Mr. Chair, I regret that this incident occurred before my turn to speak. I would have liked my hon. colleagues to be in a good mood when listening to me.
This debate is important. I asked for it and called for it, but in preparing for it I reread the speech I delivered on January 28, 2002. For Quebeckers who might be watching and who are against the presence of Canadian troops, men and women of Quebec and Canada, in Afghanistan, I will read a few excerpts. This will help me make them better understand the context in which we decided to get involved. On January 28, 2002, I said:
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to take part in this debate. This evening, my party and myself would have liked to have a debate that would have ended with a vote on the participation of the Canadian Forces, on the participation of men and women from Quebec and the rest of Canada in the American response, a response which we would like to see more closely co-ordinated by the United Nations.
The Taliban government makes women live in cages. Women are denied access to health care. Young girls are not entitled to education or to health care. Finally, women have no other function than to reproduce.
I speak as a woman and a mother this evening. I would have liked to vote on a motion. As much as the war disgusts me, I understand why countries like Canada react. If Quebec were a country, something I keenly want, I would want it to react too, not out of vengeance, but out of a need to say that what happened in New York City and Washington, the September 11 attacks, are totally unacceptable.
We must, however, make sure that it is not just through security measures, anti-terrorist legislation and strikes that we will fight this seriously, but rather by ensuring that there is hope that this world will become less unfair and less illegal.
Today, I will not repeat the same remarks because I take a very keen interest in Afghanistan, a nation that is suffering, and I know that the picture is perhaps not as rosy as some members here this evening would have us believe.
We have to speak the truth. In my view, this does not mean that we have to say that the men and women fighting in Afghanistan should pull out. But we have serious questions. Before I get to those questions, I would like to quote Kofi Annan's March 6 report, which paints a rather bleak picture.
Further progress has been made towards the rehabilitation of the basic infrastructure that can support economic and social development. Nevertheless, as noted in my previous report, many issues that present challenges to the short and longer-term security and stability of the new democratic State have not yet been resolved. These range from the strengthening of nascent Government structures to upholding human rights, enforcing the fundamentals of good governance, justice and the rule of law, disbanding illegal armed groups and laying the foundation for sustainable economic and social development.
On human rights, he says:
The human rights situation in Afghanistan remains challenging, above all owing to the security situation and weaknesses in governance. Impunity of factional commanders and former warlords has also served to undermine incremental improvements. The significant upsurge in violence in some parts of the country has limited the access to those areas by both international humanitarian actors and Government representatives, denying the population access to entitlements, services and protection. Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of national security institutions, including arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture are numerous.
Insurgents departed from the seasonal trend of past years by maintaining a high level of operational activity throughout the winter period. The first months of 2006 witnessed a rising level of insurgent attacks, in particular in the south and east of the country.
In other words, in the Kandahar area.
Why should we be in Afghanistan?
Because it is a question of international solidarity that can make Quebeckers feel obliged to be there.
These people have suffered a lot over the last few decades: droughts, war against the USSR, civil wars and the dictatorship of the Taliban, which have marked the daily lives of Afghans.
This country numbers among the poorest in the world and is one of the most dangerous, particularly because of the 10 to 15 million anti-personnel mines that have been sown, especially fragmentation bombs.
So let us ask our questions now because they have to be asked on behalf of the people who see our soldiers in Afghanistan and know that there are associated costs.
Do they have any idea how long the mission in Afghanistan might last? That is an important question. As much as I am inclined to say that we have to stay there, I have to wonder whether this democratic regime is always going to be on life support. We have a right to know.
In addition, are there any estimates of the cost of the mission?
The current Minister of National Defence asked a series of questions last November 15. One of them had to do with a withdrawal plan. The Minister of Foreign Affairs sent us packing with our question, but he was the one who asked it. Is there a withdrawal plan? We are not asking him for it, we are just asking if there is one.
What guarantees do we have that NATO will take over from the Americans in the south, Kandahar therefore, and Canada will leave the American operation? It greatly annoys Quebeckers that our soldiers are under American command in Operation Enduring Freedom.
There is also the question of how prisoners are treated. Since our return here, the first questions I asked in the House had to do with the treatment of prisoners. They concerned the fact that our soldiers, men and women from Canada, were turning prisoners over without ensuring that they would be covered by the Geneva Convention.
American soldiers cannot be prosecuted, but Canadian soldiers can be. So this is an important question.
I have read the agreement on the transfer of prisoners. I was told that some lawyers said today that there are many weaknesses in it. A former unionist who reads a text of this kind soon sees that it is not very strong. Neither the soldiers nor the prisoners are protected. This agreement must be either completely re-negotiated, or rejected.
I am sorry, but maybe this can be explained by the fact that General Hillier negotiated the agreement all by himself, without the help of the former ministers of foreign affairs or national defence. In any case, it is not a good agreement, and everyone should admit it. We cannot continue living with this agreement.
Can the government assure us that the army is keeping its commitments in regard to the use of anti-personnel mines? Can we also be assured that our soldiers have all the equipment they need?
I have some more questions, but I would like answers to these first.