Debates of April 10th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to formally address the House since the people of Vancouver South honoured me with re-election as their member of Parliament on January 23. I was deeply honoured by this reaffirmation of their confidence and I am very pleased that my first address since re-election is on an issue of so much importance, not only to my constituents but to all Canadians.

I want to thank the leader of our party, a most respected former minister of national defence, to have entrusted me with the role of defence critic. Much of the renewal of confidence and sense of purpose we have seen in our Canadian Forces in recent times is a legacy of his leadership.

I am pleased to speak in the House for the official opposition regarding Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. I would like to commend the Prime Minister for finally coming around to our view, that a take note debate is the right and proper forum through which to engage members and Canadians in a dialogue concerning our mission in that strife torn and troubled land.

There is no more solemn choice for any free and democratic government than that of deploying the men and women of its armed forces into a combat zone. There is no more binding obligation on a government that asks such sacrifice of its sons and daughters than that of explaining why it is in the national interest.

In recent weeks brave Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have been killed in the line of duty. Others have been grievously wounded. Mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, have received the awful news that they dread most. Canadians have looked to us, their elected representatives, for reassurance that the mission is worth the loss.

I am here tonight, on behalf of the official opposition, to offer Canadians an emphatic, yes. Our government agreed to this deployment. We believed then and we believe now that destroying root and branch the agents and infrastructure of supply and training that made Afghanistan into a safe haven for international terrorism is in Canada's vital national interest.

Moreover, consistent with the Liberal government's international policy statement of April 2005, we believe that stabilizing, reconstructing and democratizing failing or failed states such as Afghanistan is the primary organizing principle for Canada's future foreign military operations.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the United Nations authorized a coalition intervention in Afghanistan where the retrograde Taliban government had provided safe harbour to the al-Qaeda masterminds of the attacks on New York and Washington. Some 800 Canadian soldiers were deployed to the Kandahar region as part of this initial deployment. They earned praise from our coalition allies for the exemplary manner in which they carried out their duty.

In 2003, when NATO took over the international security assistance force in Kabul, Canada contributed the largest contingent of forces to the mission, numbering close to 2,000. In 2005, Canadian Forces returned to Kandahar and established a provincial reconstruction team comprised of about 250 Canadian Forces members as well as officials from CIDA, the RCMP and foreign affairs.

This past February, pursuant to a decision taken by the Liberal government, and at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, our forces increased their presence in the south of Afghanistan by deploying a brigade headquarters of approximately 300 Canadian Forces personnel and an army task force of about 1,000 personnel to Kandahar where they will remain for 9 and 12 months respectively.

This is a multi-faceted mission with a strong humanitarian component consistent with our 3D approach: defence, diplomacy and development assistance. It places an emphasis on building civil society and democratic institutions, and a commitment to reconstruction. We believe that incorporating these components into the mission is vital to a successful future for Afghanistan.

As government, we knew then that this would not be a quick and easy mission. We knew the enemy was determined and that casualties were a virtual certainty.

We also knew that the mission marked a shift from the traditional Canadian role of peacekeeping. However, traditional peacekeeping in the post-cold war and the post-9/11 world has changed to include humanitarian, security and reconstruction dimensions.

Reconstruction is not possible without security. The area must be secure in order for reconstruction activities to take place and to take hold. This work is done in a uniquely Canadian way. Our troops operate in a manner that is respectful of Afghanistan's sovereignty and the local customs of its people, all the while trying to lead by example by promoting higher standards of human rights and strengthening the foundations of Afghan democracy.

As I have said, the Liberal Party fully supports the deployment in Kandahar. We are proud to stand today for a decision we made in government. We are proud to support our troops in the field in an unqualified fashion.

However, in making such judgments a government has to balance objectives against risk. It must do so not only at the outset of a potential combat deployment but also over time. If there were to be a significant change in the circumstances surrounding this mission, if for example the government were to decide that it was extending the mission beyond the timeframe agreed to, then I would respectfully submit that the government has an obligation to bring such a matter before the House for debate.

The official opposition will be looking to the government, to the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, to live up to their responsibilities by ensuring that progress toward the objectives we seek in common with our allies in Afghanistan is sufficient over time to justify the risk to our troops.

In conclusion, we reaffirm our support for our men and women in Afghanistan. We sent them in harm's way. They command our gratitude and our unwavering support. No matter how eloquent, words alone shall not suffice. As a nation we must summon and exercise the immense wisdom of which we are undoubtedly capable.

We have carved a line in the ragged hills of Afghanistan not with our words but with the legendary courage, the blood and the sweat of our men and women of the Canadian Forces.

On our side of that line is liberty and freedom from tyranny and poverty. Beyond that line is injustice, violence and repression. By creating security and liberty, and lending a helping hand through reconstruction, we shall help Afghanistan erase violence and poverty, and bring in a stable, free and peaceful Afghanistan.

Canadians want our men and women in Afghanistan to succeed. The government must engage Canadians in this ongoing dialogue and inform the country from time to time on the status of our stated goals in Afghanistan. Democracy demands it and Canadians deserve it from their government and their parliamentarians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks and for his support of the Canadian Forces, and the job they are doing in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Canada has never acted alone in these kinds of affairs. We have always acted as parts of a coalition. We have been valuable members of every coalition we have belonged to. We cannot do without them and frankly, the world cannot do without Canada at this stage. I am proud of the fact that we are slowly starting to rebuild the forces to the level they should be at.

The member brought up the potential for an extended commitment. Clearly, the situation in Afghanistan will require an extended commitment on somebody's part to make Afghanistan the safe and prosperous country that we all want it to be.

Has the hon. member or his party given any serious thought to the specifics in view of a requirement to extend our participation beyond February 2007?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, there is no doubt in my mind that the mission may need to be extended in some form or the other. However, it is important for the government to set those goals and objectives by which we will judge ourselves at the end in February 2007.

I remember a question asked by the hon. Minister of National Defence when he was the defence critic asking the then Minister of National Defence essentially that question, that we should have stated goals. I would say to the government that it should be consulting with parliamentarians and the country, so that when February 2007 rolls around we are ready for that.

It is important that if this mission needs to be extended, we must have a full and open debate in the House and across the country. Canadians currently are divided on this mission. They are divided clearly right down the middle. They are looking for leadership from this chamber and from the minister, from the Prime Minister, and from all of us. It is important for us to engage them in a dialogue on this very important issue.

It would be premature for me to set down what those stated goals ought to be as an opposition critic standing here tonight. However, it is important for the government to ensure that we have a yardstick by which we can measure our progress and move on if we need to beyond 2007.

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

Mr. Chair, the member for Vancouver South and I go back a number of years in different political contexts over the years. I agree with much of what he said but there are still questions in terms of our mission in Afghanistan at this point.

I want to ask specifically about the agreement that was signed with the Government of Afghanistan on the transfer of detainees. The member for Vancouver South indicated that he was proud of the record of the previous government in terms of how it dealt with the issue of Afghanistan. However today we saw that a number of international legal experts expressed some very serious concerns about the agreement that Canada signed with Afghanistan. They say that Canadian soldiers may be at risk of prosecution in the international arena because we are not adequately protecting detainees and their human rights.

As the member for Vancouver South has been in the forefront at other times on the issue of human rights, does he feel this agreement with the Government of Afghanistan needs to be renegotiated to be sure to protect the human rights of detainees and that they not be in jeopardy of being transferred to a third state where they may in fact be humiliated or tortured? Is he as proud of that agreement as he was of the work of the Liberal government?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have had an opportunity to look at the agreement. I agree that it is an important agreement and it is one that is quite good in many respects.

The involvement of the International Red Cross or the Red Crescent as an independent third party is very important because it can then follow the prisoners and ensure they are treated well and appropriately in accordance with the Geneva conventions. The agreement makes reference to the Geneva conventions and that is important for us to recognize.

It is also important for us to recognize that just because the agreement may be silent on Canada's right to follow through and pursue the prisoners wherever they might be does not mean that Canada has lost that right and may not have that right in the event that we need to pursue the treatment of the prisoners in an appropriate fashion.

However I do want to tell the hon. member that I have spoken to Michael Byers and his colleagues who held a press conference this morning. I want to say to the member and to the Minister of National Defence that as a government and as parliamentarians, if we can improve upon an agreement that is already in place, no one should ever close one's mind to it.

I think in that fashion one should take a look at that. I am happy to take a look at that and consider some of the issues. However one should keep in mind the balanced approach that some organizations have. The Human Rights Watch has said that some of the fears that are expressed by those who held the press conference today may be unfounded. I think we need to approach these issues in a balanced fashion that is fair and open.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, I get the impression, when reading the media accounts and listening to some members of the House talk about our involvement in the Afghan war, that we were somehow co-opted into an illegal American-style war. I just want to state the way I understand the situation and then ask the hon. member to correct me if I have the facts wrong.

On September 11 an attack was launched against innocent civilians in our part of the world. Three thousand civilian people were murdered, 24 or so were Canadians and hundreds of them were from countries other than the United States. The war was against liberal, western, democratic values and the things we stand for. That was the motivating factor of that war, and it was a war.

Where did the terrorists come from? They came from Afghanistan. Seventy thousand of them had been trained in a state that sponsored and protected this group against civilized people around the world and nothing was done about these people. From my understanding, this enduring freedom war was sanctioned and approved by the United Nations.

I think the objective of our initial involvement in that war was to destroy those terrorist camps in Afghanistan and to remove the government in power that had sponsored and protected them, and, as has so rightly been put forward tonight, the role is to rebuild that country, to bring back some civilization and some badly needed things to their society.

Some of the wars in history were very questionable but, if my facts are correct on this matter, I am having a problem trying to find out how in any way this war is illegal, evil or wrong. This is a war in which we should be proud to be involved and we should solidly stand behind the men and women who are fighting for those values in Afghanistan.

If I have any of these facts wrong, would the member opposite, who is quite knowledgeable on these matters, please correct them for me?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, far be it for me to correct him if he were wrong. No matter how this intervention started, it did start under the auspices of the UN in an approved way through coalition forces. The fact is that now we are there for reconstruction, for humanitarian work, for opening schools, for providing other facilities and in fact providing troops to create secure zones so that that kind of work can take place. That is important to remember.

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

Mr. Chair, as is my custom, I would like to thank the voters of Saint-Jean for having chosen me for a fifth consecutive term in the House of Commons. I promise to defend them with all the vigour and strength necessary, as I have been doing for 13 years. Some of my voters are listening to me right now, and I think it is important to explain to them the kind of procedure that we are following. I want to assure my voters in Saint-Jean that if I am surrounded by Liberals, it is because we are in a committee of the whole, which allows us to move around the House and sit wherever we like. They can therefore rest assured that I have not crossed the floor and have no intention of doing so.

The basic question is the following: should we stay in Afghanistan or leave? This is the debate that is raging now. Let us start with a little history and recall the sad events of 9/11, when airplanes hit the twin towers in New York. The response was not long in coming. The next day, the UN stated that this was a case of self-defence, of an attack on the United States, and the United States had a right to respond.

NATO reacted in the same way. Article 5 stipulates that if one of the 26 states that are members of NATO is attacked, the others must come to its defence. The same day, September 12, NATO established the legal basis for intervening. Everyone agreed that it was a case of legitimate self-defence. Several operations were launched. Operation Apollo made it possible to invade Afghanistan, with the help of the British among others. Canadians took part as well. Then there was Operation Athena.

We are now in the third of the four phases of Operation Athena. This is an international plan. The first phase consisted in stabilizing the capital because that was where the major infrastructure was located and where we eventually wanted to establish a government, a militia and public safety. This first phase has been completed in Kabul.

Then, during the second phase, the north and west were stabilized. Troops were dispatched to ensure that the north and west were stabilized.

Now we are in phase three, when Canadians offered to maintain the provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar, one of 13 PRTs in Afghanistan. This is proof of an international effort. Why is there such an effort? Why do 36 countries want to get involved to restore stability? Because they know that it is not enough to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, to push them back to the borders and maybe even into Pakistan. That is not enough. The Taliban have to be prevented from coming back. Canada decided to maintain one of the 13 PRTs, and Kandahar was chosen. Based on my frequent trips to Brussels, I can tell you that the international community is extremely grateful to Canadians and Quebeckers—because the Royal 22nd Regiment will certainly be called on to serve as well—because they know that it is the toughest place in Afghanistan. They commend us for what we have done.

Phase four, which is still to come, will target the eastern part of the country, and NATO will take charge of all operations in Afghanistan. It is important that people understand that. The legal basis is solid, and the UN has given its approval. NATO has not only given its approval but will take part as well. NATO has 26 member nations, and 10 additional countries are lending support. Australia, for instance, wanted to get involved to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, for obvious reasons.

What happened before the international community got involved? There were terrorist camps. Al-Qaeda had a strong presence and controlled the Afghan government and the Taliban. There were terrorist camps everywhere. People planned attacks on western capitals. All this was done openly, and no one raised any concerns. No one prevented it.

After the events of September 11, people said that we could not wait any longer and that it had to end. The international community got involved by first ensuring a very solid legal basis. The current situation in Kandahar is not complicated. Some people are trying to tell us that it is like the war in Iraq, but that is wrong.

Of course it is under the Americans' Operation Enduring Freedom but Canadians command in Kandahar. When a Canadian commanding officer needs troops, he will often call headquarters in Kabul to say, “I need this or that,” and he is supplied. It is not the Americans who are dictating to the Canadian commanding officer in Kandahar what he has to do. In any case, this is going to change soon because NATO is going to take over. The Canadians are making the transition and NATO will eventually take control.

At present, there is a command of 250 soldiers in Kandahar. There is also a team in the provinces where the economy and diplomacy have to be restored and the government has to be supported. So we need more than soldiers. However, in Kandahar, we need many more soldiers because it is the most unstable place. It would be idealistic to think that diplomats—we have already lost one—could go there or that CIDA could do development work there, knowing that the climate is unstable. There must first be a military force there to stabilize the situation.

There are 1,000 soldiers on a combat mission. Of course, stability must be ensured and the Taliban must be pursued. However, if we leave, either the international community will come to our rescue when we are no longer there or the Taliban will resume their old ways of doing things.

Has there been any progress in this area? To my mind, we have made some progress. Presidential and legislative elections have taken place. At present, 2,000 schools have been built or restored. Over 5 million children have gone back to school, one third of whom are girls who did not have the right to go to school before.

I believe that if Canadians and Quebeckers knew the real story, support for the troops would be much stronger. That is why I appreciate the debate. It is wrong to say that we should leave now. We cannot invite the Taliban to burn the 2,000 schools we have just built or restored. We cannot tell the Taliban to return to having only men in power. We cannot tell the women they have no right to schooling and no place in the country's political structures. That is not acceptable. That is why the Taliban commander made me smile when he said that we were afraid and we were showing indecision.

As I see it, we are showing no indecision here, this evening. We will not let the Taliban return to power and tell 5 million children there are no more schools, tell girls they have no right to go to school. We will not allow the growing of poppies and the manufacture of heroin to continue. Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world's production of opium and heroin. That has to change, and that is the task of CIDA. It is the task of the RCMP to train the state police and military so they can be given more and more responsibility.

We cannot permit a recurrence of scenes such as we saw in Rwanda. It is wrong to think that Quebeckers and Canadians sitting in their living rooms are going to watch massacres and say, “No way are we going to send our soldiers: it’s too dangerous”. I do not believe that people think like that. On the contrary, when they are well informed about the mission of our Canadian Forces, the people will be in agreement, and that will provide us with more support. So let us continue. We will assess the situation.

I could also talk about prisoners, but I will probably do that in question format. Finally, we have the international effort. The effort of the Canadian Forces is recognized worldwide. I believe that we are in the process of getting a country on its feet again. The feeling of solidarity in Canadians and Quebeckers will ensure that they support their Canadian Forces and restore Afghanistan to a more decent life.

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

Mr. Chair, has the Bloc given any consideration to the concern about land mines? As members know, our current military will not confirm or deny the use of land mines in the effort in Afghanistan. As they also know, the Government of Canada has signed a land mines treaty banning, eradicating and getting rid of land mines on this planet.

Would the member not see a possible contradiction in our foreign policy on that issue? What would he advise the government that we should do in this regard?

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I questioned the minister earlier. His answer was no. Antipersonnel mines are not involved.

In my opinion, we would look pretty stupid, given Ottawa's treaty, if the Canadian military in Kandahar had to lay land mines around the camp.

However, my concern lies elsewhere, perhaps. We will recall that during the first operation, Operation Apollo, cluster bombs were dropped. The Bloc Québécois objected because these bombs hit the military and civilians indiscriminately. They could explode after the fact.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. Apparently there is no translation. I am not sure what to do, but I want the hon. member to know.

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

Do I have to start over, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Try it again.

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

Is it fixed, now? Were my remarks not translated for a long time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We will give you a break on the time.

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

Mr. Chair, I was saying was that my concern was more about cluster bombs. The Americans used them, and there was no international treaty on them. We think they are vile things, because they hit more civilians than military personnel. That worries us.

As to the land mines, I have given my answer, and the minister was clear too. I hope there will not be any. If there are, I believe the party in power and the government will have to pay the political price. They will lose their credibility.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I rise for the first time in the House I want to begin by thanking my constituents for voting for me and having confidence in me as their representative. I also want to thank my supporters and the volunteers who helped me in the campaign. It is a great privilege to be here serving among 308 parliamentarians who are working together to better our country.

The people in my riding are extremely supportive of our troops and the work they are doing. What is the hon. member's opinion on how we measure success in this mission? And how do we keep track of it and report it to Canadians?

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

Mr. Chair, I already touched on this in my speech.

In terms of success, we could say that they are currently on the path to success. This country has gone from a dictatorship government to a presidential government. A presidential election was held. This country went from a dictatorial attitude to a parliamentary election. Afghanistan now has a Parliament.

Economic growth is accelerating as well. I did not mention it in my speech, but GDP has been increasing by 8% to 10% annually. This is strong growth.

I especially want to talk about education. Today there are 2,000 functioning schools and when this country was in difficulty there were almost none. This allows more than 5 million children to go to school again. In my opinion they are on the path to success.

The same is true about women. Now there are women in Parliament. This was not allowed in the past.

All this suggests to us that they are on the path to success and more needs to be done to get there. We probably have to stay in that country for quite some time. I have no doubt that when we leave the international community will have turned Afghanistan into a democratic, vibrant and livable country for all its citizens.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House and address you in your new term. I wish you very well. I know that as the dean of parliamentarians you will do a great job.

For the hon. member across the way, I have had the pleasure of meeting a number of Canadians who would be on their way to Afghanistan very shortly. For the information of the rest of the House, I have the training base of Meaford in my riding. A lot of young men and women from all over the country come there to train. It is a great facility.

I was at a dinner a week and a half ago at which there happened to be four people who were just in the process of going through their training and heading off to Afghanistan. One fellow has actually belonged to our reserves for over 30 years. He has shut down his own business for a year to take six months of training and a six month tour in Afghanistan.

If I may ask my colleague about it, there seems to be a perception out there that some members of the public possibly do not understand this, in light of the fact that they compare Iraq and Afghanistan. I would argue that there is a big difference between the two. Number one is that the Iraqi people do not want us there. The Iraqis do not want democracy, but the Afghani people do.

I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's comments on that.

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

Mr. Chair, certainly there is a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. We also have a legitimate basis for being in Afghanistan.

My colleague raises an interesting point. I have a great deal of admiration for our soldiers. I often accompanied them in Eritrea and Bosnia. The operation that is under way in Kandahar is not just a military operation. It is an operation designed to win the people's hearts and minds.

It is really something to see the soldiers in these theatres of operations. I once saw a captain stop his LAV3 because there were children on the side of the road. He got out to talk to them. Children were constantly blowing kisses to the soldiers as they passed by.

This dimension of the mission is also important. The soldiers are not just there to shoot. They are there to win the hearts and minds of the people as well. Often, this starts with the children.

In my opinion, the soldiers do a very good job. We must not forget that many of them are fathers who are away from their families for six or seven months. They see in these children their own children, whom they miss.

The soldiers are doing an outstanding job. If Canadians and Quebeckers knew exactly what our soldiers were doing, they would receive tremendous support. It is up to us, in Parliament, to explain as best we can what the soldiers are doing. That is why we appreciate the opportunity to hold this debate tonight. We would have preferred a vote, but at least we are having a debate. If it helps clarify the situation, then so much the better.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Jean for his presentation, which shed light on certain aspects of this issue. The other members of the House will in turn attempt to do the same this evening.

Our Department of National Defence has deployed soldiers to Afghanistan to establish democracy. Sometimes the newspapers report that when we ask questions about why our military is there in order to explain the reasons for our involvement to Canadians and Quebeckers, it is as though we are demonstrating a lack of confidence in our military. I find it quite regrettable that we allow ourselves to be told, by certain groups or by the government, that questions may not be asked about support for our troops in Afghanistan. This is a lack of democracy in our own country. It is unacceptable. As parliamentarians, we cannot accept this.

I would say this to the member. We want support for our troops in one way or another. First of all, with full democracy, the opportunity for a debate on the issue is provided in Parliament . Second, would it not be reasonable for us as leaders of our country and representatives of our regions to speak on the matter, before deciding on the mandate of our military? We live in a democratic country. We have sent our troops to another country to establish democracy. We do not believe in dictatorship. However, a government that acts on its own, without these questions being raised in Parliament, could be called a dictatorship.

Both scenarios should be possible. We, as representatives of Canadians, should be able to conduct a debate and a democratic vote in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Chair, I find my colleague's comments very relevant.

We have always called for a debate and a vote. I believe that, in a democracy, there is no harm in publicly voicing our arguments as members of Parliament.

It is unfortunate that, as we speak, the decision has already been made by the cabinet alone, which, as we all know, is made up of cabinet ministers. Perhaps we will only learn of their arguments in 30 years' time, although it would have been useful if members of Parliament had not only debated this issue, but also voted on it.

Imagine how soldiers would feel tomorrow if we could tell them that 270 of 308 members of Parliament voted in favour of this mission. I believe that this would show our support.

Furthermore, I do not understand why the government does not do so, given what it knows. The government will not vote against its own policy. The Liberals will most certainly not vote against the troops, since they were the ones to send them. I have just confirmed that we, the Bloc Québécois, support our soldiers. Only the NDP's opinion remains unknown. I believe that many NDP members must support the mission.

In short, I believe that we are missing out on a very good opportunity to send a better message, not only to Canadian troops, but to all Canadians and Quebeckers, in letting them know that all 308 members of Parliament have voted on the matter.

My dear colleague is right. I feel that the government is missing out on a very good opportunity.

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

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

As we assemble here in this safe and venerable place, hundreds of our fellow Canadians are serving our country and standing in harm's way in Afghanistan. In doing this duty, they have our full support. New Democrats have called for a full debate for many weeks. I was hopeful that tonight at long last we would finally have the answers to the important questions that Canadians are asking about this mission. We share Canadians' concerns and so far, the government in this debate has not assuaged these concerns.

As I begin, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to 12 Canadians, including one diplomat, who lost their lives in service to our country in Afghanistan.

I would also like to express our gratitude for the enormous sacrifice made by the families of the military on behalf of this country.

We must never forget that it is our task and our duty as parliamentarians to determine what we ask of our men and women in uniform. Such decisions must be made by the people chosen democratically by the citizens of Canada and not by bureaucrats, generals or cabinet alone.

After all, how can we ask our soldiers to bring democracy to Afghanistan if democratic debate and decision making is denied in our own Parliament? Mr. Chair, through you I call on the Prime Minister to set himself apart from his Liberal predecessors by committing to a democratic debate and vote in the House on any further role for our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan beyond our current commitments.

We are here to support our women and men in uniform through the democratic debate that they deserve, something assured all Canadians by the democratic rights that our troops are prepared to secure with their own lives. Those who portray the request for a vote as a lack of support for our valiant and committed defence personnel are attempting to portray democratic debate on foreign policy as a choice between cheerleading or abandoning our soldiers. Such a characterization does not honour our troops or our democracy. Surely, wise foreign policy involves far more than that.

We are here tonight to ask questions and raise concerns to help Canadians determine if this is the right mission for Canada to be participating in beyond our current commitments, which end in February 2007, vital questions that are now being raised all across this country in legion halls, school classrooms, editorial pages and coffee shops.

Last November the Minister of National Defence, then his party's defence critic, outlined in this very place an essential list of questions that the government must be able to answer when committing Canadian troops abroad. The government could now have done this by answering the very questions the Minister of National Defence himself posed just a few short months ago. Let me remind everyone of these questions and some others.

What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives? What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced? What is the defined concept of the operation? What is the effective command and control structure?

What are the rules of engagement? Can we commit ourselves somewhere else while we are in Afghanistan? For example, could our forces undertake to stem the genocide in Darfur at the same time?

What are the mechanisms for effective consultation between the mission partners, criteria to measure progress, a definition of success, an exit strategy, all of these question?

In addition there are some actions we must take immediately. We must renegotiate the agreement made on the transfer of detainees to third parties. We must ensure that our obligations under international humanitarian law are spelled out in the letter of our agreement to match the much more meaningful and clear treaty made by the Netherlands.

Canada's role in the world and our reputation around the world rests on our reputation as a peacekeeping nation. On September 11, 2001 an immense tragedy did strike the United States and indeed Canada, but we cannot let that act of terror, that day of great loss, cloud our vision of our country or ourselves. The United States, the Bush administration, has built foreign policy upon the fear brought on by those horrible attacks, but Canada must not succumb to the indulgence of fear over hope.

We must ask how we can harness the hopeful work of peacekeeping that has set our nation apart. Canadians are asking questions about priorities and so far in this debate, too many of these questions are not adequately answered or not answered at all. More debate and a vote in the future are required.

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

Mr. Chair, I wonder if the hon. member basically supports our effort in Afghanistan or not, because it is not clear to me. That is the party that opposed our being in NATO until a few years ago. I do not want to go back to World War II and that history. That party does not want the military involved in anything.

Does that party support our effort in Afghanistan or not? That is what I want to know.

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

Mr. Chair, I do not know what these broad sweep characterizations are all about. I do not know why the minister would go back to World War II and start drawing on the debates that happened at the time. Our party's history on those matters is very clear.

Perhaps the hon. member did not have an opportunity to watch the tribute paid to our former leader, Tommy Douglas, which highlighted the fact that he sought the opportunity to go and fight for this country against the Fascists. I make no apology for that act of courage.

Perhaps the hon. member does not know that my grandfather resigned from his seat as a cabinet minister in the Quebec legislature because at the time, the government of Quebec would not support going to war against the Fascists. I make no apology for our position on these issues.

Those who would try to portray that asking questions about a mission and asking about issues like exit strategies, terms of engagement, the rules under which the mission will be conducted, the objectives and how they will be measured and reported back, is somehow indicating that there is a lack of support for our service personnel who are risking their lives, are frankly not doing a good service to this country's democratic system.

I took good care to quote the very questions that were asked by the Minister of National Defence when he was in opposition, the exact questions. I would have thought that the defence minister might have dug out that speech prior to making his address to us today and made a point of answering the very questions he said any government should answer if it is sending its Canadian soldiers into harm's way.