Debates of April 10th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for York—Simcoe.

As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the January election, I want to take this opportunity to thank the voters of my beautiful riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for the privilege of being re-elected to serve them for a second term. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for the confidence and trust he has placed in me by naming me Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

It seems appropriate that the first opportunity I have to speak in the House as parliamentary secretary is on the subject of the most important deployment our forces will face during this Parliament. Our young men and women in Afghanistan are doing an excellent job of defending our national interests, protecting Canada and the world from terror and helping the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

I know that I speak for all members of this House when I offer them my full support and sincere thanks for their courage and sense of duty.

We need to recognize that it is in our national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic and peaceful country. Canada is not an island which is able to live in isolation from events taking place around the world. Al-Qaeda has singled out Canada as a target for terror, which means the fight against terror is our fight. Too many countries have learned the hard way that not taking terrorists seriously is risky.

There is also the threat of drugs. If Afghanistan descends back into chaos, it would quickly become a safe haven for the production of heroin, which would likely find its way onto the streets of Canada.

The current mission in Afghanistan is also part of Canada's long tradition of standing up for what is right when it needs defending.

As part of this tradition, Canadian military personnel have participated in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations all over the world. On every occasion, Canadians have served with courage, distinction and honour.

Our current mission in Afghanistan is no exception. It demonstrates Canada's commitment to making the world a better place in which to live, not just for Canadians but for all. However peacekeeping and peace-building represent just the first steps whose real importance lies in the fact that they make what follows possible; namely, the humanitarian and development work which are helping the Afghan people build a stronger, more peaceful and prosperous country.

Here too Canada is playing a key role. Since 2001, Canada has pledged more than $650 million to aid Afghanistan in rebuilding itself after the ravages of war. Canadian Forces personnel are providing medical and dental care to Afghans, many of whom have never seen a doctor or a dentist. They are helping to rebuild schools and making sure children can safely attend them, and they are protecting the civilian population so Afghans can restart their lives.

As a result of the work of Canadians and others, thousands of Afghan refugees have returned home from Pakistan and elsewhere. For these efforts, Canadian Forces personnel have won the gratitude and support of a vast majority of the Afghan people with whom they have come into contact.

Canada is actively participating in a number of humanitarian and development projects to promote equality for women, expand the public education system for children and ensure the right to vote for all Afghans.

Thanks to these and other projects, much progress has already been made. Poverty has been reduced. Millions of Afghans are able to vote in free elections. Afghan women now enjoy rights and economic opportunities that were simply unthinkable under the Taliban. Afghan children are now able to attend school as freely as Canadian children.

These are important victories for the people of Afghanistan and they represent things worth standing up for, but for this to work we need to stay the course so our young men and women can return to a grateful Canada knowing that their self-sacrifice, hard work and courage made the world a better place. May God keep our land glorious and free.

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

Mr. Chair, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. I wonder if he would comment on the central contradiction of this entire mission and that is that there is no military solution to this conflict and yet there is no solution without military support. I wonder if he could comment on what he sees as the way out of that essential contradiction.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would have to disagree with the premise of the question that there is a contradiction there. I do not see any contradiction whatsoever. In fact, the primary responsibility of the forces that are present in Afghanistan are to bring peace, security and stability so that the pillars of democracy can surface and grow in that environment. Without their presence, there is no way that these important civil institutions could ever develop.

I would suggest that the hon. member take a second look at why we are playing the role that we are playing in Afghanistan.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I was outside on the steps of Parliament Hill earlier this evening with another member and I was glad I was there to hear the concerns being voiced by peace activists and anti-war activists. This is where they should be voicing their concerns about the government's policy and the nature of the mission in Afghanistan.

It has been alarming to hear Conservative members being critical of members of the NDP and members of other parties for daring to ask questions about their programs and policies. I would like to pursue this further because, as has been explained tonight, many of the questions that we are raising are the same questions that were raised by the Minister of Defence when he was in opposition. I guess they were okay then when they came from that member but they are not all right now if they are coming from the NDP.

It strikes me as very hypocritical that on the one hand a propaganda machine is now underway in the United States, and being referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as “boots on the ground”, which has been launched by the Conservative government to convince Americans of what we are doing and to appease George W. Bush, and yet on the other hand the same government is refusing to answer the questions Canadians have about this mission.

I would like to ask the member if he knows what the exit strategy is. Does he know what the objectives of this mission are in terms of what will happen after February 2, 2007 if he is the parliamentary secretary? If he believes in the transparency and accountability of his government, why is he not willing to share that with the Canadian public?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I remind my hon. colleague that the democratic right that she is exercising with freedom of expression is the very right that we are trying to establish in Afghanistan. I respect her right to speak freely and I respect the right of others to ask questions but at the end of the day we have a responsibility to the forces that are present in Afghanistan. We have to assure them that they are over there for a good purpose and that we will not back down from them during a debate like the one occurring here this evening in Parliament.

To further expand on the good work that we are doing in Afghanistan, I want to remind all members in the chamber of some of the accomplishments that have occurred recently: 4.8 million children have enrolled in primary schools as a result of our assistance in Afghanistan; 3.5 million refugees have returned; 63,000 former combatants have been disarmed and demobilized; and a president, a parliament and 34 provincial councils have been elected. We are doing good work. I encourage all members to support our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, through the Prime Minister's recent visit to Afghanistan, our new government spoke clearly and directly to Canadians and the world about how Canada will participate in world affairs and again provide leadership. For those of us who are believers in the importance of democracy and its promotion, it was good news.

First, the Prime Minister made clear that Canadian commitments would have weight. Our resolve in the face of challenges would be strong and our partners, allies and those counting on Canada could do so with trust and confidence. The building of confidence and trust is fundamental to restoring Canada to a leadership position in the world.

Second, the Prime Minister made clear that Canadian actions on the world's stage will be governed by our national interest. This may be old fashioned, realist school international relations. However , it ensures that our policies reflect Canada's concerns and that our commitments do not over-reach our capabilities. Canada, the confirmed multilateralist, would ensure an independent foreign policy in the context of working with our like minded partners to have maximum constructive impact.

That Canadian national interest is not a narrow and opportunistic seeking of mere advantage for ourselves. Rather, it is a broadly defined national interest, one that recognizes the interconnectiveness of the world today and that Canadian security and prosperity are enhanced and safeguarded when the world is a safer place where the rule of law is spread in partnership with the advance of human rights and democracy. It is a national interest that recognizes that Canada is not an island, but rather part of global humanity.

Third, the Prime Minister spoke clearly of Canada's intention to be a leader in world affairs. Some speak of our country as being a model nation, and it is true that Canada has much to commend it in that regard: a healthy, mature, functioning democracy; active civil society; tolerance of dissent and a respected judicial system with widely accepted rule of law. We have a healthy level of economic freedom, buttressed by a supportive social safety net. As such, Canada is a pretty good model. However leadership by example is not sufficient.

Leadership means duty. We have an obligation to help promote those values in the parts of the world that do not yet share our prosperous stability and freedom to move in that direction. That duty, which is part of leadership, requires sacrifice. In Afghanistan we see that leadership in numerous forms: from the so-called pointy end of military commitment, to the institution building efforts of provincial reconstruction teams and the simple but urgent delivery of humanitarian aid.

In Afghanistan and elsewhere, Canada will not be carping or hectoring from the sidelines. We will be providing leadership and working to make the world a safer, more secure and free place.

Which brings us to the fourth point the Prime Minister was making. We are in Afghanistan to help rebuild the country into a free, democratic and peaceful country. That objective is a legitimate and important Canadian objective. In fact, our work in Afghanistan confirms what is best about Canada on the world's stage and how much Canadians have to offer.

We are proud of the work our soldiers, diplomats and aid workers are doing. We are all grateful for their efforts. Canadians thank them and the Afghan people thank them.

Most Canadians will never see Afghanistan but they know of Kandahar. Canadians know and hear of the work that our people, who proudly wear the Canadian flag, are doing. They are uprooting the enemies of freedom. They are giving hope for a better life and Canadians are helping Afghans to rebuild their country.

For over four years now Canada has stood side by side with the international community, with 36 countries, in Afghanistan in fighting the campaign against terrorism. Achieving this requires the international community to adopt a multi-faceted approach, and Canada is doing just that.

I think I speak for all members of the House when I say that we are honoured and humbled by the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform and by diplomat Glynn Berry who gave their lives in a far away land for people they did not know. They gave it for a belief, for a principle, for freedom and for democracy.

While for some of us the idea of Canada playing a leading role in advancing democracy is self-evidently desirable, it is not a path without obstacles. Foremost is a strong isolationist impulse harboured by some. There are those who would prefer that we pull up the drawbridges and keep our prosperity and freedom to ourselves.

A recent caller I heard on CBC radio was critical of the Prime Minister's declarations in Afghanistan. She said, “All this talk about freedom, it's just not Canadian”. I like to think that freedom is a Canadian value. I think it should be a universal value.

As this country learned in the last century, safeguarding and advancing freedom often comes at a price; a price paid by thousands of Canadians in two world wars and Korea. Throughout her history, Canada has been a leader in advancing freedom across the world. That is what Canada is doing today.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know how important this issue is to the member, his party, our party and all Canadians. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, he may have several of his own constituents, as do I, who are serving right now with our forces in Afghanistan.

I want to ask the member a very simple question. While we talk a great deal about what needs to be done and the purposes for which we are there, ultimately there has to be a solution and, one would presume, a political solution. Is the hon. member of the view that the total government approach, which been the standing policy of both governments--I presume nothing has changed under his government--will see or conclude Canada's maturation in terms of its involvement in Afghanistan at any time in the not too distant future?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is a tremendous desire among some to distill democracy promotion or democratic development to simply winning a military struggle and having free and democratic elections. Obviously it is much more than that. In many places, it requires institution building, development of civilian law enforcement and education systems, the stabilization of an economy, and the building of local governments and national governments. All of these things are important parts of the package. Of course, every circumstance is different. Every occasion is different.

As the Soviet Union ended, we saw many countries where there were willing recipients looking to go quickly down the road to embrace reform of their judicial system, to learn how to run it the way that western democracies have been doing it for years. Then there are some countries, obviously, where democratic development is done in the face of hostile forces; there are countries and regimes that really are resisting it. As we know, we see that right now in some places, such as Belarus, where it is a big struggle.

Then we have a place such as Afghanistan, and there are others around the world that are similar, where it is something in between the two, where there are local populations and newly elected governments, where we have had the successful elections and we have people wanting to move toward that state of a stable, democratic and free country, but where there are forces within the country that are resisting it. They are fighting it and trying to destabilize the country militarily and through terrorist actions. Those are perhaps the most difficult ones, obviously, because the solution is different in every case.

In a case such as Afghanistan's, which has gone through such difficult times throughout the Taliban era and even before that, there obviously needs to be a large and comprehensive model that involves development on every front. That is what we are doing in Afghanistan. I believe it is the right model and I know this government believes it is the right one.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague a question concerning NATO. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he holds an important position. We know that NATO is to take over very soon. Given opinion in Canada and Quebec at this time, there is a problem: the Enduring Freedom command remains in place.

Ministerial meetings are being held concerning NATO. I am attending parliamentary meetings, but there are also meetings between the defence ministers and the foreign affairs ministers.

I would like him to give us a summary of progress on the NATO takeover. I know that it is planned, but is it a sure thing? Will NATO take over this summer, as agreed? Can we speed up the process or is it behind schedule? Could the parliamentary secretary tell us more about progress on the NATO takeover?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, as most people know, the mission in Afghanistan is divided into different portions or different provincial reconstruction teams throughout. Currently, the Kandahar one, where Canada has taken on a leadership role, is one where we are going to have a lot of troops from different forces coming in.

My own ancestral homeland of Estonia is actually committing 150 troops that will be working under Canada there. Of course, I might add that people from Estonia appreciate the importance of democratic development and democracy promotion, having lived for a half a century under Soviet tyranny and having seen that suffering. That is why Estonia, this tiny country of just one million people, is giving a commitment so out of proportion to its population.

Obviously ISAF has development teams that are in charge of some of the provincial reconstruction. The U.S. has different elements. We keep moving between different portions with our commitment. We are confident that the progress is a positive one and that things are making satisfactory progress, but obviously the commitment of when we do what and what we will do will ultimately be in our national interest.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for West Nova.

I am pleased to participate in this take note debate on Afghanistan, as I did in a similar debate in the House on January 28, 2002. At that time, I shared with the House 10 principles that should underpin our reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, organized around the centrality of human security and rights protection and which included: the establishment of a viable justice system, support for the fundamental role of women in that reconstruction effort, the clearing of land mines, accountability for past abuses, an application of international humanitarian law, and the treatment and protection of persons in armed conflict, including the protection of detainees and prisoners of war.

As we gather together for this take note debate in support of the human security mandate, mass atrocity and impunity, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by attrition, continue unabated in Darfur. That is why we formed last Thursday an all party parliamentary coalition to save Darfur, first, to sound the alarm, pour briser le silence. As Andrei Sakharov once put it, the surest way to ensure that human rights will be abandoned is the continuation of silence. Second, we formed the coalition to issue a call to action, a 10 point agenda for action inspired by and anchored in that fundamental doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

I propose now to summarize the 10 points of that action plan, which include the following points.

First is supporting the rapid transition from the current AU force to a robust chapter VII, UN-mandated civilian protection force. Second is the enhancement of troop support so as to allow for the civilian protection mandate to be achieved. Third is the enforcement of the UN Security Council ban on offensive military flights over Darfur, including the no-fly zone. Fourth is the support of UN Security Council resolutions to bring the perpetrators of these international atrocities to justice before the International Criminal Court.

Fifth is the disarming of the militia groups collectively referred to as Janjaweed. Sixth is enabling internally displaced persons and refugees to return safely to their homes. Seventh is monitoring and enforcing the arms embargo mandated under UN Security Council resolution 1591. Eighth is the supporting of targeted sanctions as recommended by the UN expert committee on sanctions. Ninth is the supporting of the Darfur peace process, which should include representation from all parties to the conflict. Finally, there is the supporting of responsible disbursement of development assistance funding, which itself will only be made possible through the protection of human security.

The Speech from the Throne envisaged a robust diplomatic role for Canada and I share this. This is a test case for that robust diplomatic role and a test case for the responsibility to protect obligations. As Edmund Burke put it, and I will paraphrase it, the surest way to ensure that evil will triumph in the world is for enough good people and good countries to do nothing.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate having an opportunity to make a comment and ask a question. I listened to the member make his presentation. It seemed to me, and I look for his clarification, that he started out by saying that while the mission in Afghanistan may have some value, Canada should change its focus to Darfur. Maybe that is not what he is saying. If it is not, I would like him to clarify that.

It seems to me that this mission in Afghanistan is important. It has been made clear tonight by members from both sides that it is important. I believe this mission will allow the establishment of democracy and freedoms in Afghanistan. It has already allowed women to be treated not as chattels but as free members of the Afghan society. It has allowed children to attend school, which is, I would suggest, the only route to long term hope in Afghanistan.

Canada cannot be involved in all missions. Canada may choose to be involved in Darfur at some time down the road; I have no way of knowing that. It will be examined in the future. But it really did sound to me at the start of the member's presentation that Afghanistan is important, but--and then the focus went to Darfur.

I would like the member to comment on that. Does he feel confident that Canada could play a meaningful and important role in both theatres? Or is he saying, as it sounded, that maybe Canada should consider backing out of Afghanistan and putting our focus into Darfur? Does he believe that we can do both and that we have enough troops to do what he would like to see done in Darfur? I really would like clarification on that.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be able to respond. I did not introduce any “but”. The hon. member may have heard a “but”. There was no “but” in my remarks. I supported the human security protection mandate with regard to Afghanistan as early as January 28, 2002, in this House. I mentioned it at that time then, have summarized some of it now and I continue and reaffirm that human security protection mandate with respect to Afghanistan this evening.

I want to say that I do not think this is a matter of these two being mutually exclusive. I share the intention of the Speech from the Throne for a robust diplomatic role for Canada. I believe that Canada, in addition to Afghanistan, can play and exercise a robust diplomatic role and can exercise moral and political leadership. I sought to share with the members of the House a 10 point proposal whereby Canada can take the lead in helping to bring about one or more or all 10 of those 10 initiatives. I believe that a robust diplomatic initiative can do that without in any way impugning or undermining our involvement in Afghanistan.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify a couple of points before I put my question to the member. I think it is perhaps important for some of the members on the government side to know where this party stood even prior to 9/11 on the issue of Afghanistan, particularly with regard to the Taliban. I would be curious to at some point discuss with them their role in holding to account the absolute horror that was going on in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

I am sure that when they found out what was going on with the Taliban in Afghanistan they, like my colleagues and other people in our civil society, signed petitions and tried to push the UN to challenge the Taliban because of what was going on in that country at that time. I am also sure that they are aware of the period between 1992 and 1996, when 50,000 Afghans were slaughtered by the warlords and in the civil war that ensued. I am sure that each one of them made sure the UN knew what was going on and I am sure they called for action.

My question for the member is this. In light of the facts of what we have heard of the concerns around potential human rights abuses with the third party, concerns that we and others have raised, is it not now time to look at the rules of engagement that our government has signed on to with the Afghanis?

In light of the fact that there are concerns being raised in the media, concerns that the press and other experts have cited, that perhaps those whom we turn over to the Afghanis might end up on the wrong side of what we consider Canadian values, in light of that, we should, if we can, do what the Netherlands has done. That is, we should guarantee access to prisoners so we can ensure that the men and women we support over there are not doing it under the auspices of something other than the values we all hold dear.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. I supported it then in 2002 when I spoke and I support it this evening, as I have mentioned: the application of international humanitarian law for the purpose of protecting persons in armed conflict, including detainees and prisoners of war.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to speak about our soldiers in Afghanistan.

My riding of West Nova is home to CFB Greenwood, the largest air base on the east coast. I have seen firsthand the resolve and dedication shown by our Canadian Forces members as they stand ready to serve their country overseas.

Above all, it is imperative that our troops know that we stand behind them 100%. We have confidence in their skills and we must ensure that they have at their disposal the personnel, the resources, and the equipment that they need to do the job that we have sent them to do. Anything less would simply not be acceptable.

However, support for our troops should not be confused with support for the decisions of our politicians. Questioning our government does not at all question our support for our troops.

With that in mind, we are here tonight to debate the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan. As a nation, we have worked hard to cultivate our reputation as peacekeepers. Even as we stand by our allies and deploy our military in areas of conflict, we must preserve our reputation as peacekeepers and safeguard our independent foreign policy.

With this in mind, however, I believe that we have an important role to play in Afghanistan and I fully support our ongoing presence in this region. Make no mistake, we have a responsibility to finish the job that we started.

We went to Afghanistan as part of an international commitment after one of our NATO allies was attacked on September 11, 2001. We went because the Taliban government supported and facilitated the work of al-Qaeda. We went on behalf of the Afghan people because we have a long term interest in ensuring peace and stability in a region that remains volatile.

Afghanistan is now at a critical juncture. We toppled the repressive Taliban regime. On October 9, 2004 the Afghan people voted for the first time in democratic elections. We know that their government is less than perfect, but it includes the seeds of a burgeoning democracy and it needs our ongoing support. Some would argue the same of our Parliament. We must remain in Afghanistan because we cannot allow it to return to a failed state or become a safe haven for terrorists.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of prisoners of war. All prisoners must be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with the rule of law. We must never do, through a third party, anything that contradicts our national values.

Finally, I want to speak about the nature of tonight's discussions. Our mission in Afghanistan is dangerous. We knew that when we went in. As the difficult reality of our peace support operations become apparent, my colleagues in other parties have been publicly calling for a debate and vote on the mission. This kind of debate may not serve a useful purpose and could in fact put our troops in greater danger. It could illustrate to our enemies the possibility of dissension, which might encourage our enemies to take action against our military in the hopes that they could break our resolve.

Moreover, the decision to deploy our military rests solely with the Prime Minister and cabinet. He asked Canadians to give him a mandate to govern and he must take responsibility to make these difficult decisions. Members of Parliament do have an opportunity to provide input into the decision making process to the Standing Committee on National Defence as well as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. These committees provide advice to the Prime Minister and Parliament.

That said, it is up to the Prime Minister to make the final decision on the deployment of our military. Only he is privy to all the intelligence material, in its entirety, as collected by our security agencies and those of our allies.

This is a dangerous mission and we have already experienced tragic losses. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who have been injured or killed in the line of duty. They have made the ultimate sacrifice and have done so in the greater interest of humanity. We must keep faith with their sacrifice and honour their memories.

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

Mr. Chair, I listened with great interest to the speech which told us what we should have heard months, even years ago.

We very clearly support the Canadian Forces, that is the soldiers in Afghanistan. We hope they will accomplish their mission without too many casualties.

During a debate such as this one, we must be very careful and cautious. Canadian public opinion is divided. The vision, which reflects the reality of information provided by the previous government, this government and the House of Commons, is not a clear one.

In this sense, is it not important for this evening's discussions to continue? Is it not just as important to have these discussions while keeping in mind that everyone in this House wants Canadian soldiers to carry out their mission under the best conditions and without calling into question the loyalty or motives of each member of Parliament? Several of the arguments made by the member represent conditions for a successful mission.

However, divided public opinion in this regard should get us thinking about the fact that information and details are missing. Questions asked by the current Minister of National Defence, when in the opposition just a few months ago, have not all been answered. Do we not have a responsibility to continue to provide answers, particularly with regard to the duration of the mission and efforts we will make to ensure that we do not have to take up this debate in two, three or four years, when we regret decisions that have been made?

Should the government not do additional work to ensure that Canadians will have all the necessary information to provide their support? The best possible support, aside from that of the House of Commons, is that of all Canadians. In this regard, there is still a great deal to be done.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question. If we could always debate as we are debating this evening, I would be happy to debate these issues daily.

The problem arises from the fact that we get into partisan debates when questions concerning Afghanistan or other areas where our soldiers may be found become more complex or when one or other party wants to use the occasion to make political points.

I want to form the government and replace this government with our political party, but I want to do it on the basis of ideas and vision. This should happen in due course. It cannot happen to the detriment of our soldiers any more than on the basis of the fears of Canadians.

I think it is dangerous to have this sort of debate in the House in committee of the whole, when more in depth debates can take place in committee with the help of witnesses and experts who contribute to discussions. In the House we each tell the other what we already know. In committee there is the opportunity as well to hold discussions in camera, as we receive information we cannot share with the House.

We must rethink these debates in the House and ensure there are other ways to take part and to fuel more thorough debate, which would be to Canada's benefit.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was impressed by the remarks made by the member for West Nova. He shed light on a number of points essential to establishing the context for us. We need to know what Canadians and the Government of Canada must do next to support our troops in Afghanistan.

The political solutions and tools still must be found. We are here to find the tools to help this people. A decision has to be made to find a permanent political solution. Does the hon. member have any answers?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, my riding is home to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. All countries of the world and nearly all Canadian agencies work together there to train individuals who will go and work in the field, who will work with military and police forces, non-governmental international development agencies, and the United Nations, just to name a few.

All of this brings us back to the three D approach, which we have already discussed: defence, diplomacy and development. We are working with individuals towards development. I believe there will be more activities of this nature in the future.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Chair, in the context of this debate, I would like us to reflect on the past, the present, and then into the future. Obviously, it is important to reflect on the past because, as many people have commented, if we do not understand the past, then we will not understand how we got to where we are today.

It is important that we look at this debate in the context of the present, so that when things take place, for instance, the death of our brave soldiers, we can understand the context of that and it helps to determine the question of whether we should continue or not.

Then of course we have to consider the future to really get a grasp on whether what we are doing truly is going to be beneficial not just for Canada but in fact for the world. It is in those contexts that I am going to approach this debate.

We hear a lot today and we talk about the fact that Canada has a great reputation as a peacekeeper nation, but we forget that even before that we forged our history by being a peacemaker. We were involved in making the peace. Canadians were engaged in the first world war for three years before the Americans entered that conflict. In the second world war, we were there almost two years before the Americans arrived. We were in the Korean war with a very clear presence as a peacemaker.

In the first world war, our population was something like eight million, yet we enlisted almost a million troops. Just do the math on that for a minute. Of eight million people, we can figure that half were women, and in those days there were no women in combat roles, so we are down to four million men to choose from, from infants to the aged. Of that population of four million almost a million volunteered to go. Those were huge numbers.

When we look at that and our involvement in the second world war and Korea, those are some of the biggest reasons that literally we are here today in a democratic environment, and that much of Europe, western Europe certainly, is in a democratic environment, as is Great Britain and other countries.

If we had not taken part and if other countries had not taken part in those engagements, it could seriously be argued that we would not be here today in the present democratic environment which we enjoy. It is important to remember that. If we forget that we are in trouble.

I say this not for partisan reasons, but I reflect on a former Prime Minister being honest enough to say, reflecting on D-Day, that we had landed troops on the beaches of Norway. We had a former minister of defence, before the present Leader of the Opposition was minister of defence, who was honest enough to admit he had never heard of Dieppe and that he did not know the difference between Vimy Ridge, where Canada's future was largely forged, and Vichy. It is very important that we remember from whence we came, so that we know where we are going.

Canada was able to be a force at the United Nations under Lester Pearson, a great Liberal I might add, and have a huge influence because we had been so significantly involved in peacemaking in those important years. There is a Liberal heritage to that of which we can be proud.

We are presently in Afghanistan on a mission there for these very same reasons. It was in 1999 that the United Nations listed the Taliban as a terrorist entity. In 2001, people who had been trained in Afghanistan under that same world view attacked our neighbours to the south and killed Canadians in the process. They killed Canadians in those attacks. It is very important that we recognize that, and that we recognize that Afghanistan has been and still is a major exporter of terrorism. It had been allowed to exist freely, training people in the vicious and devious acts of terrorism which they exported all over the world.

They are also the major exporter of heroin, which causes disruption in a different way, death and destruction I might add, even upon our young people here in Canada. The Taliban regime is so vicious and oppressive that women live constantly in fear. Men live in fear of regime.

When the people of Afghanistan called for help, quite rightly Canadians responded. Canadian history is that we have certain limits to what we will witness before we take action. Canadians are not seen as being maybe as outward and aggressive as others are, but there are limits. We do not like bullies. When we see people in other countries being bullied to such an extent, our history is that eventually we step up to the plate to protect them. That is what we did in previous engagements. That is what we did and are doing in this engagement.

We respect the right of sovereign nations to conduct their own activities within their borders. That goes back to 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia. We respect that sovereign right, but there is a limit. Canadians have been the ones to stand up when we feel those human limits have been broached. We are there and we must continue to be there.

I reflect on the second world war. My father, as a young university student, had a limit to which he could continue classes and yet at the same time watch what was going on in Europe under the Nazi regime. Though there were children at home and he was already well into his thirties, my mother's father had certain limits at which he could watch and see oncoming destruction in Hong Kong. He went with the people we now call the Hong Kong veterans and paid a severe price of spending four years in a prisoner of war camp.

Canadians have limits. We eventually stand up for those who are being bullied almost beyond human belief. Private Robert Costall had limits. He was a young, married man with a 14 month old child. He had enlisted in our armed forces and was proud to do so, hoping that the time would not come but knowing it may come where the limits would be broached and where he would join others and stand in the defence of human beings for their most important human rights.

It is not a time to back off and appease one of the most vicious terrorist elements the world has ever known. As a matter of fact, it was Winston Churchill who said that those who believed in appeasing were like those who fed the crocodile hoping they would be the last one to be eaten. Canadians, historically, have never taken that particular approach.

Why would so many Canadians be ambivalent about the present engagement in which we now find ourselves? One is that the reasons for this engagement I believe do not get fairly broadcast. I am talking literally about the broadcasters.

We are not asking, nor would we expect, those who do the broadcasting of news in our country to sway one way or another. However, it would be nice if Canadians got a fair picture of what we are doing in Afghanistan, such as the results that have already taken place, an economy that is beginning to find itself again, the fact that young women are going back to school and being educated, the fact that the people of Afghanistan are voting like they never have before, voting in bigger numbers than we vote here in Canada. We must be in Afghanistan.

I was speaking with General Hillier today. Our soldiers are not only proud of the fact they are there, but they understand why they are there. They feel and understand the meaning of that. They sense the history and the future of that. Now is not the time to desert them. We have read in the papers how Taliban forces and their supporters literally are watching this debate. They are watching what Canadians are seeing and feeling about this. They have a sense that if they continue to mount their attack against our brave soldiers, then maybe we will lose our nerve.

As I conclude my remarks, I think of words of the poet John McRae. Now is not the time to back off from facing the foe. Now is not the time to stand back. Now is the time to pass the torch. In that poem and in the words of many Canadians and many soldiers who have paid the price, “Don't fail now, take up the torch against the foe so that we who have paid the price can sleep”.

We want Canadians to sleep, not just tonight but in the generations to come. We need to be able to stand up for what we are doing in Afghanistan, to be there, to support our troops and know that it is the right thing to do even as we have in the past.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the minister for his very spirited comments. I would not agree that misstatements by previous politicians are something that one should underscore. He will only too well remember that the Great Lakes flow in a certain direction, and I will not go down that road for him.

He raised a number of very interesting points and one that Canadians listening to this debate will want to hear from us. There have been allegations suggested today by experts that the role of our Canadian troops could be exposed to potential responses in the international courts as it relates to the taking of prisoners against international convention.

Given the hon. member's portfolio, I would like to get his take on whether there is accuracy in what is being suggested. If not, then how would he handle the questions that have been coming forward to his government to the effect that, notwithstanding the good that our troops are doing, there are many who are questioning whether it is in fact legal.

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

Mr. Chair, in terms of the word legal, legal is an opinion that is arrived at by one or more lawyers on either side of an equation.

In terms of the apprehension of prisoners in Afghanistan, it is far more appropriate that our troops hand them over to the Afghan authorities. We would not presume to take them under our own authority. They are doing the right thing in doing that. They have received commitments and we have received commitments from Afghan authorities that the treatment would be appropriate.

I feel our troops have no choice but to hand those prisoners over to the people in the country who have asked us to be there, whom we are defending, a country that hopefully we will be able to leave because it will be in a strong position to care for itself against these attacks. It is the right thing that we are doing in terms of not assuming control of those prisoners who are not “our prisoners”, but handing them over under the authorities of the Afghan government.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister says he is convinced that turning prisoners over to the Afghan government is not a problem. We heard today that the Afghan human rights commission says that torture is a routine procedure in Afghanistan among police. We have also heard that the U.S. state department has said the same thing. It has said that torture is routine and it includes pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, sexual humiliation and sodomy. I do not know how he can be confident that those issues are being dealt with in Afghanistan.

I also want to ask him about a situation that was publicized about a convert to Christianity who was on trial in Afghanistan recently for converting from Islam. This man was facing imprisonment and even the death penalty for having done this. The international community avoided the whole issue by whisking him out of Afghanistan to Italy.

Could the minister comment on the state of human rights in Afghanistan, which we as Canadians are now defending, given these kind of examples?

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

Mr. Chair, I just heard one of my colleagues from across the floor say that we should consider the previous regime. That is a good point to make. How can the member opposite raise these particular questions almost in light of maybe we should be abandoning these people to a previous regime whose level of desecration of human rights was far in excess of what is happening today? Progress is being made.

Our forces consult with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent in Afghanistan in terms of the determination of the care of these prisoners. We hope to see ongoing improvement in human rights. Afghanistan's human rights record is not perfect, but it is better than it was before we entered. As long as we stay and help them until they are ready to stand on their own against this force, it will be even better when we leave.

I am pleased that my colleague raised the question of the person who converted from Islam to Christianity. I can tell the House what would have happened to that person if it had been six years ago. He would have been killed. Something horrific would have happened to him even before he was killed. By the fact that we are there gave our Prime Minister the moral ground to stand on when he phoned the Afghan authorities and said this could not happen. We are not over in Afghanistan to defend those types of practices. That man is alive today because of the intervention of Canadian authorities and our Prime Minister.