operation.

I would like to bring to the attention of the member what happen under Operation Enduring Freedom. At midnight on May 22, 2002, two U.S. attack helicopters were brought into the village of Hajibirgit and Sten grenades were used against families. U.S. forces grabbed village men, took them to Kandahar, stripped them naked, shaved their beards and interrogated them in front of female soldiers. The village is now a dead village because the villagers have fled and have not been back. That is what happened under U.S. command.

What is the wisdom of taking the incredible work that the Canadian army is doing and putting it into that kind of action, which is counter-insurgency, and attacking villages as opposed to building villages?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, what is completely sad is that the member would somehow diminish the real important work that is being done. Millions of Afghan children are now in school and work is being done to build villages with clean water, with hospitals and with schools. I do not know how the member can debase that effort and equate it with some of the rigorous activity that is going on inside that country, the activities that he described.

I do not expect members of the NDP to understand this. I fully expect that the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st century in the NDP do not want to be part of an effort that is aimed at elevating the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that they would take this off track and try to debase the real activity, the important quality of life changes that are taking place because of our forces being in Afghanistan. That is what is so misleading about the position of the NDP.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for 12 years. When I take part in such a debate, I see myself in 10 or 12 years, when I will no longer be a member in this Parliament, and people will be asking me whether I voted in favour of extending the deployment or against it. I want to be able to answer them yes or no, based on sufficient and satisfactory information.

A while ago, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore gave his support and asked questions later. Unlike him, before saying I am ready to ask for an extension of the mission, I want to be certain of having got all the information.

That is why I would like to ask the minister whether, in fact, the right procedure to follow would not have been to agree to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on National Defence and conduct an in-depth study of the question. We have the time to do so. For the minister, for the government, what is the big rush today? This urgency has led us to a debate when we do not have all the necessary information. We are being asked to get caught up in the spiral and then, in five or ten years, we will have to deal with the decisions we made.

I do not have anything against supporting it. I intervened in the take-note debate on April 10, 2006. Today I am asking the minister why the government has refused to follow the procedure envisioned? There would still be time to get adequate information and then vote. It is in this regard that the government is irresponsible. Can the minister admit that he should change his position and take the time for adequate consultation—

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am sorry to interrupt the member. The Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the opposition member for this question. I hope that, after this debate, after the information received from all the members taking part in this debate, he will be able to answer yes, I supported this motion. I hope so, but I think his mind is already made up.

Why now, is a very a simple response. Because the Afghan people need to know the Canadians will be there. Our NATO allies need to know we will be there. The president of Afghanistan has requested that Canada commit to a longer mission.

We have to project stability, resolve and commitment. Those are qualities with which Canadians are well familiar. That is the type of perseverance and persistence that Canadians have come to expect. That is what we are getting from our troops in Afghanistan today.

Most important, the Canadian men and women of the armed forces need to know that their government and their people back home, who are safe and sound while they are out on patrol in real risk of losing their lives, taking bullets for Canadians and Afghans alike, support them. I encourage the hon. member to do the same.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the minister for his record on this file, for going to Afghanistan, for standing with our men and women there as well as with the Afghanistan people.

President Karzai has asked Canada to extend its mission in Afghanistan. He did not give an invitation to every other country. He asked Canada. If we were to step back, who would step up? Would Netherlands step up and replace the leadership role that Canada has? Would Great Britain respond and fulfill the role that Canada has had? Would we wait for New Zealand to come forward? Which country would step forward? Canada is being applauded around the world.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of our party and members of the House of Commons who have also served in the Canadian armed forces, including our distinguished Minister of National Defence.

The question is a very good one. Why would anyone expect that Canada would now blink in the face of this challenge? Why would we expect someone else to fill the role that we are currently filling? Other countries have troops there. Other countries also have troops in other countries like Iraq. Why should Canada, at this critical moment on this mission, fade or back away? That is not the Canadian way.

There will be a day when Canadians will come home with their heads held high. When our men and women return, they will know that the job was finished, that their work was done and that our country embraced that effort.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oakville.

First of all, permit me to offer my condolences to the family and relatives of officer Nichola Goddard.

Unfortunately, the first thing that has to be said here is that there has been a little too much verbal bombast. Regardless of how we vote, it is important to send our troops in Afghanistan the clear message that we support them and their mission. Each time there is an attempt to play politics with this issue, it becomes clear how the Conservative Party, this government, has tried from the outset to corner us in a political trap. The Prime Minister’s message this evening has been loud and clear. He said that even if the motion is defeated there will be a renewal for one year, after which we would make it an issue in the next election. That is the situation today: regardless of whether or not we hold a debate and a vote, clearly this government already holds the hand it is going to play. It makes you wonder if he hasn’t prepared a little communication session, given the visit of the Australian prime minister here tomorrow, to announce that we ourselves have done the same thing. Unfortunately, that is not how things should work in politics.

I also find it regrettable that the Minister of Foreign Affairs called one of our colleagues a 21st century Chamberlain. We should be spared such insults. That is extremely regrettable. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore asked him some extremely pertinent questions, but unfortunately we got no answers.

Given that lack of response, on behalf of the citizens of the riding of Bourassa whom I represent and as a Canadian and a Quebecker, I am not able to write this government a blank cheque. We know for a fact that countries such as the Netherlands have held discussions for months and set a date long in advance: that is how they have been able to reach a decision on the renewal of this mission.

We have also presented a golden opportunity. The Liberal Party, the official opposition, has supported the motion of the Bloc Québécois in the Standing Committee on National Defence. This is not complicated. Anyone who knows anything at all about the military issue knows for a fact that we have at least until next fall to make a final decision. It would not cost more. We do not want to play politics—petty politics—to the detriment of the troops we support, the men and women working on humanitarian grounds, the great Canadians who are supporting and guiding the Afghan people. We must not play politics at their expense. That would be extremely regrettable. We must support them.

It was our government, at the time, that proposed this mission. First of all, members will recall that we were working in collaboration with NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in Kabul. Why are we being pressed so hard today to give this response? Why, after 36 hours’ notice, hold a six-hour debate, at the end of which we will unfortunately be obliged to make this sort of decision? In any case, the Prime Minister has stated very clearly today that if the motion is defeated, there will still be a renewal for one year, after which we would go to the polls.

As minister of the Crown and special advisor on Haiti for the Prime Minister at the time, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I was proud to see the extent to which it is important to combine security and humanitarian assistance. The NDP is way off course in trying to say that we should focus strictly on humanitarian assistance without regard for security. Security is essential. If we want to make sure that things will work out well, we must have an exit strategy too. Some very specific criteria must be taken into account when we deploy a mission to a country out of our desire to help people who have suffered too long. We must avoid at all cost getting bogged down in this kind of conflict. That is not a lack of courage. In doing so, we are just demonstrating a sense of responsibility. We know that if we want to be effective over there, we must work as well with our other allies.

The Minister of National Defence says that if we send troops to Afghanistan, we will not have any others to deploy elsewhere. But we know very well that the United Nations has asked for the Darfur process to be started up right away.

I am also very pleased that Haiti has a new president, but his situation is still very fragile. Canada plays a key role and has important responsibilities in the Americas. We have a role to play here too. If we go there, we cannot go elsewhere and are putting all our eggs in one basket. It is only natural for us as members of Parliament, the elected representatives of the people in this cradle of democracy, not to flout the legislative process. We too want to ask some questions.

It does not cost us anything to take our time when we know very well that the deadline is February 2007 and that in any case, even if we say no, the mission will continue until February 2008.

I find this very disturbing. I can quote figures. We are going to spend another $310 million on humanitarian assistance, but in accordance with what requirements, what plan of attack? We know very well that the more things heat up, the more troops will be needed. This means that it will cost more in resources and human lives. It is important as well to say so. Is it irresponsible to ask this kind of question? This is not only a technical matter but a strategic one as well.

Churchill said that battles are won with tactics. We want to win the war, and in order to win it, we need a strategy. This means that we must be inclusive.

All of us here are Canadians and proud of it. We are proud of our troops and proud of this mission. But the government should not ask us today for a blank cheque, not on such short notice and after a six-hour debate. That is totally unacceptable. We were elected to carry out our responsibilities and fully play our part.

I do not think it is too much to ask for a little more time. I know one thing for sure, and that is the heat is on. It is going to take more. I totally support the mission and our troops. I pay tribute to the men and women who highly represent our great nation. It is important to mention that. However, I also believe that when we make a decision to prolong the mission for two more years, some criteria have to be fulfilled.

The only thing the government is asking us for is a blank cheque. The Prime Minister is playing politics. This was shown by his attitude in the House today. If the House says no to this motion, he has said it does not matter. He does not care what we think. The government would automatically renew for one year and then the Prime Minister would go to the polls. It is totally shameful to make that kind of statement.

I am proud to be the nephew of Charles Arbour, whom I salute here today. He was a military police sergeant. He participated in the liberation of Holland and Belgium. He contributed to the democracy and freedom that we now enjoy. However, he also knows from experience that, when such important action is needed, proper preparations must be made. Naturally, certain parameters and guidelines must be established.

We are told that we do not necessarily have the equipment required. How will we obtain what is needed? I am very proud that we are in Afghanistan, but we are told that the past four years have already cost us $4.1 billion. I am willing to make this investment and to see Canada continuing to work and provide support in this area. However, it seems only logical to also ask whether we have the tools we need to succeed.

This is a universal issue. It is an international issue. We are there to accompany them. We are there to support the Afghan people. For God's sake, I just hope that once and for all we stop playing politics on the backs of our troops and do our job. Let us get together. Let us take more time. We will be there to help them.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments.

First I would like to express on my own behalf and that of my colleagues our deep condolences for the soldier who was lost today in the line of duty in Afghanistan as well as the other soldiers we have lost in theatre.

I am also very proud to have members of the Saskatchewan Dragoons from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, serving in Afghanistan in theatre. Many members have served and returned.

I want to say for the member opposite that I hope no one in the House would be accused of playing politics with such a serious issue. I hope that all of us would stand solidly behind our troops.

I have three brief questions for the member opposite. First, we have been in Afghanistan for five years. Have the member and his party not had enough time to decide basically where they stand on the mission? Yes, the situation will evolve on the ground and there will be certain changes, but have the member and his party not had enough time to decide basically where they stand?

Second, if the member has questions that remain, could he ask them succinctly tonight and seek answers, as some members have done?

Third, does the member recognize that it is a bit odd to criticize the process leading to the vote tonight when the initial two year deployment was made by the then Liberal government with no vote at the time?

There are three easy questions.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple.

Obviously, our government at that time took responsibility, as would any government that wants to play a leading role and to help those who are suffering.

That is one thing. But to say here today that we are going to be asked for an immediate two-year extension, that is another thing. We are not questioning the mission. No one is questioning the mission or our troops. The issue before us today is whether to immediately ask for another two years.

That is the issue. The issue today is not about the mission. The issue is not about whether we are supporting the troops or not. The issue is, do we have that capacity right now to address the issue of an extension of two years? The answer is no. The Netherlands took months and has in advance the date to decide.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Ten months.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

We are talking about 10 months, so what is the hurry? Probably the Minister of National Defence will address this, but we can wait until this fall to have this kind of decision. What is the hurry? Now we have six hours of debate, plus all those slogans, and that is an issue by itself.

I believe we should have more time to decide. What is the hurry?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion to the National Defence Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, a motion the NDP and hon. members from the Liberal Party concurred in. This motion called for the subcommittee to study the various aspects of the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, such as the duration of the mission, the state of the troops and, finally, a great deal of information that we do not have. We deplore this lack of information.

We now have before us a motion that was tabled by the Prime Minister asking the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan to be extended for another two years.

My question is for the hon. member for Bourassa: how does he explain that the Prime Minister and the Conservative government are in such a rush to ask the House to vote on extending this mission for another two years?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question.

I had a bad feeling when I heard the way the Prime Minister was speaking today. I felt like I was listening to a type of state of the union address.

I am a movie addict and I had a feeling that I was looking at the Austin Powers movie and that was the mini-me who was talking. I had the feeling that it was a Republican speech.

It felt like a Republican speech.

It think it is a shame. In speaking about September 11, he tried to question the entire mission. I was the immigration minister after that period. We implemented security measures and we faced up to our responsibilities. To come here today in such a rush in the House of Commons to consider rubber stamping this issue is unacceptable to me.

Countries like the Netherlands have assumed their responsibilities. They are our allies and work together with us and NATO. They have discussed this for 10 months. I do not want to take 10 months to discuss this, but in my opinion the Conservative Party is trying too much to play politics with this. They could have very easily been inclusive and agreed to take an extra month—not 25 months. We will deal with the motion, supported by the three opposition parties. We will have a debate—

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The member for Oakville.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate. In all of us who are parliamentarians, this debate stimulates a self-examination of our responsibilities. Simply put, I believe we are responsible for two basic things: the establishment and maintenance of conditions that facilitate the well-being of our citizens at home and abroad, and second, the prudent use of the financial resources of Canada's treasury.

As a member of the loyal opposition, I have a third responsibility. According to the rules of Parliament, I am responsible to hold the government to account through questioning and, where appropriate, even criticism.

Tonight the minority Conservative government is asking us to support an extension of two years to our mission in Afghanistan, two years beyond February 2007. The end date of the request is February 2009. That is 33 months from now.

How does this request for an extension impact my three basic responsibilities? First, on the well-being of our citizens abroad, I must consider our members of the armed forces, Canadians working in Afghanistan in diplomacy, community development and all forms of human service to the Afghan people.

I must also consider Canadians at home, including the family members of our soldiers and aid workers and those generous Canadians who work to raise money for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. For example, my local chapter of Canadians in Support of Afghan Women has, since 1998, sent $280,000 directly to schools in Afghanistan.

I must be clear at this point that I supported the mission which began only three months ago. I support the three components of that mission, that is, defence, development and diplomacy, but I want to see how these three components work together to effectively better the lives of all Afghans.

As I said in the take note debate just about a month ago, we must monitor our activities in Afghanistan, watch for outcomes, both intended and unintended, evaluate the facts that emerge, and make decisions as the situation evolves. So I ask myself, do the first three months of this new type of operation give us enough information to decide our course of action for 33 more months?

Certainly we all agree on the goals. They are laudable, but will our activities there achieve these goals? In my opinion, it is too soon to tell. That is why yesterday in the House I introduced an amendment to the government's motion.

My amendment referred the motion to a joint committee of defence and foreign affairs. It asked such a committee to hold public consultations with Canadians, both experts and regular folks, and then to report to Parliament by October 15. At that time, the government would have had nine months of observations on the mission and reports that would give us sufficient information on which to base a judgment and a plan for the future.

As the previous speaker mentioned, the Dutch debate on their role in Afghanistan took 10 months. They concluded a commitment of two years after 10 months of debate. We are being asked to stretch our commitment, and we are committed to it, to three years, after six hours of debate. There is something inappropriate about this request from the government.

I am totally aware that this mission itself represents life and death for some of our soldiers. It represents the viability of certain Canadian families who may lose a husband, a wife, or a son or a daughter. It represents hope for the future of the Afghan people. It is very important, and we are the people who are responsible.

That is why my main question is, what is the big rush? Is Parliament in charge of our foreign and defence policy or is NATO or is Operation Enduring Freedom? I keep hearing we are being asked to do this and asked to do that, but I think Canadians are prudent folks and they would like to take their time and be sure that a course of action is viable and affordable and has a chance of being successful.

Talking about affordable, on the prudent use of financial resources, we know that we have already spent over $4 billion in Afghanistan since we first went there on our various missions. During the same period we spent only $214 million on UN operations. We know we have 2,300 troops in Afghanistan and only 59 abroad in UN operations.

I ask myself, is this the balance that Canadians want? We do not know. How much will 33 more months cost? For example, if the terms change and if 2,300 troops become 5,300 troops after the big recruitment drive by the government, that would at least double the cost. We do not know what the government's plans are. We do know that the plans in the budget suggest another 23,000 members of the armed forces and we know there are great big dollars in the budget to accommodate that, but we do not know the connection between all those new service people and the Afghan mission.

Certainly I am not against spending money in Afghanistan. They have needs there and Canadians are generous, but I question whether Canadians are on side for this large expenditure. After all, as the government keeps reminding us, it is their money.

What about my responsibility as a member of the loyal opposition? In the last election, Canadians decided to give the Conservatives a chance to govern, but as a slim minority. Canadians decided to elect a strong opposition to keep the new group in check. If I vote yes to this motion, I give the government my approval for whatever manner it chooses in conducting this mission, because if I ask a question, the government will come back at me and say, “You voted yes”.

I believe Canadians are always right. Their marching orders to me are, hold the new government to account. Therefore, I cannot give up my right to question and monitor the government's management of an important military mission abroad.

The Prime Minister seems happy about his first 100 days and Canadians are respectful of their Prime Minister and his accomplishments, but they are also aware that he has little more than 100 days of experience as a Prime Minister and no previous cabinet experience.

I admit he carries a very heavy load and in my opinion he can benefit from the longer experience in government, in life and in matters of world geopolitics that can be found in some members on this side. That is why I want to keep the lines of communication open, the ability for this side to question that side all through the next several months.

For all these reasons, the fact that it is too rushed, the fact that Canadians do not like quick decisions, the fact that I am not comfortable that I know the whole story, that it has not been shared with me, I will definitely be voting no at this time.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reiterated a number of questions, one of which was why “the rush”. I remind the member that the government of which she was a part made the initial placement of Canadian troops, development workers and diplomats four years ago. This is not a rush for us to consider a prolongation of the mission which I think was being considered by the previous government.

What is different in this instance is that this government, further to an electoral commitment, is consulting the House of Commons. This did not happen previously. I find it peculiar that members who are now being consulted are objecting to the process of consultation, objecting to a vote.

This is a sincere question. Would the member prefer that we revert to the status quo ante where the executive, the cabinet, took military decisions exclusively without a vote in the House? Would that be preferable to the member?

When she asked why now, it is very clear that just last week the president of Afghanistan made some very pointed questions about Canada's ongoing commitment. He needs to plan, if we are not going to be there, to find other donor countries, other actors to take our place. Our government will be participating in a NATO meeting next week, a force commitment meeting, where we will have to pony up, where we will have to give an indication of whether we are in or out. This government wanted in good faith to consult the House of Commons before doing so.

Would the hon. member care to comment on whether we should just go to that force commitment meeting of NATO and say that we are sorry, but we want to spend several months in a parliamentary debate toward having a vote, which we have never had before?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the question of consultations with the House of Commons, I have to say that I think this is a big step forward for democracy and I appreciate the opportunity very much.

I do believe it is a rush when we had about 36 hours' notice of a motion that will bind us for 33 more months, particularly when lives are at stake and our experience with the mission is only three months long. For the monitoring, evaluation and planning that comes from the information that flows from Afghanistan to Canada, I do not think three months is long enough, as I pointed out in my speech.

Of course, President Karzai asked for us. Everybody knows our troops are among the best in the world and that they are also sensitive to local people and try to engage them in the building of the country and the making of peace. Naturally he asked for us. I know the Afghan women have said there is no one they would rather have there than the Canadians.

As the member pointed out, this is a NATO mission. I have found in life that if one volunteers to stay somewhere forever and ever, no one will step forward to have a turn. I think it is better to be cautious and wait until NATO has a replacement for us at some point than to jump when a call comes in saying a meeting is being held and the Canadian Parliament has to leap and obey. I am sorry, but foreign policy and defence policy are made here. They are not made at NATO.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I would first like to say that, as a former officer with the Canadian navy, I am familiar with our armed forces and that I strongly support them.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, we have heard there is progress in the Kandahar area. Does the member think there is progress really happening in Kandahar when we see a deterioration of the situation?

Second, does the hon. member believe that we should learn from history? The British Empire went into Afghanistan. The mighty Russian military machine went into Afghanistan and did not succeed. Does she honestly believe that we can succeed in our mission in two years and, if not, how long do we have to stay in Afghanistan before we finally realize that we are going to be another one of the European or other nations that will never succeed?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member's question illustrates my point very well. Nobody, except privy councillors who have been briefed, knows if there has been real progress in Kandahar. Therefore, the idea of finding that out before we commit to another 33 months seems to me to be absolutely important.

He asked if we could learn from history and it is true that invaders of Afghanistan have had very poor results. The Afghans can be great fighters and they have fought off almost everybody who ever went there. The difference is that we have been asked to go there by the new Afghan government. Whether or not one agrees with that government or the president, officially they have asked us. It is a slightly different thing.

The other thing is we are not just an invading army. We are doing diplomacy and development work. We have all kinds of non-military people over there trying to accomplish that.

I do not know if there is progress in Kandahar. We know there is progress in Kabul, that people in Kabul feel a lot safer today than they did before.

About learning from history, some people keep saying that great military action is such a strong part of Canadian tradition. They thump their chests and quote their great-grandfathers. I think that is when we have to say that was then, this is now and ask, have we not learned anything since? These aggressive military actions--

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I apologize to the member, but we have to move on to the next speaker.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of National Defence.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Carleton—Mississippi Mills Ontario

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I want to offer condolences to the family of Captain Nichola Goddard. Our thoughts are with them tonight.

Today, Canada faces a weighty decision: whether to continue our diplomatic, military, police and development efforts in Afghanistan for another two years, or to let our contributions expire in February 2007.

Last month, I stood in this House to explain why the Canadian Forces are involved in Afghanistan. While six weeks have passed, the rationale for this mission has obviously not changed. In fact, the rationale has not changed since the previous government committed the Canadian Forces to this mission four years ago.

I stand here today to advise Canadians that our job in Afghanistan—a job that we have executed successfully so far—is not finished. The right decision is obvious.

The bottom line is that the mission in Afghanistan supports one of the enduring goals of Canada's foreign and defence policy: to protect Canada's national interest. We must commit to seeing our mission through. Our national interest is straightforward: to ensure the security and prosperity of the Canadian people. This government has summed it up in two words: Canada first.

The Canada first defence strategy seeks to protect Canadians from threats that confront us at home, along our coastlines and from any place abroad. Right now this means being in Afghanistan, once a failed state that harboured terrorists, terrorists who attacked our closest friend and ally, terrorists who killed Canadians and who still threaten Canada, terrorists who now seek to undermine the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.

In 2002 Canada decided to help ensure that Afghanistan does not again harbour such extremists. We are not in Afghanistan alone but with a dedicated group of more than 30 countries. The mission is a priority for our allies in NATO, the G-8 and the United Nations. As a responsible ally and member of the international community, Canada must continue to participate in this mission.

We are also in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghans themselves. We responded to that request because Canada has a longstanding tradition of helping those in need.

Afghanistan was a failed state and remains one of the poorest countries in the world. By helping provide security and stability in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces are creating a safe environment where reconstruction can take place. Let me assure you, Afghans have no doubt as to why we are in Afghanistan or to the positive impact that we are having there.

Because our national interest is at stake, because our allies need our help, and because Afghans themselves requested our presence, over 7,000 Canadian troops have been deployed to Afghanistan since 2002. Altogether some 16,000 Canadian troops have been involved in the international campaign against terrorism since September 11, 2001.

Today we have over 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. The 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's is helping the Afghan national security forces improve security in Kandahar province. We have a provincial reconstruction team stationed in Kandahar City comprised not only of Canadian Forces members but also of specialists from CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the RCMP. Together they form a multi-dimensional and integrated team that is working to stabilize Kandahar province and facilitate and encourage development efforts there.

We have a strategic advisory team in Kabul giving advice to President Karzai's government. We have Canadian Forces personnel working at the Kabul military training centre, the coalition hospital at Kandahar airport and in ISAF headquarters. We are leading the multinational brigade for regional command south in its transition to NATO control scheduled for this summer. Our troops in Afghanistan are among the most capable in the world.

They have acquitted themselves well under fire. They have captured Taliban insurgents. They have befriended local leaders. They have helped provide for the pressing humanitarian needs of the local population. They have supported efforts to diversify the Afghan economy and to deal with the global threat posed by narcotics originating in that country.

In short, we have the right personnel with the right skills, training and equipment to meet the requirements of the mission in Afghanistan and to deal with the risks involved.

Be assured that we will continue to make sure that our troops have the right equipment to be successful. The Department of National Defence is currently conducting a study to determine how well the needs of our soldiers are being met for the mission in Afghanistan and what we can do to support them better.

Moreover, the Department of National Defence has purchased $234 million of new equipment specifically in support of this mission, including the heavily armoured Nyala patrol vehicles our forces recently received, one of which, as we witnessed last Monday, already saved the lives of two Canadian soldiers when it was struck by a roadside bomb.

Our troops are also equipped with robust rules of engagement that allow them to execute operations effectively and they are rooted in a strong command and control structure that is framed around a new generation of leaders formed in the crucible of real and relevant operations.

Moreover, their mission stands on a firm legal basis. After September 11, 2001, Canada acted in accordance with article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which maintains our individual and collective rights of self-defence. The United Nations Security Council recognized this right in resolution 1368, passed on September 12, 2001. Our current mission in Afghanistan is based on our legal right to defend ourselves.

In addition, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, which is scheduled to expand this summer, is mandated by the United Nations, under Security Council resolution 1623. Moreover, the Government of Canada has the consent of the government of Afghanistan.

We all know that the Canadian commitment has not and will not come without cost. A cost measured not only in dollars and cents, but also in human lives. We have mourned the loss of 17 Canadians since the mission began. And others have suffered serious injury. But Canada must persevere in this mission.

The efforts of the Canadian Forces have brought about real progress in Afghanistan. Upon its expansion this summer, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force will be present in three-quarters of the country, with plans to expand soon thereafter.

We are moving into areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban were previously uncontested. We are restricting their movement, undermining their local support and engaging them face to face. Our Canadian trainers are working at the Kabul Military Training Centre, graduating up to 800 Afghan recruits every two weeks.

Just last week, Canadian soldiers captured 10 suspected Taliban fighters or sympathizers who were hiding out near the Gombad forward operating base. This was the biggest capture of suspected insurgents by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan to date.

The detainees were then rightfully turned over to the Afghan authorities, in accordance with our arrangement regarding detainees, an arrangement that supports the principle that Afghan authorities have the responsibility for handling detainees captured in their sovereign territory, an arrangement that helps strengthen local capacity and good governance.

Our strategic advisory team, a highly influential group of just 15 people, is currently working with Afghan leaders in Kabul to develop the fledgling institutions of the Afghan state. This team was specifically requested by President Karzai. Its military and civilian members are working with his senior economic adviser on the Afghan national development strategy. They are helping the Civil Service Commission build a legitimate and accountable public service and they are on hand to assist President Karzai's chief of staff.

Our Canadian Forces medical outreach team, which is part of our provincial reconstruction team, as well as members of our battle group, regularly visit villages and offer medical services to the suffering population.

These are the real efforts and achievements of the Canadian Forces, in partnership with officials from foreign affairs, CIDA and the RCMP.

We have concrete benchmarks to evaluate the progress and success of this mission. The Afghanistan Compact, along with Canada's own strategy and plans for the mission in Afghanistan, lays out the medium-term benchmarks and the final objectives to which we are aiming.

The compact, signed in London earlier this year, outlines how the Government of Afghanistan, the United Nations, the international community, and Canada are going to work over the next five years to ensure that the Afghanistan mission achieves its desired effects. While we still have significant work left to do, we have a clear roadmap guiding us forward.

Ultimate success in Afghanistan will be achieved when the country and its government are stabilized, when the terrorists and their local support networks are defeated, when we are assured that terrorist groups will be denied sanctuary within Afghanistan, when the Afghan national security forces are well established and under the firm and legitimate control of the government of Afghanistan and when these forces can protect their own people and their own country.

Working toward these objectives requires long term commitment and sustained effort by the international community. It depends upon the future contributions of Canada.

That is why, in parallel with expanded diplomatic and development efforts, the government strongly believes that the mandate of the Canadian Forces contingents, including the army task force, its enabling forces and the provincial reconstruction team, should be extended for another 24 months from February 2007 to February 2009. This is the minimum contribution necessary to achieve mission success and to exercise leadership among our allies.

Canada should also plan to reassume the leadership of the multinational brigade in Kandahar in November 2007 for another six months and will be open to other leadership opportunities as they arise.

A two-year commitment will allow the additional time needed for Afghan security forces to become operationally effective.

A two-year commitment will help ensure a smooth political transition in 2009 when the current mandate of President Karzai ends.

A two-year commitment is what our allies expect and need from us. The planned contributions of the U.K. and the Netherlands, for example—who have committed troops for the next three and two years respectively—are predicated upon Canadian participation in this mission. If we let our mandate expire in February, we would risk our allies' support for the mission and the success of the mission itself.

The two year commitment is also consistent with the timeline expected in the Afghanistan compact. A two year commitment will employ significant military resources, but the Canadian Forces will retain some flexibility to respond to other priorities or to other unforeseen crises. This was a question that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

We can maintain the commitment into Afghanistan ad infinitum at its current level. What we can also do is have a naval task force available for deployment in the world to meet a crisis. We can also contribute modest land force contributions to meet other anticipated crises. From what we know is evolving in Darfur and Haiti, which are two examples, we believe we can meet whatever requirement is being set for us by the United Nations or other forces.

In the long term, the government is committed to expanding the Canadian Forces in support of a greater leadership role for Canada in world affairs.

In the short term, however, these expansion efforts will limit our ability to undertake another major operation. We will continue to play supporting roles in other operations or crises.

The Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan standing up for Canada's national interest.

They are partnering with our allies. They are helping the people of Afghanistan. But their mission is not yet complete. Together with our allies, we have devised a clear plan that outlines the way forward, to achieve the aims that we have set out.

As a responsible member of the international community, as one of the most prosperous nations on earth, and with our national interest at stake, Canada must extend and expand our commitment to this multinational mission.

As was said by Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. Afghanistan asked for our help and that of the international community in eliminating the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These terrorist networks are failing in Afghanistan because Canadians recognize the implications of complacency.

Through the good work of Canadians, Afghan institutions are functioning again. Liberty is returning after a long and cold absence. Women have a stake and a voice in the country. Learning is blossoming in countless schools.

Simply put, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are losing the battle because brave Canadians have stood up in the front lines.

Let us solidify the achievements we have gained so far. Let us move this mission forward, for the sake of the Afghan people, for the sake of our allies and for the sake of each and every Canadian. As the Canadian Forces put Canada's national interest first, they deserve nothing less than our continued support.

Therefore, I call upon all members of Parliament to support the motion that extends Canada's commitment in Afghanistan to February 2009.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the minister got a little carried away in his French.

He said twelve years instead of two years. The House would find that a bit hard to swallow.

I assume his English on two years was a little more reliable than his French on douze ans.

I believe the minister clearly confirmed what his colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. Ultimately he is giving the assurance to the House that the potential for a Haiti or a Darfur mission will not be diminished by our Afghan commitments. Those were the words of the foreign minister. I believe those are the words that members of the House want to hear when we debate and come to a decision on this very important mission.

I have two questions.

One goes to his observation about the nature of equipment. I have recently read a book by General Rupert Smith called The Utility of Force. In that book he describes very clearly the nature of these new missions and the type of equipment that is necessary because these are always actions behind enemy lines or within an area where it is not like a traditional situation.

Could the minister assure us that, with the use and prevalence of IEDs and these types of weapons in Afghanistan, our forces are properly protected? He mentioned the Nyala. We know the minister will be purchasing trucks shortly. Will these trucks also have the types of protection that would be necessary?

Second, he mentioned the strategic advisory team in Kabul, which has had huge success. Will the minister tell us whether the government intends to replicate this activity in Kandahar as well to enable the governor and the region to provide similar success the civil society in that area?