Debates of April 10th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I was listening intently to the speech and I agree with a lot of it. There is one thing that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. It is the forum in which the government should consult Parliament.

I agree that these are matters of great national interest and should be debated not only in Parliament, but also with the Canadian public. At the same time we have to protect our troops and we have to show resolve. Whatever decision is taken has to be a unanimous decision. We cannot show fractures. How do we do it?

I would submit for the consideration of the leader of the New Democratic Party that perhaps there is another way than in this chamber. Perhaps our committee process would be a good way for the government to consult with Parliament. Experts could be brought in to testify. Parliamentarians could hear not only from one another, but from people who could bring other opinions, other points of view. If necessary, we could go in camera and some very critical points could be discussed. Parliamentarians could be brought up to speed on information that perhaps could not be shared with the great public. We could give our opinions as Parliamentarians in our direction to the government.

I believe that at the end of the day, the decision is one of government. Government lives and dies by its decisions. It has a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the country, and the population who votes the government out, who votes the government in based on those decisions.

I would ask the leader of the New Democratic Party for his comments on those points.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, first, I will say that there should never be a requirement for unanimity. After all, there are some legislatures, so called, where unanimity is required. I do not call those democracies.

However, there was a serious proposition put before us in that question. Let me phrase it this way with two answers. First, parties presented themselves in an election not too long ago. The majority of Canadians voted for parties who said that we should vote on the deployment of troops. In fact, the seats in the House are now held in the majority by parties that told Canadians that if elected, they would make sure there were votes before we sent our troops into harm's way.

Unfortunately, that promise is being broken by the government. Our request, respectfully placed earlier in question period and repeated again that we have a vote on future deployment beyond the agreements we have already made up to February 2007 was not only rejected, but it was suggested that anyone who would even propose such an idea was somehow not backing our troops.

That to me is not an acceptable approach here. In a mature democracy, one ought to be able to have a discussion and a vote about the deployment of our service personnel, the investment of those resources and the initiative that represents that Canada is taking in the world.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would first like to acknowledge the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform, particularly the 11 Canadian soldiers and the diplomat who have lost their lives. We here in the House grieve with their families. We grieve with their military comrades. We grieve for their loss and for their sacrifice to Canada.

Also, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Chair. You are a great Canadian and you will bring great authority to the chair.

The fact that we are gathered here this evening is important for Canadian democracy. Canadian men and women are putting themselves on the line overseas in defence of Canadian values and international peace and security. The New Democratic Party supports the hard-working women and men of the Canadian Forces. However, we want to ensure that this is the right mission and that our soldiers are instructed to conduct themselves in strict accordance with Canadian and international law.

The previous Liberal government committed our forces to Afghanistan without a full parliamentary debate. We were told then that this was primarily a reconstruction mission. It has become clear that the mission today is primarily a counter-insurgency mission, that the risks are much higher than we were told.

The New Democratic Party is concerned about many issues in this mission. We are concerned about the fact that Canadian soldiers have been wearing U.S. army badges on their uniforms, thus creating confusion over the necessary distinction between Canadian and American troops.

The New Democratic Party is concerned about the fact that Canadian soldiers, as recently as September 2005, were transferring detainees to the U.S., a country with a demonstrated and recent record of abuse.

Canadians are very concerned that an agreement with the government of Afghanistan, designed to remedy this problem, does not. It does not ensure any detainees transferred are neither abused nor transferred onward. The latter is particularly appalling, given that the agreement was modelled on a much more rigorous agreement between the Netherlands and Afghanistan.

The NDP is very concerned that air cover for Canadian soldiers is being provided by Americans. In contrast, air cover for Dutch soldiers is provided by the Netherlands.

Canada and the U.S. have different traditions and obligations concerning the choice of weapons and the protection of civilians, as demonstrated by the recent controversy concerning the use of white phosphorous in Falluja.

The NDP is very concerned about Canada's commitment to upholding not just the letter, but the spirit of the Ottawa landmines convention, which prohibits indirect reliance on landmines laid by other countries.

The New Democratic Party is very concerned by the uncertain prospects for the success of this mission. The U.S. military has spent four years engaged in counter-insurgency in southern Afghanistan and the situation has only grown worse.

This summer, Canadian Major-General Andrew Leslie said, “Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you”.

The NDP is very concerned about how our commitments in Afghanistan might prevent or hinder the ability of Canada to engage in important missions elsewhere. For the last three years, a genocide has been unfolding in Darfur, claiming 300,000 lives. The UN has recently asked for peacekeepers from developed countries such as Canada. As part of this debate tonight, we need to consider other areas of the world, such as Darfur, where the help of Canadians is needed.

These are very serious questions. The women and men in the Canadian Forces need to know that we are in this House paying very close attention. They need to know that their safety and their sacrifices are not taken lightly by anyone in the House.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the member's constructive contribution to the debate.

I note that a short while ago two members of her caucus were in front of Parliament, participating in a rally under the banner, “Take our troops out; bring our troops home”. Does she feel that it is helpful to the morale of our troops to have members of her party associating themselves with calls for the removal from the mission based on the view that they are engaged in a colonialist and imperialist enterprise overseas?

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, my party is an international party and recognizes the need for internationalist assistance around the world. The question that we are asking tonight in this place is this. Is the war fighting, U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom the correct way to improve the lives and increase the security of the people in Afghanistan?

When we were initially told we were going to participate in the southern region of Afghanistan, we were told by the government, which was defeated recently, that this would be a NATO-led multinational mission. Right now we are there only under the auspices of the U.S. counter-insurgency mission that has been going on for four years. As I said in my remarks earlier, that has not been a success. It is in fact creating a situation where people are not being encouraged to work in a way that builds peace and security.

Although the member wants to put words into my mouth tonight, we support the people in the Canadian services who are putting themselves in harm's way. We feel it is incredibly important that we take this debate in this place seriously on their behalf.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, as this is my first intervention, I would like to recognize and thank all the people of Ahuntsic for placing their trust in me. I will try to be worthy of it. I will do my best to that end.

In Quebec, in my riding and in other ridings as well, I have met a lot of people who are very concerned about the presence of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. There was another demonstration in March against Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

I have heard a lot of questions from people, such as, “Who are we to talk about democracy and to think of bringing democracy to countries in the Middle East? Are we any better? Have we got the divine answer? Do we deliver democracy with weapons? Do people establish democracy or is it imposed on them by other people?” Those are the questions I heard.

We do not know anymore whether our intervention in Afghanistan serves a humanitarian cause or whether it is war. It is hard to know. Is it a roundabout way of supporting the war in Iraq? There are no winners in a war, only losers.

My question is for the hon. member. What does she think of all these concerns, of all the questions from Quebec about the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan?

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate very much the comments from the member opposite. I think many of the questions that she indicated were being asked in Quebec are questions that are being asked from coast to coast to coast. Many people have concerns.

As I said earlier, one of my concerns and the concern of my party is the whole issue of the counter-insurgency nature of Operation Enduring Freedom. How does one build peace and diplomacy on the one hand when one is in a war fighting, or in counter-insurgency mode? We know that many of the people in the peace movement in Canada and ordinary Canadians share these concerns, as do many women and men in the Canadian Forces as well.

We are here tonight to try to get clarity on the mission, on what it is we are hoping to achieve in Afghanistan and by what means. We know the Americans have been fighting a counter-insurgency in Kandahar province for four years and during that time and most recent the insurgency has only grown and become worse. This is of great concern to all of us in the House of Commons.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate.

Canadians remember Afghanistan before September 11, 2001. They were struck by the revelations that followed the fall of the Taliban. Since then, remarkable progress has been achieved. The 2001 Bonn Agreement led to the adoption of a new constitution that enshrines equal rights for women and men. Elections have promoted the advancement of democracy.

Today, the international community’s attention is resolutely turned to a new phase in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a phase in which the focus will be on development.

I can assure you that our government firmly intends to pursue its leading role in achieving the Afghans’ objectives.

Canada's activities in Afghanistan, which include ongoing assistance to the Afghan people, are ultimately intended to provide them with a better qualify of life and more stable future. More specifically, Canada’s activities in Afghanistan focus on socio-economic development and reducing poverty, improving security in that country and elsewhere in the world, and advancing democracy, good governance and human rights.

The Afghans welcome Canada's presence in their country. They welcome our military involvement, our development assistance and our diplomatic efforts. They can see the positive impact that we are having on their lives and they appreciate the difference that we are making in their country.

The security provided by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan creates an atmosphere in which development can take place. In return, development gives meaning to the Canadian presence in the country.

Important progress has been achieved in that country, but building a country takes time and calls for ongoing assistance.

Canada respects the priorities established by the Afghan government. Our activities in that country are carried out primarily within national programs created and led by the Afghan government itself.

Last month, our government announced that this year Canada would maintain its Afghan development funding level. The government is currently considering appropriate funding levels for the coming years. While our program has a major component in Kandahar, it extends throughout Afghanistan. By helping Afghanistan to become a stable, democratic and autonomous state, we are contributing to ensuring that it will never again be used as a haven for terrorists. At the same time, we are creating an environment that will foster the adoption of lasting changes.

Canadians remember the Taliban regime. The Taliban gave safe haven to international terrorists and tacitly condoned a very real threat to global security. They systematically oppressed their people, and particularly women. Canada has chosen to take action to enable the Afghan people to recover from those dark years.

The provincial reconstruction team is working on stabilizing the situation in the province of Kandahar, which in turn stimulates the development efforts of the Afghan government and non-governmental organizations. The Canadian International Development Agency has allocated up to $6 million over a year and a half to support a confidence in the government program. This program is mainly for remote and vulnerable communities where government presence is inadequate and confidence is lacking.

Canadians will recall that Taliban law prohibited women from getting together to talk. Now, thanks to financial support from CIDA, Rights and Democracy in Montreal has been able to open a number of centres for women throughout Afghanistan. These centres help women by providing them with basic services, such as literacy courses, health services, legal aid services or refuge. In cooperation with Care Canada, CIDA also supports food aid and training programs, which have helped 10,000 widows and their families. The current government recently allocated $7 million for these projects. For Afghan women to have access to such services was simply unimaginable under the harsh Taliban regime.

In addition thanks to Canada’s help, more than 4 million children, one-third of them girls, are registered in primary school. Canada is helping to bring concrete, lasting change to the living conditions of women and children in Afghanistan.

We think there is a need to develop entrepreneurship and agriculture. That is why Canada is still the largest donor to the micro-lending program in Afghanistan. This program has already benefited 157,000 clients, of whom the large majority, 78% in fact, are women. These women, who a few years ago barely had the right to go out at all, are now setting up small retail businesses, grocery stores and dressmaking shops. This will have direct effects on the living conditions of thousands of the most deprived Afghan families for many years to come.

CIDA is also funding the national solidarity program. Through this program, millions of dollars have been provided directly to communities. Elected village councils, consisting of both men and women, have decided for themselves on the infrastructure that they wanted to build in their communities. Schools, roads and wells have been built where people needed them.

Afghanistan has given Canada an opportunity to provide concrete assistance to human beings who really need it. The Afghans, men, women and children, see the results every day. In the Speech from the Throne, this government promised to promote and defend the Canadian values of liberty, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. That is what we are doing in Afghanistan thanks to the Canadians who are helping to build a free, democratic and peaceful country.

This is not the time to turn our backs on the Afghan people, when there is so much need for our assistance. This is also not the time to abandon the international community. It is not the time to break with the government of Afghanistan and our international partners, who are trying to stabilize Afghanistan and reduce the security threat in this country and around the world.

Now more than ever, far from being indifferent, we must show leadership and compassion to give the people of Afghanistan and the world renewed reason to hope.

Canadians remember what it was like in Afghanistan less than five years ago. Canadians remember the cruelty of the Taliban regime, and the poor social and economic conditions in Afghanistan at that time. Canadians know the risk of a setback if we walk away now from the people and the government of Afghanistan. We need to help build on the success achieved so far and we must continue the Canadian tradition of providing concrete assistance to the less fortunate.

The people of Afghanistan need our help. They must be able to count on our support. I am convinced that Canada’s support will result in positive change for all the people of Afghanistan.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by congratulating the minister on her election to the House and her appointment to this department, which is a very important one for Canada, since it is often our image internationally. With National Defence and our Canadian Forces soldiers, it plays a leading role in the areas we were talking about concerning diplomacy, defence and development.

With regard to Afghanistan, we recognize that here is a double-edged sword, since often what we should do in connection with development might help us in connection with defence. We know about the problems of drug-trafficking, opium poppy crops and all the drug networks.

Have any plans been put forward? Has a one-, two- or three-year plan been developed for farmers to replace opium poppies with other crops or other economic means to ensure their survival? They have to stop supplying these drug networks that create the kind of warlords seen in that country, who control the firearms and munitions and who, of course, cause lots of difficulties for our military, our Canadian Forces, because they hinder peace and development.

What is the plan? What is the role played by CIDA in the plans for Afghanistan, and how are we participating in this development with other international or multinational organizations?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, CIDA has a project consistent with the Afghan government’s plan to invest in economic replacement activities. This project provides for the payment of $18.5 million over a four-year period to ensure that there will actually be a replacement crop for the current drug producers.

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

Mr. Chair, I wish to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She emphasized the humanitarian aid that can be offered to a country like Afghanistan, given all the difficulties it has gone through in the past. This is the way of the future that should be promoted, to my mind. Perhaps it is even more of a royal way than military intervention.

We have to recall a few facts about Afghanistan. For example, the life expectancy of men is 48 and that of women is 45. The infant mortality rate is 147 for every 1,000 births. These statistics are absolutely appalling.

However, this evening’s debate is not necessarily concerned with the relevance of intervention in Afghanistan. It is concerned more with the fact that we all have a responsibility, both the members of the previous Parliament and those now part of it. Perhaps Canada’s mission has not been defined clearly enough.

I quote the comments made by the current Minister of National Defence on November 15, 2005, when he was seated in the opposition:

When a government decides to intervene in a failing state there are a number of considerations that must be taken before committing troops...[For example, its] mandate is realistic, clear and enforceable.

Can we really say that the mandate given the Canadian troops was realistic, clear and enforceable from the outset? Let us not conceal it: we have had difficulty explaining to our fellow citizens the difference between the start of the mission and the turn it has taken today.

Next, the minister said that the mission must have “an effective command and control structure”. We are presently debating about who is really controlling this mission. Is it being directed by the Americans or by NATO? This is the type of situation that has to be put on the table.

Another criterion mentioned by the minister was that “there is a definition of success”. In other words, should today’s debate not permit us all to agree that a fairly short timeframe should be established, and very closely monitored? That way we would be sure of not finding ourselves in a quagmire from which we are unable to extract ourselves. The best intentions in the world can lead us down a very bad road, if we have not properly identified the methods we should be using.

In the minister’s opinion, should we not take the advice that was offered by the new Minister of Defence when he sat in opposition? Should the government not commit to meeting those conditions which he himself laid down and which are not well known at the moment to Parliament or to the Canadian population at large? In no way does this cast any doubt on the relevance of the mission. However there are additional efforts to be made in terms of the way this mission is being deployed. We expect the government to be much more clear on this point than was the previous government.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, I welcome with much satisfaction my colleague's support on the importance of development aid and international aid.

I would draw the member's attention to the fact that development is certainly impossible without the whole notion of security that surrounds it.

I invite the member and all members of the House to work together so that the first beneficiaries of this international aid may be the people of Afghanistan.

My colleague in national defence could not be clearer in this regard. The mission is clear. The line of command is clear. I will keep to what he has said in this regard.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate you on assuming your new duties here in this House.

I have listened carefully to the member's speech and I cannot imagine a single parliamentarian, in fact I cannot imagine a single Canadian, who does not absolutely agree with her point, that the people of Afghanistan need and deserve our support.

However, I am sure the hon. member is aware that some 18 months ago, as far back as September 2004, a large number of non-governmental organizations involved in international development and humanitarian work in Kandahar issued the unambiguous warning that the blurring of military and humanitarian objectives in Kandahar was placing relief workers and Afghani civilians alike at unnecessary risk. As a result, a great many international NGOs actually vacated Kandahar, including some important Canadian NGOs.

It is well-established, in international humanitarian law and in practice, that it is impossible to give impartial assistance when the assistance is tied to a military campaign.

Given that fact, would this member not agree that the role of the Canadian military should be to provide security and protection for Afghani civilians rather than blending a combat role with development and reconstruction? Does she understand the concern about the blurring of these role? Does she understand that the assistance needs to be delivered by Afghanis and Afghani civil society, with support from international agencies and security provided to them by military who are not involved in aggressive combat roles?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would respond to the member by saying that the work of the NGOs in Afghanistan could not be done without the security provided by our Canadian troops there.

I remind her of the quote from the spokesperson for CARE Canada regarding our assistance to widows in Afghanistan:

CIDA’s funding means that we can continue our work to help the most vulnerable women and children in Afghanistan. Not only will these women be given a chance to survive, they will become empowered and independent so that they can provide a better life for their children.

Clearly CARE Canada is pleased to be able to act in security in Afghanistan thanks to our troops.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to first congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your newly elected position. I would like to thank the minister for her outline. It really spells out what the provincial reconstruction teams would be doing in Afghanistan.

There are bad people around who have killed and continue to kill, suppress and tear down the democratic process that is just starting to grow in Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that there are people in this world who do not care for others apart from using them for their own purposes, which some of the Taliban and a few of the others are doing. That is the situation there under “enduring freedom”.

What is the status of the situation there for the provincial reconstruction teams to fulfill their mandate; that is, reconstructing many of the matters in Afghanistan for the people there?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question. This is obviously why Canadian troops are there.

We have never denied the danger in Afghanistan. That is why our humanitarian aid organizations and the Afghani people, who are trying to adapt to the rules of law and order, need our troops and the presence of our Canadian military.

CIDA invests through various programs, such as the World Bank. It sets up programs there and supports them so as to help the people take control of their lives and to ensure that stability and security come out on top in this exercise.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. There is no question in my mind that the mission that the Canadian Forces are currently undertaking in Afghanistan is vitally important for the future of that country and the security of Canada.

Many Canadians, however, are seeking greater clarity about the role and responsibilities of military and development actors. Many believe that the mandate for military engagement in Afghanistan must focus on the protection of civilians and security. I share that opinion.

Last fall I was fortunate enough to accompany the hon. Bill Graham, who was the then the minister of national defence, on a trip to Afghanistan.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I would just caution the hon. member not to use members' names.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Chair.

During that trip I had a firsthand look at the extraordinary work that our dedicated men and women in uniform are doing to help that country face some incredible challenges. I also saw just how grateful the Afghan people are for the tremendous efforts Canada is making to help them rebuild the country.

The people of Afghanistan have been the victims of war and conflict and, consequently, have been deprived of many basic rights. Our involvement is helping to provide the security and stability necessary to ensure the systematic reconstruction of a country, as Afghanistan seeks to rebuild its economy, political structure and judicial institutions.

In Kabul, we met with several members of the government, including the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Rural Development. We also met with President Karzai.

During these meetings, we discussed Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, not only its military role but its diplomatic role, as well as its role in supporting development.

Let me tell you that all of the ministers, as well as President Karzai, expressed sincere gratitude for what Canada is doing. They consider Canada to be a true friend of Afghanistan, a friend who is determined to support them through these difficult times.

We received positive feedback from Afghan officials, local community leaders and ordinary citizens regarding the men and women of the Canadian Forces. When we were driving the streets of Kabul on our way to our meetings, I saw a city that no longer lives in fear. I saw a city where buildings were being reconstructed, where the markets were busy and where the boys and the girls were going to school. I saw a city where people looked to the future with hope. The Canadian presence in Afghanistan helped make this all possible.

Our trip to Afghanistan also took us to the southern city of Kandahar where Canada has deployed a provincial reconstruction team. There we met with Pushtan tribal leaders and with the governor of Kandahar province to discuss Canada's role in bringing stability to that region. Through its work, the Canadian provincial reconstruction team is helping to extend the authority and reach of the Afghan government. By helping to rebuild a just and peaceful society, our team is fostering prosperity and improving people's lives.

The multilateral nature of our work in Afghanistan means that the Canadian Forces are working alongside our friends and our allies. In today's increasingly interdependent world, domestic security is closely linked to events happening outside our borders.

In both Kabul and Kandahar, we spent a lot of time with members of the Canadian Forces. Talking with these men and women confirmed what I already knew to be true: they are professional and dedicated people. They are open, generous, and sensitive to Afghan culture and the needs of the local population.

The are prepared to take on risks and are determined to use their many skills to provide the Afghan people with the stability and security they deserve.

It is imperative that Canadians are aware of the valuable service that our troops are providing. We must continue a public dialogue to keep them informed of the objectives and accomplishments of this mission. We must also ensure that the Canadian Forces are provided with the right equipment and financial resources to allow them to do their jobs.

In closing, I would like to thank our Canadian troops in Afghanistan for their remarkable efforts in the face of very challenging and often dangerous circumstances. These men and women are sacrificing a great deal in order to carry out a mission and the thoughts and support of this nation are with them.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Chair, for my colleague across the way I would suggest that there are two things that are regrettable, one a small regret and one a rather large regret. The first regret is the fact that Canadians needed to know and should have known what was going on when our troops were going to Afghanistan. I commend him for having obtained some first-hand information but the difficulty was that his government did not follow through and make clear what Canada's commitment was to the people of Afghanistan. The former Liberal government had that responsibility, which is one regret.

The most serious regret is the fact that as Canadians we live in a democracy and our proceedings are going out on CPAC and may end up on national television which, I can guarantee, will end up being seen by the fans of Al Jazeera, who are the Taliban and who are watching our proceedings here tonight.

I find it really regrettable that the defence critic from the NDP would have made the statement, “the uncertain prospects for the success of this mission”. I wonder if my colleague would agree that the sense of defeatism, the sense of backing off that is being expressed by the NDP is not getting in the way of the valued soldiers who we have on the ground. Believe me, the Taliban themselves said over the weekend that they were watching.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member across the way talked about his regret with the actions of the Liberal government. I do not know if he realizes it but he is in government now and there are new actions that have to be taken toward the future. There will be questions that have to be answered and we have to look at what we are going to do there.

This is a reconstruction. It is like rebuilding a house. When we go in we do not have a clean slate. No one knows what will come up. It is very difficult to say exactly what will happen. War is not exactly something one walks into saying that we are going to do this and then at a certain point that is it and we go home. This is a very messy situation. I do not mean messy in that we got ourselves into a messy situation. War is not a very pretty sight. What I saw was not pretty but it was something that was improving. It is something that I agree with and I think we have to be there in order to improve their situation. We have a responsibility to the rest of the world.

We cannot be everything to everyone. We have to choose certain conflicts. Right now we have chosen Kandahar and Afghanistan and that is where our responsibilities are.

The other regret the member has is that this will be seen around the world. Debate with hon. members across the way could come across as not supporting our troops. I think they are supporting our troops, just as we are. I believe in our troops 100%. They are wonderful, bright people. They are well-equipped and doing an excellent job.

If our troops hear that maybe there are some questions, it shows that we are thinking about them. It shows that we want the best for them. I think it is very important that they get the message that the people back home in Parliament are looking at what is going on and trying to ensure we are going in the right direction. I believe a discussion has to take place and if it is done in public like this then everybody sees it.

The member regrets that Al Jazeera will be transmitting this. This is a free country. The members opposite are blocked up and are not allowed to speak. The rest of us parliamentarians are allowed to speak and we have the right to speak freely and loudly.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to the whole question of the treaty that we have with Afghanistan to turn over detainees. This morning on CBC Radio, Professor Amir Attaran from the University of Ottawa law school said, “We are quite sure that Afghanistan tortures detainees. The Afghanistan government in its own Human Rights Commission report this year said that torture continues to take place as a routine part of police procedures. In fact, the U.S. state department says the same thing; that torture is routine in Afghanistan and involves the pulling out of fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, sexual humiliation and sodomy”.

I wonder why the former Liberal government did not seek a treaty equivalent to what the Netherlands has to ensure that Canadian armed forces personnel are not being put in danger of being accused of war crimes for turning over detainees to the Afghani government in this kind of circumstance.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Chair, the report is new. I really have not had a chance to look it over. I know that the agreement initially taken into consideration did take into consideration the Geneva convention and looked at certain areas.

We have to trust that the people who entered into this agreement have a certain amount of credibility. I would like to think that the Geneva convention is being followed. If there is any credibility to what has been reported recently, I would hope that the new government would take that into consideration and maybe look into who we are handing them over to.

I am not saying it is absolutely not happening. I am not saying it is happening. What I am saying is that this is a new report and I would like to see exactly what is coming up. I think it is something we should look at.

If I may add to that, please, I heard the same report from CBC this morning. It was interesting that the interview took place and they were talking about Canada's role in Afghanistan. Who did they interview? An American defector from the war in Iraq. To me, that was not fair reporting. What they did was a muddling of the two issues. I think we have two separate issues here. We have the war in Iraq, in which Canada is not taking part, and we have the peacekeeping mission or the mission in Afghanistan, which is bringing civilization--

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for Nipissing--Timiskaming for sharing his time with me.

I rise for the first time in the House of Commons to lend my support to Canadian soldiers, service personnel, diplomats, police, and aid workers who are risking their lives for the sake of Canadian and Afghan security in Afghanistan.

I wish to pay tribute to the Canadian families who have lost their sons there. I spoke last month to Jim and Sharon Davis of Nova Scotia, who lost their son Paul. I am sure members of the House join me in saluting the courage of this tremendously brave Canadian family.

Promoting human security for the people of Afghanistan is a goal worthy of the best Canadian effort. Training Afghan police, demobilizing ex-combatants, building health clinics and schools, all these have unquestioned support from Canadians on both sides of the House.

But some Canadians ask, and I heard this from the hon. members of the NDP, why development assistance requires troops and why these troops should have a mandate to return fire. This new paradigm appears to move Canada away from its traditional peacekeeping role. I support this change of paradigm.

I have been to Afghanistan myself. I have been to Afghanistan twice, once under Taliban rule and once since then. What I learned there is that we cannot do development in Afghanistan unless we control the security situation. The schools and clinics we build by day are burned down by night unless we have the troops to secure the development gains we have made.

Canadians, I think, also appreciate that states like Canada cannot be safe if we let Afghanistan fail, if we let it become a failed state, become a base for terror attacks. We all know that Canadians died on 9/11 and those attacks were planned in Afghanistan.

Canadians support our troops. There will be no firmer support for our troops than on this side of the House, but I think we all have two pressing concerns. The first is the possibility of torture and abuse of detainees handed over by Canadian Forces to our allies. As a former teacher of international human rights myself, I add my voice to those others, and some of those are in the gallery tonight with us.

I am speaking of international experts who voice their concerns, wanting the government, and I direct this toward the government side, to insist that the Canadian military do everything in its power to guarantee that detainees taken by Canadians and transferred to third parties receive the full protection of the Geneva conventions and receive visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. I have been in places of Afghan detention myself and have seen the work that the International Committee of the Red Cross does, and I believe it is the best guarantee of their safety and freedom from abuse. All Canadians would agree that our mission there, which we all value, should not be sullied by human rights abuses committed by third parties.

The second concern of Canadians relates to the overall strategic goal of this mission. Our allies, the Americans, the Pakistanis and the Afghans, are engaged in an open-ended, counter-insurgency war in hostile terrain against al-Qaeda and Taliban elements. Currently, our operations are part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. When this mission becomes a NATO responsibility later this year, will these strategic objectives change? If so, what position will the Government of Canada recommend to its NATO partners?

Canadians support reconstruction. We support the stabilization of a failed state. But we do question how far we should go in an unlimited counter-insurgency war led by our friends and allies. We are a country with a great military tradition, of which I am intensely proud, but Canadians want to know what is the goal of our counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan, how long it will last and, most important, how we can keep this operation serving Canadian objectives, because we are nobody else's auxiliaries.