Debates of April 10th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have heard the NDP speeches and questions tonight and there is confusion in the message they are communicating. On the one hand, they say they support our soldiers, but in the same breath they question the key elements of their mission. Despite what they say, this is not supporting our soldiers or their mission.

Our ministers and parliamentary secretaries have been very clear in their support. It is a dangerous mission, but Canadian soldiers are highly trained, disciplined, skilled and are the best in the world.

Could you comment on our Canadian soldiers, in the eyes of other nations, are contributing to international security?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to address his questions through the Chair.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for that reminder. I can assure you my colleague was not responding out of any lack of attention for authority, he having served proudly as a Colonel in the Canadian Forces.

As most of us know, Canadians are regarded with huge respect everywhere around the world because of the dual role that we have played historically and that we play today, both as peace makers and peacekeepers. We are there. As our Prime Minister said, we do not cut and run. We stand there and defend people who need to be defended. We will continue to do this and not just in that country. I might add that it is not just in the role in terms of national defence and our armed forces, but also our policing forces.

We have officers from the RCMP and other police forces across the country who also serve in these places. They help train police forces in the proper administration of their duties such as what it is to be honourable police officers and how to apprehend people by following due process and course of law. It is not only our armed forces, but our policing forces from across the country are contributing as well.

It is really important to recognize that our involvement there is not only in the interest of Afghanistan, but it is also in Canada's interest to promote democracy everywhere. Historians record very faithfully that democracies very rarely go to war against each other. The more democracies we can encourage around the world, the more failed states we can encourage to become successful states and the more democracy is promoted and protected, the more peace we will have.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chair, talk about confusion. The Conservatives have a lot to answer for. I wonder what the public safety minister would say if someone said that we needed to talk about withdrawal, about costs, about the mission, about a possible vote and about bad morale of the troops, if we had a debate in the House.

I remind the hon. member that those words came from the Conservatives, not the New Democratic Party. If there is confusion on anyone's part, I suggest they look in the mirror and try to clarify this for Canadians.

However, that kind of rhetoric will not solve the concerns we have in Afghanistan. I have a very serious question for the public safety minister. The previous Liberal government, when we were serving in the Balkans, took an awful lot of money out of the capital defence budget and moved it into operations thus starving the military of equipment purchases.

My question is for the hon. member who is in cabinet. What is the government doing about the financing of this mission in Afghanistan and any future involvement that we might have? Where is the money coming from? Is it coming from the capital expenditures of the military or is it new moneys so we do not starve our military in terms of training and equipment purchases for the future? Could he give us at least us an estimate of the financial cost of our mission in Afghanistan?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, I suppose I could start by saying what price freedom.

I can say that these are estimates that are being very carefully thought out. It is true that the previous government committed troops to Afghanistan. We were in support of that. As I have already said, we are in support of our troops there.

In the last question period before this one it was our Prime Minister who very clearly said that no longer will our troops have to suffer from lack of proper equipment, be it uniforms, equipment, lodging or whatever. We will properly care for our troops wherever they are in this world. Those have been cost accounted and laid out very clearly and independently audited.

The member opposite also raised questions about how long should we be there and what are the costs. Of course these are questions we need to address. That is why we are having the debate. We have also clearly said that future engagements such as this will require a debate and a vote here in the House of Commons. However, we are in fact committed here.

We are not surprised that the member has raised these questions. I am glad that he did. That is what debate is all about. Let us not forget that tonight two NDP members were outside protesting with a group saying to bring our troops home. That is what they were doing. Let us let Canadians know that. That is not a surprise because in the second world war it was their leader who said we should not even engage against the Nazis and let them run roughshod.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, they are reacting now. I am just giving them some straight history. We understand their reluctance. In a democracy it is fair for them to take that position, but let Canadians know what their position is.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the distinguished member for Parkdale—High Park.

At the outset I want to associate myself without reservation with the expressions of support by my leader and my colleagues for the brave men and women who are now serving in Afghanistan, particularly under the desperately dangerous conditions in Kandahar.

I want to add my heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of the 11 soldiers and the one senior diplomat who lost their lives in Afghanistan. As the mother of two sons, each with two young families, I can identify with the agony and the grief felt by the families of our soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Since 1997 I have been privileged to represent the people of Halifax in the House. I want to take a moment tonight to thank my constituents for once again giving me the privilege of representing them.

Halifax is a military town. The city I represent is home to a vast number of military personnel who have served our country and who are committed to going on serving our country. There are no armed forces in the world better trained or more committed than the Canadian military.

My understanding is that the majority of troops who will be deployed in Kandahar in the second half of the current mission will be deployed from the Maritimes primarily.

Some people ask, if I support the troops in their mission, how can I and my colleagues ask questions? I have to say that throughout my 26 years in public life, it has always been my belief that the ultimate loyalty to our troops and to their families is to ask the very questions that they are not free to ask. They are not free to ask those questions in two senses. They accept that when they enter the military and are deployed, they serve without asking questions. They trust their parliamentarians to ensure that the mission is achievable, that it is in accordance with Canadian values and that it is also in accordance with our international obligations.

They are not free in another sense. Once troops are deployed into harm's way, they have to protect themselves psychologically. They simply commit themselves without reservation to carrying out the mission they have been assigned and frankly, to doing everything they can to keep themselves alive.

I have to say, and this may surprise some members, that although I come from a major military town and am proud to do so, over the last several months since we have been raising concerns, I have received one phone call and one e-mail challenging why I and my colleagues are raising questions about the mission, about the deployment and about what we are doing to ensure that it is achievable and as safe as it can possibly be. I know that having said that, it will evoke some further correspondence from people and I welcome that. I think it needs to be understood that it is not military families and military personnel that are saying do not ask these questions. In fact, the opposite is true. Let me go to two concerns.

The first arises around the whole question about the mixing of war fighting and peace support operations. When we raise those concerns we are told that this is not like Pearsonian peacekeeping and that we are stuck in the past. We understand that it is not Pearsonian peacekeeping. We also understand, and this point was made very, very well by Canadian journalist Cathy Gannon, an Associated Press correspondent in Afghanistan and Pakistan for 18 years. She underscored on CBC Radio Sunday Edition last weekend that there is a very negative legacy throughout the south and the east from the heavy-handed tactics of the Americans. When Canadian Forces go into those villages where the Americans have been, they face desperate, desperate conditions. It is very hard to hunt down Taliban at the same time the forces present themselves as the ones who are rebuilding.

Having said that, I will defer to my hon. colleague. I will ask further questions throughout the rest of the debate.

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

Mr. Chair, when I hear my colleagues from the New Democratic Party talk about the American command in Afghanistan, they seem to forget that the United Nations has authorized this mission, that there is a NATO mandate. They also seem to forget that in the most important military action in modern history, the second world war, Canadian troops fought under a joint command led by the United States. We did so proudly in the liberation of Europe, a military operation that the leader of their legacy party, the CCF, voted against.

At least twice tonight the NDP has stood up and said that all its members are just asking questions, that they are just expressing themselves. When I was coming up to the Hill tonight, two of that party's members of Parliament were expressing themselves in a rally in front of this building under a huge banner that read “Bring troops out of Afghanistan”.

I do not want the NDP shuffle any more. Those members asked for a frank debate. Here is their chance for a frank debate and a frank answer to a straight question.

Does the hon. member believe that colleagues of hers associating themselves with a call for troops out of Afghanistan is helpful to the morale of our troops and their mission? Does she believe that our troops would be proud to see members who help represent them and their families calling their mission, associating themselves with people who say that the mission in Afghanistan is really an imperialistic endeavour and that we should therefore call them home? Does she believe that is a morale building exercise or not, for her members to be associated with such an approach as that?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, precisely that kind of innuendo causes a lot of concern about whether Canadians are being well served even in this debate. Surely it is the essence of democracy to be willing to acknowledge the right of those who even hold an opposite point of view to protest.

[An hon. member]

Yes or no?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

For us to present ourselves as the champions of democracy, the champions of free speech and then engage in that kind of taunting and demonizing is really an embarrassment--

[An hon. member]

I guess that's a no.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Chair, I totally agree with the hon. member that we should not seek in the House to demonize one another and to stifle honest debate.

The hon. member asked two questions. She said that she on behalf of her troops, those who live in her riding, those who have families and who are serving in the theatre, want questions asked: is the mission achievable and is it in accordance with our international obligations?

Does she take the position that it is not achievable? Does she take the position that it is not in accordance with international obligations? If not, why is she asking these questions, because how could she possibly pretend that it would not demoralize our troops if she was standing in the House and saying it is not an achievable mission and it is not in accordance with our international obligations? It does not make any sense.

This is not to demonize anybody. This is to have a debate about what this is. Our troops know that they are there not to solve this problem, but to set the conditions wherein a political solution can be achieved. But they must be allowed to set those conditions in a way in which they are allowed to achieve that, because we have faith in their judgment and we understand they are the best troops in the world that understand how to go about doing this mission.

Anything less, I suggest, is to undermine their capacity to do what we have sent them there to do.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think a growing number of Canadians and in fact a growing number of people in other parts of the world have very serious concerns about whether the objectives that have been identified for our troops are indeed going to be achievable if they continue to be assigned to play the war-making role while they also are engaged in the kind of development assistance activity that causes an enormous amount of confusion having gone in behind operation enduring freedom.

There have been many expressions of concern by people who have witnessed this firsthand, who have knowledge of why it is extremely dangerous, in fact a transgression of international humanitarian law, to combine those two functions in such a way that they are indistinguishable.

If that hon. member, who has been a foreign affairs minister and a defence minister, does not--

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am privileged to stand in the House as a new member of Parliament and participate in this important debate on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.

When we send our citizens, our young sons and daughters, in harm's way, we want to be assured of the nature of the mission and the goals to which they offer their courage and sacrifice. As the parent of three sons, I know all parents believe their children are precious. That is why their fate should be decided only with the respect of a full debate in the House of Commons.

Previous speakers have described the positive role of Canadian troops in the rebuilding in Afghanistan, specifically in defending and promoting women's equality. This, of course, is a worthy goal. The oppression of women in Afghanistan has probably been more extreme than in any other country in the world. Promoting women's equality is a worthy goal but I question whether the war on terrorism, as originally designed south of the border, was really a struggle for women's rights and the dignity of Afghan women. I did not hear that in the public debates at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, but it is still a worthy goal.

In my riding of Parkdale--High Park, there is an organization called the Afghan Women's Organization. It is a decades-old organization assisting Afghan women in Canada by addressing their particular needs. Many of them came to Canada as refugees and their needs have been quite extreme. I will say that they spoke positively to me about Canada's peacekeeping role in helping to stabilize and rebuild in Afghanistan. They affirmed that this assistance was sorely needed in such a wartorn country but they echoed what humanitarian organizations around the world are saying, that when troops blur the lines between humanitarian aid and reconstruction and offensive military action, they not only endanger themselves as troops, they endanger aid workers whom they are presumably trying to protect.

It is of course confusing for Afghans. They want the rebuilding to take place but the person in uniform might have a shovel in his or her hand one minute and a gun the next, one minute offering medical assistance and the next minute taking a life. Contrary to what a previous member said, of course rebuilding needs security in order to conduct its work, but the blurring of the lines between security and peacekeeping in aggressive military action is a troubling and dangerous development. We may well be disrespecting our troops by placing them in harm's way in this fashion.

Afghan women also raised serious concerns about the growing lawlessness in Afghanistan. In rural areas, where 85% of the population lives, women fear roving militaristic groups which are increasingly wreaking violence upon them. They said that in some areas it has been even worse than during the times of the Taliban. I spoke to women parliamentarians from Afghanistan who spoke about the routine death threats that they face when they speak about women's rights.

We have heard many important questions here tonight that have not received adequate answers. Some argue that we should only engage in boosterism here tonight. I do not agree. Why is this democratic debate a sign of failure? On the contrary, surely it is a sign of the strength of our democracy and either we believe in the purpose of this House or we do not. Debate is healthy and does not equal a lack of support for our military. A censure of debate is dangerous and not worthy of this House.

Since the former Liberal government got us into this U.S.-led operation enduring freedom, we are being told today that we need to finish what we started. Some Canadian soldiers tragically have already given their lives. Could the government please tell us when our military will finally leave this U.S.-led operation and instead become part of a NATO-led mission with which we could all feel more comfortable?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, I have patiently listened to attempts by my colleagues to my right, the political left, trying to convince us of the fact that they support our troops in Afghanistan. However, in question after question, answer after answer, comment after comment, we hear references to reviewing the rules of engagement, disclosing exit strategies and asking how long the mission will last. The Taliban would love to have those answers.

I heard reference to our troops being involved in war making. I just heard the member saying something about not placing troops in harm's way. It is not surprising that Canadians are puzzled by the NDP position in this attempt to provide democracy building in Afghanistan.

We also heard that somewhere along the line the NDP wants a vote on this issue. I want to tell my colleagues to my right, the political left, that in fact UN supported missions such as ours are not like some reality shows where we can vote someone off the island every week. Helping the people of Afghanistan build a democracy is serious business and it is not something for fickle minds.

Will the member and her party today affirm their clear and unambiguous support for our mission in Afghanistan and for the brave men and women of our armed forces?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I caution the hon. member on his recklessness with other people's lives.

I will say that the questions we are asking here this evening are the same questions that ministers have asked before and which members of his party have asked in the previous government, including the leader of his party. There should not be a McCarthy-like pledge that needs to take place before someone can have a healthy debate in the House. We can support our sons and daughters, and our troops and not want to place them recklessly in a mission that is under U.S. command without a vote in the House.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a news flash for the member across the way. First, this is a NATO-led UN-backed mission in which our troops are involved.

I have another news flash for her. How on earth will our aid workers protect civilians, enable people to go to school and enable the Afghani people to have an economy if they are not protected and do not have the security on the ground to do the job? The milk of human kindness is not flowing through the veins of everybody in Afghanistan, especially not the Taliban and particularly not al-Qaeda.

How on earth will our CIDA workers, RCMP officers and foreign affairs workers enable the Afghani people to build an economy, democratic institutions, health care institutions and schools and protect the rights of women, children and men in that country if they do not have the security on the ground and our troops cannot provide it? How will they do that?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me say that if the hon. member in asking that question does not see a contradiction between someone providing security for an aid worker and that same soldier in an aggressive military mission also providing aid and rebuilding, then I guess I cannot explain it any clearer.

As a news flash, this is not a NATO-led mission as his own party knows well, because of course that is the party that got us into this U.S. led mission.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

This is my first opportunity to speak in this Parliament and I want to thank the people of Scarborough—Guildwood for once again re-electing me. It is a great honour to be elected once to this chamber, but to be elected four times in a row is indeed quite humbling and unique, and I am grateful for that.

My riding is probably one of the most culturally diverse ridings in all of Canada and it includes many Afghans. As a consequence, I have become quite interested and informed by my constituents about what this conflict is all about. In fact, a key person in my riding office is an Afghan refugee and she has provided me with great service over the last nine years and helps me sort my way through this very difficult conflict.

The history of Afghanistan is one of violence. It is of war, invasion and deception. It seems that over time pretty well all of the empires have invaded Afghanistan, the latest of which was the Russian invasion and prior to that there were at least three British invasions. The pattern is always the same. The invasion seems to be relatively easy, but the exit seems to be somewhat less easy. The Russians and the British have lost literally thousands of soldiers and impoverished their treasuries in trying to invade Afghanistan.

I recommend Gwynne Dyers' book called Ignorant Armies: Sliding into War in Iraq. He writes, “Afghanistan's reputation for eating up and spitting out invading armies is one of the most deeply entrenched myths of military history. It is a myth because in fact Afghanistan has always been quite easy to conquer; hardly any invading army failed to make it to Kabul. It's just a very hard place to stay for very long because the tribes simply can't get along and they can't stand having foreigners in their country telling them what to do and every male over the age of 14 has a gun”.

Now we seem to be at it again. History is not on the side of the occupying force. Initial success is bled away by passive and aggressive resistance. It is naive to say that victory will be swift and it is naive to say that we will cut and run. There is a national and international consensus that we are here for the long haul.

We are in Afghanistan, frankly, for the best of reasons: freeing the people from an oppressive form of Islamism, allowing a form of government that allows people to make choices, reducing opportunities for international terrorism, and giving young Afghans, particularly girls, an opportunity for education. There are other reasons. We are all full of mixed motives, some of which are self-serving, but I would argue that Canada and the international community have a responsibility to be there and be there in force.

This brings me to the central contradiction of the mission stated very well by Ernie Regehr from Project Ploughshares who states quite eloquently, “On the one hand, there is no military solution to the crisis in Afghanistan and, on the other hand, foreign military assistance continues to be essential to the pursuit of a workable solution”. In other words, no military solution and there is no solution without the military.

Thus far the debate has been about the military intervention and we are, as MPs, struggling with what will be the winning strategy. Obviously, the commitment to build economic, social and political measures that build the infrastructure, both social and physical of the country, is the right direction, but is a lot easier said than done. However, I would argue that we have a question and it is an important question to ask: How can foreign military forces which are necessary but not a sufficient component of a resolution be deployed over time to build peace and in so doing, defeat the insurgency?

That is the central question of this debate. I hope that Canadians see MPs struggling with this question because it is the central contradiction about the mission and our thinking about the mission.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I am afraid I do not see it as a contradiction. It is a syllogism from logic and in the first premise where you talk about there not being a military solution, you are missing a piece of the phrase. That is, there is no military solution if you are only going to apply military force. There is a solution if you apply diplomacy, aid, reconstruction, et cetera. That is the solution.

I do not accept your argument that there is some kind of logical difficulty here. I think it is the way that things are phrased. Even I made that phrase at one time. It is recorded that I said that there is no military solution. What I meant when I said there was no military solution was that if you are only doing the military operation and if you are doing nothing else, it is a hopeless cause. We are there to rebuild the country.

I wonder if you would reflect again on this being some kind of difficult logic.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must remind the Minister of National Defence to address his remarks through the Chair.