Evidence of meeting #39 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was africa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.
Mr. Wilfert, did you raise your hand? No? Sorry.
I have Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dosanjh.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
We'll go with Mr. Anderson first, and I'll figure it out.
Mr. Anderson.
11 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I want to re-emphasize some of the comments that have been made by a couple of my colleagues. I think this motion is unbalanced in itself because it's making some assumptions here that we obviously can't support. As Mr. Obhrai has said, there is an international agreement that has been reached, a compact that has been in place for a year, to which a number of countries have committed. We have a role in that, and I think our role has been substantive. It's also been balanced. So to bring a motion forward that seems to indicate that there's something more that needs to be done there is inappropriate.
I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the roles that Canada has played in that balance. It's obviously played a large role in the areas of local security. It's been an important component of what we've done there. We've also been involved in rural development. Everyone is aware that Canadian Forces have played a role in rural development in Afghanistan. Obviously they've played an important role in the area of law and human rights, and the establishment of them, and in economic and social development.
So I think Mr. Dosanjh's motion here really is inappropriate because it does not talk about the balance that already exists. We've played other roles as well. Obviously there is the work to get rid of anti-personnel mines and to get rid of some of the unexploded ordnance that exists in that country. We've contributed to the promotion of the rule of law of human rights throughout the country in trying to train judges and prosecutors. We've increased their government's ability to comply with international human rights treaties. We've contributed to rural development in a number of different ways and places, in key national programs, and in micro-financing. Obviously we've given support to the Government of Afghanistan's commitment to treat women with respect and increase the role of women and girls in society.
I think there is a balance within our commitment in Afghanistan, and we don't need to support this motion because we already have that balance in our role in Afghanistan.
11 a.m.
Liberal
11 a.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
This is to my new colleague here.
Yes, I know you are very enthusiastically working for this, but you'll get your chance.
Mr. Chair, to Alexa, to this thing, we don't have a problem with listening to people coming and telling us and talking about this mission. It is a Canadian's right to come and talk to us about this mission. So to have a debate, as you are saying, is not a problem. The debate has been going on in the defence committee as well. What Madame Lalonde also said about listening to the people, and the argument she has made in reference to supporting the government of Karzai, and all the other things that would take place should we not support this mission.... It's a UN mission, and as we stated, it's through a compact that we have gone down there. It is the largest Canadian foreign assistance program now in the world, with close to a billion dollars committed for the next 10 years. This is an important aspect. Forty-five of our soldiers have died. Our soldiers are out there. So it is an important point, and there is no problem in having Canadians from all aspects of...coming and telling us.
The problem we have with this is when you say “rebalancing”. That is presumptuous on your part, before hearing from any.... It's in the motion. It says “balanced”, that “can be balanced”. We're saying that it is this thing. A lot of debate has gone into this up to now. A lot of people have come here and talked. In working with our international partners, who also have these debates in their own countries...nobody is talking about the fact that at this given stage this is not a balanced approach. It is a balanced approach.
The motions that are coming forward, both from Mr. Dosanjh and from Madame Lalonde, are talking about doing a balancing, and we are not talking about a.... Further on down the road, when we listen to the witnesses--and we have all kinds of witnesses--then we can decide. To come beforehand and say, “We want to balance something”, when Canada is committed, working already with its international partners.... That is saying this is a balanced approach right now. But there's nothing wrong in hearing from anyone.
So we have a serious problem. Let me be very clear from the government's point of view. We are not opposed to listening to Canadians. Canadians have a vested interest, so they can come and talk. This whole idea that we want to balance it is sending a wrong impression by saying things are wrong right now. Let's hear from the witnesses. We will bring witnesses; you will bring witnesses also, who will say that it is a balanced approach.
We also point out that this is part of the compact and what the United Nations and 60 other countries have agreed to do. That is a very powerful statement, when the United Nations and 60 other countries in this compact are working with us to ensure that Afghanistan does not go back. To say that is why we have a problem...because this motion calls for an assumption that things are wrong right now, which is why we are having difficulty. We want to make it absolutely clear that we are not opposed to listening to Canadians.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
No, there is no point of order for the moment, Ms. McDonough. It's already eight past eleven. There is another committee and some members are sure to appear.
I'm going to adjourn the meeting.
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
We will now return to our business.
We're still dealing with meeting number 39 and the committee is considering Mr. Dosanjh's notice of motion.
We're still on the order of today's committee business, on the notice of motion of Mr. Dosanjh. Mr. Dosanjh has the floor, and then after that we'll go to Madame Lalonde.
Mr. Dosanjh.
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Rather than actually getting into the merits of the whole issue, and to save everyone time, call the question.
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
I just want to let you know that we cannot call the question on motions—
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Let me then make my contribution.
Obviously, over the last year, there have been issues and concerns with respect to the balance of the mission, and there have been opinions from one end of the spectrum to the other. Those opinions have been aired publicly. Some argue that the mission needs to be balanced, or rebalanced, whatever word you want to use. Others argue that the mission is not in need of balance.
I believe we want to have witnesses come here, both governmental and non-governmental, to continue to explore the issue of how we can make Afghanistan more secure, how we can engage in more development and more reconstruction, and how we can engage in better diplomacy.
The motion before you, given the way it's worded, can deal with all three of those issues. I believe it is nothing more than dilatory tactics on the part of my colleagues opposite, the government members, to not have a vote on this issue.
I would simply suggest that if we want to get into the merits of the debate, we will have lots of time in these hearings to ask questions of different witnesses. We will be able to provide our own lists of witnesses to the clerks so that witnesses can be called. I think we will have a lot of time. I think Canadians need to know what's going on with respect to this mission. Government is usually evasive in its responses in the House. This is a forum in which we can explore all of these issues with experts who might be independent, and in fact with government ministers as well.
So I would simply suggest that we pass the motion before you, as amended with a friendly amendment.
11:09 a.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In listening to my colleague across, I would say he is accusing us of not trying to hold the war to anything. That is not true. He has given an argument here that is very contradictory to the motion. He's saying we want to hear from the witnesses. He says we want to listen to these witnesses.
The defence committee did make a visit to Afghanistan. Even this committee could make a visit to Afghanistan, if they so desired, to see what the thing is and to understand.
He gave the rationale that he wants to listen to witnesses and everything, but the problem with his motion is that he has already made a judgment on that motion by saying they need balancing. You want to do exactly what you want to do and then call it and have everybody agree. I've stated quite openly and quite clearly that we have no problem in listening. We have no problem in going there. The difficulty we have is that he has already made a prejudgment on that. We know his position, and the opposition's position, with which the government has difficulty.
But in order to make sure that all Canadians understand that the government is not opposed to listening to Canadians, I propose a friendly amendment.
Can I, Mr. Chair?
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
You're always entitled to propose any amendment. Maybe it will not be friendly, but it will be an amendment. Go ahead.
11:09 a.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
All right. The amendment that we propose is simply this: that this committee hold hearings, starting at the earliest, for the purpose of evaluating Canada's mission in Afghanistan--full stop.
We have no problem if, subsequent to that, the committee makes its own judgment after hearing everybody. I wish to put this forward.
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Okay. I don't think it's a friendly amendment. I think it's an amendment, and when the time comes to vote—
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
—we'll vote first on the amendment, and after that we'll vote on the main motion.
Madame Lalonde, s'il vous plaît.
11:09 a.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Chairman, now that we are sitting as a committee, I regret that the motion that I tabled at the last committee meeting was not considered first. Now we wind up where we are.
It seems to me that my motion could have been supported by all committee members. In fact, my reference to a “rebalance”, implied that the mission might have been balanced at one point in time, but that it's no longer wise. That could imply that this is because conditions have changed.
Regardless, I want to see an assessment carried out and the various components of the mission to be rebalanced, in order to ensure that this extraordinarily difficult mission in Afghanistan is successful. Canada can not ensure its success alone; the other NATO countries also have to be involved. Our assessment will also take that into account.
I am willing to vote on Mr. Dosanjh's motion, while pointing out that my motion was tabled first.
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.
We'll have Mr. Wilfert and then Mr. Casey.
11:09 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I wonder if, since he has difficulty with “balance”, we might consider saying “to review the present focus of the mission”. “To review the focus of the mission” is—
11:09 a.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
It means the same thing. The friendly amendment I put to the motion says exactly that. Let's hear from everybody and then make our recommendations. Please, let's not presume that there's something wrong. We want to hear from witnesses.
You see, here is the key point: it fulfills all the requirements that you want, but it takes politics out of it, which you are trying to put in by saying there is something wrong with the mission. Let's first hear from everybody, and then you can decide whatever you want to do as a committee member.
