Debates of April 10th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot of use of the word “peacekeeping” tonight. Peacekeeping is a wonderful Canadian tradition that I suggest has gone the way of traditions; perhaps some day it will come back.

I would suggest that we have not done peacekeeping in the Pearsonian model for a very long time. I would ask my colleague whether he agrees or not that classic Pearsonian peacekeeping, as we hear about from down the floor, has a place in combat against terrorism.

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

Mr. Chair, I think as I tried to make clear in my statement, I am deeply committed to the idea of a combat capable military combining the protection of human populations with development assistance. As the hon. member points out, this is a substantially different mission than the traditional peacekeeping that we saw in the 1950s and 1960s, where one interposed oneself between combatants who were ready to make peace.

We are in a world, and Afghanistan is the perfect demonstration of it, where there is no peace to keep, where, if we want to pursue development goals, as the hon. member well knows, we have to provide cordoned security for human populations and cordoned security for our own development personnel.

The paradigm has shifted, as I said in my remarks, and I support that shift of paradigm.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to come back to the issue of transfer of prisoners. My colleague seemed to be saying that he felt it was very important that prisoners be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention, for example.

The current minister said that he did not want to review the agreement signed by the former government because he felt it was satisfactory. However, I am concerned about how prisoners are monitored and treated. The Red Cross has been given responsibility for monitoring, and I trust the Red Cross. There are other models, though. For example, the Dutch decided that their own military officers and diplomats could visit prisoners at any time to make sure they were being well treated.

Would my colleague agree to see whether the agreement could be revised? I do not think that the Afghan government could object. We could at least suggest it. By monitoring prisoners ourselves, we could be sure that they are being well treated.

The second issue is just as important. In my opinion, nothing in the current agreement prevents prisoners we turn over to the Afghans from being taken anywhere—to Guantanamo, for example—at the request of the Americans. Does my colleague think that this agreement might be improved to make sure that prisoners' rights are respected?

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is not up to me, but the government, to reopen the agreement signed on December 18.

Like my colleague, I would fully support having the Canadian government take responsibility for visiting Afghan jails and prisons to make sure that detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers are being well treated. This is the responsibility of the ICRC, but I think that as Canadians, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that, if we transfer a detainee to an Afghan prison, our allies will respect that person's rights.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, when we talk about goals and objectives, we have been asking, “Is it right to think about the goals and objectives of this mission?”

I would like to get the member's opinion. Should we be more precise when we ask this? Instead of just asking what the goals and objectives are, should we be asking, for example, are the warlords there implicated in the opium trade and are they part of the government? Have there been more terrorists who have arisen since our involvement? Do the Americans have any secret prisons where they are torturing prisoners and having arbitrary detention? Should we not only be asking about but investigating some of these allegations that are coming out? Is it our responsibility?

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

Mr. Chair, I take the sense of the question to be what ought our objectives as a Canadian government to be in Afghanistan, particularly as we transition from Operation Enduring Freedom to a NATO led operation.

My sense here is that we cannot be all things to all people in Afghanistan. As I listen to my hon. colleagues on this side and on that side of the House, there is a Canadian consensus around human security and development in the Kandahar area. That may take all of those 2,000 troops.

Where there is doubt and question is an unlimited pursuit of the Taliban and al-Qaeda into the mountains. My sense is that is an unlimited goal, where realizable objectives are very unclear, and that we should concentrate the activities of the Canadian Forces around the development and PRT activities in the Kandahar region.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Chair, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you as you assume your important role in this House. It is well deserved for your long and very important tenure here as a member of this House and a person for whom I have deep and abiding respect.

It is with pleasure that I join in this important debate this evening. I will take this opportunity as well to thank the constituents of Central Nova for having the confidence to send me here for a fourth time.

I am also very proud of the riding that I represent in Nova Scotia that has made a storied contribution in times of war and peace. There have been individuals such as Lloyd MacDonald, who served with the Devil's Brigade from Pictou, General Jim Grant, Reg Connors, who served with the Gurkhas, and R.B. Cameron, who was also a very important and famous industrialist from rural Pictou County, and served at the Gothic Line for which he received the distinguished service award.

All of these individuals, like all the Canadians who have served overseas, have done so with tremendous sacrifice. This is something to keep very much in mind and have as a backdrop for this evening's debate.

The Prime Minister, during his recent visit to Afghanistan, clearly explained why we were there and why we must continue to be there and to be engaged. It is to protect our security by building an Afghan security and governance system. It demonstrates that we have much pride and purpose to accomplish and the presence of our soldiers there allows us to do just that.

I would like to speak in favour of Canada's important leadership role in Afghanistan. This role is important for Canadians, for Afghans and for our allies.

The events of September 11, 2001 brought home a sobering fact. We cannot continue to enjoy security and prosperity at home in the west without regard to the state of the rest of the world. Terrorism knows no boundaries. It was mentioned earlier in the remarks by my colleague across the way that Canada was hit. Canadians did die on that fateful day in New York. This is now the case that we have to look outward. Nowhere is this more true than in Afghanistan today. Security there is as important as security is here.

Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government and authorized by the United Nations. We are part of a multinational effort and we are there as proud contributors to the effort to rebuild that country. As they gain, so does the world.

After a series of political and diplomatic agreements, including the Bonn agreement of 2001, the Afghanistan compact agreed upon in London in January, there is a contract between Afghans and the international community. Each for their own interest have made commitments and investments in rebuilding Afghanistan.

Overwhelmingly, Canadians need to understand the importance of this mission. We have made progress. However, as the recent spate of attacks in Afghanistan demonstrates, complacency is not an option. It is important to take note that transition takes time. Capacity cannot be meaningfully developed in a few short years.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban remain active, challenging Afghans as well as the international security.

We have undertaken certain risks to protect our national interests, show our leadership and help the Afghan people prepare for a better future. Our values are worth protecting. We can never again allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists. We are taking concrete steps to change things; we are turning words into action.

And we are not alone. I recently met with my European counterparts. They too bear part of the burden. After all, Afghanistan is the largest and most important theatre of NATO operations in the world.

Canada, along with our allies, is committed to helping Afghanistan to become a stable, secure and self-sustaining democratic state. Because of boots on the ground and Canadian Forces with maple leafs as shoulder flashes, we are seeing some major progress. Canada's core values of freedom and democracy, and the rule of law and human rights, guide our engagement there and all of this happens because our soldiers are there.

These values are shared by Afghans. They have committed to it in their new constitution. The instruments to make these values real are still nascent. It is precisely because there is work to be done in these areas that Canada continues to be there.

Afghans have suffered in recent history conflict and instability, first under Soviet occupation and then Taliban oppression, leaving their country heavily militarized with little infrastructure, a human skills deficit, and a huge drug trade proliferation.

Together, with increasing Afghan leadership, much progress has been achieved and will continue in large part because of Canada's commitment and resolve. The culmination of the benchmarks first identified just over four years ago by the 2001 Bonn agreement demonstrates that Afghans are hungry for change.

The adoption of a constitution that enshrines the concepts of human rights, gender equality, ethnic plurality, and the staging of presidential, parliamentary and provincial elections are all significant progress in which Canada played an important part. We were there as observers. We made a significant financial contribution and there was a free vote. I am quick to add that women voted in that election for the first time. Young women are attending schools for the first time. Thousands of young women now have opportunities that never existed. Still, many challenges remain.

Canada has been a major contributor to democratic development in Afghanistan. Our investments have paid dividends. The two consecutive elections have demonstrated that Afghans have embraced democracy. For the provincial and parliamentary elections held in September 2005, 44% of those registered to vote were women and 6.4 million Afghans voted on election day, a testament to Afghani resolve to create a better future.

With the launch of the Afghanistan compact in February 2006, the compact, in its accompanying interim national development strategy and national drug control strategy, recognized outstanding challenges that chartered the path ahead. Canada's approach is also in line with the Afghanistan compact. Canada played an active role in shaping that compact and is committed to supporting its implementation.

Human rights and good governance feature prominently and throughout the compact. The Afghan government has pledged to recruit competent and credible professionals to its public service on the basis of merit, establish a more effective, accountable and transparent administration throughout all levels of its government, and implement measurable improvements in fighting corruption, upholding justice, the rule of law and promoting respect for human rights. Canada will help and continue to help Afghanistan realize those goals.

We have already made the promotion and protection of human rights a huge priority. We have spoken out clearly in favour of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we have an important role to play in helping develop Afghanistan's justice sector.

We are providing some $6 million to improve access to the justice system through legal aid and capacity building within the judiciary.

We will continue to work with our friends and allies in the international community to advance our common values and interests. Canada's role in Afghanistan has not gone unrecognized. The Prime Minister has already mentioned the appreciation conveyed by President Karzai and at the launch of the Afghanistan compact, U.S. Secretary of State Rice singled out Canada, stating: “Our friends in Canada deserve special thanks for their essential contribution”.

I spoke with some of our international partners, including the Dutch, who will take over Canadian command of the multinational brigade headquarters in southern Afghanistan. We share common values and goals.

The Dutch and the British will soon take over command of the provincial reconstruction teams in southern Afghanistan currently under Canadian command. They will continue to share this heavy burden with us and with 35 other countries working in Afghanistan.

To conclude, we are in Afghanistan to defend our national interests and we are not there alone. Afghanistan and our allies are deeply interested and invested in this cause, and it is a common cause. It is by securing Afghanistan's future that we secure our own future. That is worth the risk being taken by Canadian diplomats, military personnel and development officials. They are worthy of nothing short of our full, continued and abiding support.

That is why this government commits to them today unreservedly. We are here tonight to explain to Canadians why we are there, why the mission will continue, and includes the reasons that we are discussing here this evening. Our government has every confidence that the men and women of our armed forces deserve this unreserved respect.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, congratulations on your posting.

I would like to compliment the Minister of National Defence on his clear and cogent description of exactly what is going on in Kandahar today. He was exceptionally clear, but I am very happy that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has joined us because I believe that defence activities are always an arm of our general foreign policy.

In the eyes of Canadians, while diplomats meet quietly, the activities of our armed forces are the most visible symbol of our foreign policy. That is why Canadians are so concerned and that is why we are all here to support our troops. Indeed, it is our concern for our troops and the fact that many families are praying for their safety every night that causes us to think deeply about this matter that is before us tonight.

We have had many excellent speeches here talking about what is going on and the problems, the irritants, things we have to solve about this mission at this particular time. However, we also know that this mission is going to end in February 2007 and the expression of concern by Canadians makes it incumbent upon us to begin to think about that date, when our commitment ends and the decision we have to make whether to go forward or not. It is my feeling that there are many questions Canadians will want answered.

The Minister of National Defence was in the armed forces during a much simpler time. In coming to this position there is even new language. He talks of failed states, and failing states. He talks of the duty to protect. This is a new concept, comparatively speaking, to that of many years ago.

I am not 100% sure that Canadians all agree on the definition of a failed state or a failing state. While they may agree that we have a duty to protect, they might wonder, thinking of all the trouble spots in the world and all the people who are suffering and poor, what is the criteria by which Canada decides an order of priority for deploying its troops to go and assist such people?

The minister has said that we will exit Afghanistan when the Afghans are ready, but what are the criteria by which the government will conclude that the Afghans are indeed ready? It seems to me that all these questions should be answered prior to February. I am going to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, does he agree with me that these questions include Canadians and therefore the answers to them should include Canadians? We should allow for their input. Would a forum for such a discussion appropriately not be the standing committee on foreign affairs, so that as circumstances change we can monitor what is going on in Afghanistan and be ready with a set of criteria to apply to the circumstances that will exist in February 2007?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her interest in this issue. I agree that this debate tonight has been a fulsome and inclusive debate. It has been one that has allowed all members to put forward their ideas and contributions on some of the many important questions that she has raised.

The reality, though, is that this is an evolving situation. Clearly, much progress has been made as was outlined by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. I am not sure that I would be quick to conclude that at any time in our country's history it has been easy for members of the armed forces or that it was less complicated then. These are arbitrary assessments that I think some might try to draw.

As far as Canada's future role and capacity to continue to make the contributions we are making, this obviously will be monitored. There is no simple formula that will be applied. There is no simple questions that can be answered simply when it comes to an engagement such as this. The commitment is in the area of diplomacy. It is in the area of our continued presence on the ground. It is also incumbent upon all of us to realize that this is a multinational effort. This is not by far something that can be narrowed down. There is evolution in terms of who will play a more active and leadership role as far the command of certain troops under NATO or UN auspices.

The House of Commons has always been and will continue to be the best forum for Canadians to hear from their elected officials as to what Canada's commitment will be. Whether it takes the form of having certain questions at points of time in the future, be it reference to various committees, including the defence committee and the foreign affairs committee, that might be entirely appropriate. However, these questions will be monitored. This forum will be tested.

The government is ready to answer those questions, as we have at a very early stage. Just over two months in our tenure in office, we have actively engaged in not only legitimizing the decision that was made by the previous government, which we supported then. We hope we will see the same level of support continue throughout this evolution and the same type of cogent and important questions raised by members opposite.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister is an important member of the Cabinet. I would like to ask him a question, but I do not want him to reveal everything to me, of course.

The Minister of National Defence said, on November 15, that we had to be positive and that the mission would be crowned with success. What would happen, though, if the mission did not turn out well? Is there an exit strategy, and in what circumstances would such a plan be applied?

The Minister of National Defence raised the question himself. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us in what circumstances an exit strategy might be considered, while still hoping, naturally, that the mission will be crowned with success?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate my hon. colleague’s question. I will reply directly.

In my opinion, I think that making speculations now or in the future about the successes or problems inherent in this mission will not help the cause.

Let me be clear. I do not believe in talking at this point about withdrawal or how we are going to react to certain difficulties and inevitabilities as far as the challenges that exist for our troops. There has been reference made to the fact that many are observing this debate tonight. Any sign of failure, or weakness or retreat will not help the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.

It is my view, and I believe it is shared by many if not the majority of members of the House, our resolve has to be strong and our commitment has to be clear. We must stand four-square with strength, vision and commitment to our armed forces to see that they can continue this important work.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to continue the debate concerning my colleague’s question. The minister has answered the question. Still, I do not know whether he finally actually realized what my colleague was saying.

When he was in the opposition, the new Minister of National Defence said that a clear exit strategy had been established in case the mission failed, that it was important that this be done and that we know, from the beginning, in what possible circumstances this would occur. Hiding this reality from oneself is forgetting an essential part of the responsibility of the military. In this regard, I would like the minister to come back to this question.

Was his colleague not right at that time? Is it not actually necessary to consider these elements, without admitting at the outset what the facts would be, but being prepared to consider all situations so as to avoid getting bogged down, as has happened in other cases, such as the United States in Vietnam, to mention but one?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that the usual practice in the House is to go through a rotation. You recognized a member from the Bloc and now you have recognized another member. There were members from the NDP who were standing. We would ask you respectfully to respect that practice so all members from all parties can be heard.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I appreciate the good advice from the hon. member. I must admit that I did not see her. However, I have now seen her and I have heard her. Next time she will have a turn.

The hon. minister for a very short reply.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Chair, I repeat to my colleague that the importance for our government and our armed forces to have a plan is obvious. Still, at the same time, though it is important for our country to present a plan for the future, it should not take place in public.

We do not discuss operational details. We do not talk about how we might retreat or withdraw. That is not part of the public discourse that will help our troops. That is not at all something that will further the cause of elevating the people of Afghanistan. It is through diplomatic efforts of how we are going to complete the mission. It is through our commitment. It is through our fulsome support that I suggest we will get the job done.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. Sir, with the permission of the House, seeing how we have the foreign affairs minister here and we have such an important debate tonight, I wonder if you could seek unanimous to have five more minutes of questions and comments for the opposition so we can comment and question the foreign affairs minister on this very important and crucial debate.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I appreciate the request that has been made by the hon. member, but the member should remember that the motion, which was passed by the House unanimously, was that this kind of motion would not be receivable this evening.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe it could be done by unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

By unanimous consent it was ordered:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the take note debate on Canada's significant commitment in Afghanistan, scheduled for Monday, April 10, the Chair would not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent; any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member...

The House has passed this motion, and I would like to move on and recognize the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, I regret that this incident occurred before my turn to speak. I would have liked my hon. colleagues to be in a good mood when listening to me.

This debate is important. I asked for it and called for it, but in preparing for it I reread the speech I delivered on January 28, 2002. For Quebeckers who might be watching and who are against the presence of Canadian troops, men and women of Quebec and Canada, in Afghanistan, I will read a few excerpts. This will help me make them better understand the context in which we decided to get involved. On January 28, 2002, I said:

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to take part in this debate. This evening, my party and myself would have liked to have a debate that would have ended with a vote on the participation of the Canadian Forces, on the participation of men and women from Quebec and the rest of Canada in the American response, a response which we would like to see more closely co-ordinated by the United Nations.

The Taliban government makes women live in cages. Women are denied access to health care. Young girls are not entitled to education or to health care. Finally, women have no other function than to reproduce.

I speak as a woman and a mother this evening. I would have liked to vote on a motion. As much as the war disgusts me, I understand why countries like Canada react. If Quebec were a country, something I keenly want, I would want it to react too, not out of vengeance, but out of a need to say that what happened in New York City and Washington, the September 11 attacks, are totally unacceptable.

We must, however, make sure that it is not just through security measures, anti-terrorist legislation and strikes that we will fight this seriously, but rather by ensuring that there is hope that this world will become less unfair and less illegal.

Today, I will not repeat the same remarks because I take a very keen interest in Afghanistan, a nation that is suffering, and I know that the picture is perhaps not as rosy as some members here this evening would have us believe.

We have to speak the truth. In my view, this does not mean that we have to say that the men and women fighting in Afghanistan should pull out. But we have serious questions. Before I get to those questions, I would like to quote Kofi Annan's March 6 report, which paints a rather bleak picture.

Further progress has been made towards the rehabilitation of the basic infrastructure that can support economic and social development. Nevertheless, as noted in my previous report, many issues that present challenges to the short and longer-term security and stability of the new democratic State have not yet been resolved. These range from the strengthening of nascent Government structures to upholding human rights, enforcing the fundamentals of good governance, justice and the rule of law, disbanding illegal armed groups and laying the foundation for sustainable economic and social development.

On human rights, he says:

The human rights situation in Afghanistan remains challenging, above all owing to the security situation and weaknesses in governance. Impunity of factional commanders and former warlords has also served to undermine incremental improvements. The significant upsurge in violence in some parts of the country has limited the access to those areas by both international humanitarian actors and Government representatives, denying the population access to entitlements, services and protection. Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of national security institutions, including arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture are numerous.

Insurgents departed from the seasonal trend of past years by maintaining a high level of operational activity throughout the winter period. The first months of 2006 witnessed a rising level of insurgent attacks, in particular in the south and east of the country.

In other words, in the Kandahar area.

Why should we be in Afghanistan?

Because it is a question of international solidarity that can make Quebeckers feel obliged to be there.

These people have suffered a lot over the last few decades: droughts, war against the USSR, civil wars and the dictatorship of the Taliban, which have marked the daily lives of Afghans.

This country numbers among the poorest in the world and is one of the most dangerous, particularly because of the 10 to 15 million anti-personnel mines that have been sown, especially fragmentation bombs.

So let us ask our questions now because they have to be asked on behalf of the people who see our soldiers in Afghanistan and know that there are associated costs.

Do they have any idea how long the mission in Afghanistan might last? That is an important question. As much as I am inclined to say that we have to stay there, I have to wonder whether this democratic regime is always going to be on life support. We have a right to know.

In addition, are there any estimates of the cost of the mission?

The current Minister of National Defence asked a series of questions last November 15. One of them had to do with a withdrawal plan. The Minister of Foreign Affairs sent us packing with our question, but he was the one who asked it. Is there a withdrawal plan? We are not asking him for it, we are just asking if there is one.

What guarantees do we have that NATO will take over from the Americans in the south, Kandahar therefore, and Canada will leave the American operation? It greatly annoys Quebeckers that our soldiers are under American command in Operation Enduring Freedom.

There is also the question of how prisoners are treated. Since our return here, the first questions I asked in the House had to do with the treatment of prisoners. They concerned the fact that our soldiers, men and women from Canada, were turning prisoners over without ensuring that they would be covered by the Geneva Convention.

American soldiers cannot be prosecuted, but Canadian soldiers can be. So this is an important question.

I have read the agreement on the transfer of prisoners. I was told that some lawyers said today that there are many weaknesses in it. A former unionist who reads a text of this kind soon sees that it is not very strong. Neither the soldiers nor the prisoners are protected. This agreement must be either completely re-negotiated, or rejected.

I am sorry, but maybe this can be explained by the fact that General Hillier negotiated the agreement all by himself, without the help of the former ministers of foreign affairs or national defence. In any case, it is not a good agreement, and everyone should admit it. We cannot continue living with this agreement.

Can the government assure us that the army is keeping its commitments in regard to the use of anti-personnel mines? Can we also be assured that our soldiers have all the equipment they need?

I have some more questions, but I would like answers to these first.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate you on your appointment.

Tonight we are having a very important debate. We want to show our support for our troops in Afghanistan, and tell them that we are with them. Their very important work is making a difference all across the Afghan nation. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has written quite clearly that there are many conditions within Afghanistan that need to be addressed. Our troops are over there fighting for a better life for the people of Afghanistan.

I would like to speak very briefly about the women and children. Trafficking and kidnapping of children in Afghanistan has become a major problem for families and the government. Sexual exploitation, forced labour and the removal of organs and limbs are issues that the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission is very concerned about as outlined in a document that the commission put out in 2005. Looking through the document, it is so compelling to see the importance of what our troops are doing over there in making sure that families and children have better lives. One child out of every five dies before the age of five. The life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years. Only 12% of the population has access to clean, drinkable water.

Our troops are working under very difficult conditions. These very valiant men are compelled not only to protect the people, but to build. Earlier tonight we heard on this side of the House a very compelling speech about the better lives that are built for women and children because of the input that our courageous Canadian troops have made in Afghanistan.

Can the members across the way give absolute 100% support to our very courageous troops abroad who are doing this compelling job to make lives better for the people of Afghanistan?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this evening to tell you that my constituency includes CFB Longue-Pointe. Longue-Pointe is Canada's largest supply depot. Except for ammunition, everything that goes from here to Afghanistan goes through my riding, including bolts and, unfortunately, coffins.

Of course we support the soldiers. However, when I met with these soldiers and other employees at the base, I told them that my way of protecting them was to ensure that their mission and objectives were justified, and their equipment and training adequate.

I am told that a soldier must be a diplomat in the morning, a humanitarian aid worker at noon and Rambo in the afternoon, throwing open the doors and firing away. Something is wrong with this picture, and I told the troops so. I think that being a soldier is already tough enough without taking on all three roles at once. Nevertheless, I will ask General Hillier to convince me they should.

We intend to protect soldiers by ensuring that their mission has been properly assessed and that we can evaluate it according to its true goals and outcomes.

There is one subject that never comes up. We talk about security in Afghanistan, but we never talk about its neighbour, Pakistan. The mission to Kandahar is especially dangerous because it is near the border with Pakistan, home to various tribes that have quietly been supporting the Taliban and the Mujahedeen for decades. I think we should talk about this. We cannot resolve security issues in Afghanistan if we do not do something about aid for the Taliban and other combatants coming out of Pakistan. And that—

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore now has the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to answer the question the Conservatives have been asking all day. The answer is yes, I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does my party, but I take great umbrage to the party over there that reflects in its connotations that the NDP does not support our troops because the NDP asks questions.

What is really bad for the morale of our troops is quite clear. I have attended recently the funerals of four people in my own riding. They were for Mr. Nathan Smith, Mr. Richard Green, Mr. Braun Woodfield and Mr. Paul Davis. They were fine, young Canadian soldiers who gave their lives for our country. As a person who was born in Holland and whose parents were liberated by the Canadian military, I take great offence to anyone who questions my or my party's love and support for our troops and their families.

The reality is we have a democratic right in a responsible democracy to ask questions. All we did is ask the exact same questions the defence minister asked in November. The foreign affairs minister said three weeks ago that a debate in the House would cause disrepute and a loss of morale among our troops. Three days ago he said a debate would be very good for our troops.

In 2004, when in opposition, the Prime Minister said that if there is a change in the mission, if there is a change in treaties, or if there is a change in deployment in time he would bring that discussion to the House for a vote. All the NDP has done is give back to the Conservative government exactly what it said in opposition. If military personnel operate inconsistently in the field, it means people will lose their lives. What we are asking the government for is consistency in language and in debate.

The questions are not easy. They are very difficult for anybody in the House to answer. The member raised a very valid point not just about Afghanistan but about the entire region. What is the government doing in terms of ascertaining concerns with Pakistan, China, India and other countries in the region? Those countries play a very important role in the future of our deployments there.

We are basically asking that if the deployment is extended past February of next year that the issue come back to the House for a debate and approval, which is exactly what the Conservatives when they were in opposition said they would do.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is not available at the moment, so we will resume debate.