House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was afghan.

Topics

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I want to respond to in the questions.

First, as I said earlier, the government would quite frankly be surprised if we did not have the support of the same three or four parties that supported this mission from the outset and up to at least last weekend. If it were the case that we were surprised by the result of tonight's vote, I do not think it is feasible for Canada to simply walk away in the next few months. The government has to take its responsibilities and the safety of its soldiers and its diplomats seriously.

What we would do is proceed cautiously for a year, as I said. If we believe we need to go further beyond that, we will seek a mandate from the Canadian people.

What we are asking for here is to extend the mandate in this motion for a clear two years. That would bring us to the end of President Karzai's term, and that is where the allies, which have been with us from the beginning, are by and large at today.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, as a former defence minister who has visited Afghanistan three times, I have nothing but huge admiration and support for our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces, and I have nothing but total support for the mission.

However, so suddenly has this debate been brought on, so little information has been provided in advance on such an important issue and so much time is remaining until decisions really have to be made, I find this whole process insulting, not only to members of Parliament but to members of the Canadian military.

Why does the Prime Minister so taint the process that people like myself, such natural supporters of the military, are required in our own minds to vote against the motion tonight?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, members across various parties in the House have requested a vote. Members of all parties, in particular the hon. member and his party, are more than aware of the details of our engagement in Afghanistan, which we are seeking to extend.

Let us be serious. The government believes there should be a vote. The government offered a vote and that vote was accepted. The process was accepted unanimously by the House, including by his party. If he does not like that, he should take that up with the leadership of his party.

However, we have men and women over there who are doing great work, who are prepared to take bullets for our country. If the hon. member and his party are not prepared to stand up and simply endorse the mission, then they are, frankly, not supporting the people on the ground they claim to support, and that is what they should do.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is not entitled to twist the meaning of his own motion?

It is not a motion to discover whether the House supports the mission. That is not the question.

The question asked is whether the House supports extending the mission by two years, without the House having any access to the information it needs?

Is the Prime Minister aware that the debate in the Netherlands took months and that the date of the vote was known well in advance.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if his repugnant motion is rejected by this House, we will have all the time needed to debate the matter and have the support of the House to extend the mission, once it has the information it needs?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, the House, especially the party opposite understands the mission in Afghanistan. I hope that, before sending our troops, our young men and women, into a military campaign, it understood the mission in Afghanistan.

This government wants strong support for our troops in Afghanistan. This is why we responded to calls from the parties to have a vote.

We know the NDP may vote against the motion. However, indications are that the other parties support the motion. It will be a good message for our troops.

I would just add that, in my own opinion, the comments by the parties have been clear up to this week. Our troops and the public have a hard time understanding why the parties suddenly change their mind when there is a vote.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asserted that the Dutch and the British have made their commitment, the implication being: What is wrong with Canada that it is not prepared to enter a new mission at this point beyond February 2007 when it ends? I do not think the Prime Minister intends to deceive this Parliament or the Canadian people.

Therefore, I wonder if he could please confirm his understanding that in fact the Dutch, who were to have been fully deployed long before now, have not yet done so, it has been delayed further until September and that may or may not happen. Second, the British deployment has been delayed as well, in both instances because they had serious concerns about whether operating under Operation Enduring Freedom was the way to go with an aggressive combat, search and kill mission, and they were concerned about the continuing uprising of the insurgence instead of the opposite.

Could he please confirm his understanding on those points?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I was in Afghanistan. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others are in contact with our allies. The Dutch and the British are proceeding. I can tell the House that the Dutch, in large measure, are proceeding because they know Canada is behind this mission and they have never forgotten the Canadian role in the liberation of the Netherlands during World War II.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak for all members of the House in saying that this is certainly one of the most important and profound debates that we have had in this chamber. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that it is being held in conditions that have made it so difficult to get to the results I believe we all want, which is the good of our country, the good of our troops and, ultimately, the good of the world.

As the Prime Minister said, in recent debates in the House I and other members of the Liberal caucus strongly supported our mission in Afghanistan. We were at the origins of it. We were proud of our decision and we still are. This mission is consistent with our foreign policy review and our defence review which foresaw difficult missions in failing states such as Afghanistan where the military is not there exclusively on military missions. In fact, we foresaw in our foreign policy review precisely the nature that this mission would need to take to be successful. It needed to have what we called a 3D approach: diplomacy, defence and development. We needed the military there to set conditions for success.

While we have this debate tonight let no one misinterpret what we are doing in all parts of the House when we do our parliamentary duty to understand the nature of the mission and the chances for success. I have been in Afghanistan, as have members of our caucus.

I have seen the extraordinary feats our soldiers perform daily in difficult situations, in an inhospitable setting and in the face of serious danger.

I believe our soldiers know they are there to set conditions for success and to support our PRT, our provincial reconstruction team. We also have an aid component. One of our diplomats, the brave Glyn Berry, gave his life for his country, not as a military person but as a diplomat participating in an overall mission that was designed, not only with a military focus, but with a view to reconstructing Afghanistan so it may become a peaceful member of the family of nations once again.

I have heard from Afghans. I have heard from women and children. I, too, like the Prime Minister and others, have heard from President Karzai. We know why they support our mission and our troops. They want success across the board in building their country.

That of course was the question that we had in the last debate in this House. The question we have today is: Why we are prolonging this mission for two additional years at this time given the amount of information available to members of the House and given the present situation?

What we are looking for from the Prime Minister is not a description of the mission as one that is dealing with the insurgency or the threat to Canada. We have debated that. All members of this House participated in that debate and agreed that was the nature of the mission and the reason we went there in the first place.

I will repeat the words of the member from Markham. What I need and what those of us who have been so supportive of these missions need to hear tonight are the other conditions. What is the government's commitment to aid? There is no point in sending our military for an additional two years if this House does not hear from the government that it will be committing the amount of aid necessary to rebuild Afghanistan and recreate Afghanistan.

I hope I will hear from the foreign affairs minister or the defence minister about how we are rebuilding governance structures, how we are dealing with corruption and how we are dealing with other issues.

If we do approve the mission for two years, I would like to know from the government what role the House will play as we go forward. Is the government saying that it wants a blank cheque?

The defence committee tried to pass a resolution the other day to be involved in matters and we were told that this would not be dealt with through the defence committee. If this goes ahead, I thought I heard the Prime Minister say earlier, in answer to a question, that there would be regular updates to the House but I did not hear that tonight.

We have not been told about other things. What are the necessary benchmarks? We have been told, for example, that 2009 was chosen because that is the end of Mr. Karzai's term. What about the problems of corruption, the Pakistan source of insurgents? What about the difficult issue of other missions? I hope the defence minister will help us this evening by telling us that the government recognizes that Afghanistan cannot be the only focus of our military activities.

If there is a crisis in Haiti or a crisis in Darfur where we can make a contribution, will the government give us its assurance that it will be possible for us to respond as Canada must respond? That is why we always had short missions before and why we insisted that we have flexibility to go in and help.

Before I can make a decision tonight I need to hear a response, and I beg the defence minister to give us the facts, on whether we will be able to respond to those missions as a responsible country. Those are the issues we need to deal with.

Let me comment on the process, as the member from Markham did. We had a debate on this before. We know there is no constitutional need for this debate. Is this debate and this particular vote, held in these circumstances, one for political gain or is it to support our troops on missions?

For example, if I understood correctly, yesterday our Bloc Québécois colleagues supported the mission. But today they no longer support it because their motion was defeated in committee.

Everyone is trying to take part, but if roadblocks are thrown up at every turn, it is hard.

We have very little time. We hear that the Dutch parliament had 10 weeks; we have just six hours.

So much of what we heard today from the Prime Minister was for the first time.

We heard of Mr. Karzai's request.

We heard from the Prime Minister that a one year mandate is a possible consideration by the government. I think if the government had put to us a one year mandate, I honestly believe it would have got more support from members of the House. It would have been more understandable than a blank cheque for two years. Why now spring one year on us in the middle of the debate?

We hear for the first time about the leadership of ISAF from Jane Taber in the Globe and Mail.

Our caucus had only a few hours to discuss the motion that this government has put before the House this evening. We had a good discussion. A number of different opinions were expressed, and some common points were made. The Liberal caucus firmly supports our troops. We firmly believe in the current mission and the global goals. We also firmly believe that the government's process will not allow many parliamentarians to make an informed decision about this crucial issue. It is unfair to place parliamentarians in this position.

That said, I can speak on behalf of my caucus. We are here, and we have an opportunity to vote for or against this motion this evening, depending on what the government says. We will take part in this debate. We will listen to the government's arguments, and each of our members will vote according to the information we receive from the government.

All our members will exercise their parliamentary responsibility. Our duties to our constituents and to this august House demand no less.

I have listened to the Prime Minister. I will listen to the defence minister. I will listen to other members of the House. I will vote in favour of this mission if they satisfy me on those issues I referred to, because I believe I can only in conscience vote if in fact we are getting that right assurance, and I will vote for the mission.

But let there be no doubt. The responsibility for this process lies squarely with the government. We could have had a committee. We could have had more time. We had to negotiate the amount of time we got. Surely members opposite, in good faith, would want more time to discuss this.

Certainly no vote in the House in these circumstances could ever be interpreted as a lack of support for our troops. Let us not descend into jingoism. Let us try to find out what is best for our country and, sincerely, what is best for our troops.

I end as I began. We have seldom participated in a debate so important for our troops and for our country. I know that our members on our side will vote their conscience when we have heard the government case.

For myself, like the member for Markham, I hope the government will make that case, because we believe in this mission, but I know each and every member of the House will be seeking guidance from whatever individual divine inspiration they choose to seek.

I know also that they will vote in a way that is true to our country, to our troops in this mission, in a way in which we, who happen to live in one of the most fortunate countries in the world, can help those less fortunate than ourselves, who may be half a world away, but who are also part of our human family.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. His party and his former government made that commitment to the Afghani people, and they made it for the right reasons. That is the fascinating thing about this. They made it for the right reasons and we have been there for several years.

The hon. member says we could have had a committee on this. I want to point out to him that he did not have a committee to look at it when his party committed Canadian troops to the area to help rebuild that country. His party did not commit to having a vote on it. His party did not commit to having any of those things.

This debate and vote is a step forward in engaging the Parliament of Canada. I want to point out that this process we have here today had the unanimous consent of everybody. All 308 members of the House of Commons unanimously agreed yesterday that this was a good process, that this was something they wanted Parliament to debate.

For them now to say that in 26 hours they have changed their minds is a bit much, and let me tell the House that it sends out exactly the wrong message to the men and women who are fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan and to the Afghani people.

Now those members do not know why we are there. They do not have enough information. Good heavens, that party has supported this mission for years. What information did they have then? I can quote the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He said that it is a dangerous mission, one that is crucial to our efforts to help bring peace and security to the people of Afghanistan.

That was in March, so I want to know, what has changed in the last 26 hours?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that whatever the right message is, our troops will not feel honoured or supported by the notion that we spent all afternoon yelling at each other.

I recognize the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes us back to the commitment that we made when we were in government, the commitment that I personally have defended on many occasions, but I have to tell the member that the defence of course was based on those conditions and on that year's commitment.

What I am seeking to hear from the government today is not these sorts of political accusations going back and forth. What I and other members of the House are honestly and sincerely seeking from the government is answers to our questions, which we have only been given six hours to get, and those questions relate to, for example, what is the relationship to the aid project? Are we making progress on the governance issues? Will the House, if we extend the mission for two years, continually be kept abreast of matters through the committee?

These are legitimate questions. These are not irresponsible positions to be taking. These are legitimate questions, and if I get satisfactory answers, let me make it very clear that I will be voting for this mission. But I think the government has to take some responsibility and say to the members of the House, “We will give the answers that are needed in order for members to do their job and tell their constituents and the troops for whom they are responsible that we are making sure the conditions in which they are being sent to war are appropriate”.

That is all we ask. That is what our democracy demands. I beg of the government to give it to us.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will agree, as would everyone in the House, that Canada has pulled its weight in Afghanistan. We have carried a major load in rebuilding that country.

The concern the New Democrats have had is whether a mission should be initiated where we continue to fly under Operation Enduring Freedom. I think the U.S. styled counter-insurgency methods of this operation are fundamentally different from where the Canadian army has gone and where many of the Canadian people are comfortable going.

I would like to bring to the member's attention the fact that right now the Canadian government has publicity ads in the Washington subways with what I think is a fairly cheap slogan, “Boots on the Ground”, ads for a Canadian website, CanadianAlly.com, where we have all kinds of nice facts about trade with the U.S.

So there is a question I have to ask the member. How comfortable is he knowing that our troops are in harm's way while the government is promoting trade by the fact that our troops are on the ground fighting a U.S. style counter-insurgency?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member, but as for his information, and perhaps the defence minister will elucidate for the House, my understanding is that one of the reasons our troops are doing this mission and why we agreed to the first year is precisely because we can move from Operation Enduring Freedom into NATO. That in fact was one of the attractive assets of the mission.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

We haven't done it yet.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

The member for Halifax disagrees with that, but I have always understood this to be the case. This is not a problem that I have with this mission. In fact, if we had gone for a one year extension, I might well have very quickly been able to say yes. It clearly is related to that.

The problem is around the two years and the uncertainty around those other issues that other members here on our side of the House have to get an understanding for. If the government chooses to use our participation in Afghanistan to promote relations with the United States, it is obviously up to the government as to whether it feels that it is appropriate. I do not think that is an issue for debate tonight.

What I need to know so that we can have an informed vote tonight in a matter of a few hours is whether we can get assurances from the government so that we will be satisfied on our key issues about aid, governance and reports to the House, which will enable us to have a coherent policy in Afghanistan and a coherent parliamentary participation as that policy goes forward.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I certainly endorse your comments about keeping the debate at a high level tonight because, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, our troops in Afghanistan listen to every word that gets said in this House of Commons in reference to their mission. Hopefully everybody in this House will remember that as they go through this evening's debate.

The member opposite is asking for the commitments. I think the Prime Minister has indicated another $310 million, for a total of $1 billion, to help with the reconstruction. He has talked about the refugees coming back into the country. He has talked about children going to school. He has talked about women's rights being restored, about education, about clean water. The very basics of life are being provided, plus there is an opportunity for a future.

Surely even the NDP could vote to support such action. This is what our men and women in uniform are doing in that country. I think it is just amazing that people can stand up here and discuss and argue about the details of how the debate was structured or the timing of it. That is ridiculous.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB

It is ridiculous. We ought to stand in this House and support our troops, because if we do not, they are listening to every word.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. He was the minister responsible, the minister of defence, when this country went into Afghanistan. There is a commitment until the year 2010 that he is very well aware of, the Afghanistan Compact, a commitment for everybody to be involved, for 51 nations to get involved to bring stability back to that country. How can we do it one year at a time?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that our troops watch these debates. I agree that everybody in today's world watches the debates and anybody will on the Internet. This is certainly one reason why I believe that our language, as the hon. member and others have suggested, must be very careful. We must be very careful that we do not say things which in any way would give anyone in Afghanistan the thought that we are not committed to helping the Afghan people. That certainly has always been our position.

On the hon. member's comment to us now about the amount of aid, it is illustrative of one of the problems we are having in the debate. This number he has just given to me of $310 million and $1 billion over a period of time--I am not sure what period of time--is not a number that I picked up from the Prime Minister's speech. I was listening carefully to it. Others say not. I myself will verify that during the course of the debate. That goes a long way to making sure that we have the right type of information.

That is exactly the type of thing which I hope we will be getting from this debate, an informed debate, an honest, intellectual struggle on the part of all of us to find out what is the best thing we can do for our troops and what is the best thing we can use them for in a way that would further Afghanistan.

I thank the hon. member for his comment. I will certainly research that amount for the aid program. That certainly is helpful.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my most sincere sympathies to the family of Nichola Goddard, who died today in Afghanistan.

This tragic end of a woman who worked to build a better world should remind us that the debate we are undertaking today deals with a serious question. The question is actually to decide whether we should extend the presence of men and women who are risking their lives in Afghanistan. The real question deals with the renewal for two years of Canada’s military commitment in Afghanistan. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the extension of this mission.

Sending men and women to risk their lives is a decision laden with very heavy consequences, which cannot, and which should not, be taken lightly. This decision should be made in full knowledge of the facts. We should therefore be able to answer certain questions.

Is such an intervention justified, necessary and realistic? Do the people who will risk their lives have the necessary means to carry out the mission that we wish to assign them? What exactly is the nature of the Canadian military commitment? Is there a specific schedule and a withdrawal plan should the situation become uncontrollable?

In connection with Canada’s current commitment in Afghanistan, we did not get answers to all our questions. But we have enough knowledge and certainty to support it. That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing.

The intervention is justified, if for no other reason than to ensure the security of Afghans, those who have lived in insecurity for such a long time, and to rebuild this ravaged country and rebuild its government. The intervention is realistic since, to our knowledge, it has received the support of the Afghan people and government. The soldiers have the necessary means and there are enough troops to fulfill this mandate until February 2007. We know the nature of Canada’s commitment, and there is a specific deadline, that is, February 2007. All this enables us to support the current mission.

Do we have enough answers to support an additional two-year extension? Definitely not. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has asked the Standing Committee on National Defence to study all these questions. Do we have an idea of the real duration of the mission in Afghanistan? Will it be 10 years, as the Chief of Staff has implied, or 20 years, as a former major-general affirms. Likewise, can we have an estimate of the cost of the mission? There is talk of $2 billion. Is this realistic? Does this figure include all the costs: premiums paid to the soldiers, the increased maintenance of equipment or the purchase of new equipment? What are the criteria used to measure the success of the mission?

Beyond the show of visits by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this government has to be able to tell the public whether we are making progress or not. What is the strategy for achieving peace and for rebuilding in that country? What importance is being given to development assistance? How can we ensure that rebuilding activities in Afghanistan will not be marginalized by strictly military activities?

The answer to this crisis cannot and must not be strictly military. What about the treatment of civilians, the effectiveness of the convention on the treatment of prisoners signed with the Afghan government and the use of antipersonnel mines?

On November 15, 2005, the official opposition critic asked a series of questions that remain unanswered. One of those questions concerned an exit plan in case the mission takes a bad turn. Does the minister have such a plan? Under what circumstances, if any, would he consider withdrawing?

What guarantee do we have of avoiding a hard line approach to this issue?

The national defence critic who asked all those questions, which everyone felt were legitimate, was none other than the current Minister of National Defence. I believe it is legitimate for us to ask the very same questions without being considered disloyal to the soldiers in Afghanistan.

This minister who asked all those questions, a career soldier, is not answering his own questions today. As long as we do not get answers to our questions, the Bloc Québécois will not support a renewed military commitment by Canada in Afghanistan.

In his typical fashion, the Prime Minister has decided to call a rushed vote on extending Canada's military commitment. It was, “There will be a vote or I will decide without a vote”. That is why we agreed to have a vote. However, just because we agreed to have a vote does not mean we will vote absolutely in favour. That is not what democracy is all about.

By rushing matters, the Prime Minister is being irresponsible, in my opinion. This shows a lack of respect for the House of Commons, parliamentarians and the public. It is offensive.

I do not believe, and I have never believed, that issues of war and peace should be based on partisan or electioneering considerations. We do not send men and women to fight wars and risk their lives so lightly. To take such an approach to issues like these is petty politicking, very petty politicking. This is a serious matter, one that deserves our full attention, thorough debate and careful thought. Certainly, once the matter is resolved and a decision has been made, we must stand firm on that decision and live with it. That is what we did regarding Canada’s current presence in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister has decided to rush things. He has placed his party politics ahead of government policy. That is unforgivable on the part of a prime minister.

Even worse, the Prime Minister is trying to use Parliament to endorse a decision about which the public has very serious reservations. The public cannot be accused of not understanding all the issues and opposing participation by Canada when it is not being offered clear and adequate answers.

Before seeking the support of Parliament, the support of the people must be sought, because members of Parliament express the will of the people. That is the primary role and duty of government. In rushing to a vote, the Prime Minister is refusing to explain himself and to persuade the public.

Demonstrating leadership does not just mean making decisions quickly, as the Prime Minister likes to do. It also means persuading and explaining. Any authoritarian leader can impose decisions.

The Prime Minister says that he wants members’ unflagging support for the men and women deployed in Afghanistan. I am convinced that all the elected members assembled here support the troops of Canada and Quebec and that they will do everything in their power to help them perform their duties. However, that is not what the government is asking us to do today. It is asking us to blindly give it a blank check for years to come.

The government wants us to be a rubber stamp. For the Bloc Québécois, rubber stamping, abstaining from doing its duty in the way it should be done, responsibly and carefully, is out of the question.

The Bloc Québécois will not write any blank check to the Prime Minister or the government. As you know, I myself was in favour of an intervention in Afghanistan. I was deeply disgusted by the atrocities committed against women by the Taliban, to cite one example. The dynamiting of the statues of Buddha, for those who remember, showed a very disturbing fanaticism. Afghanistan had become a place of chaos and terror where inhumanity was triumphing. Certainly the attacks of September 11 were the straw, in fact the bale, that broke the camel’s back. All of the western nations rallied to support the United States.

At that time the international community made a commitment to ousting the Taliban regime, guaranteeing security and helping to rebuild this country scarred by successive wars.

I am proud that the Bloc Québécois supported this international intervention, as I am proud of our support for the intervention in Kosovo which helped put an end to the Balkan war.

Many of my colleagues know my convictions on these matters. I am deeply convinced that, in certain situations, armed intervention is necessary. That was the case in Rwanda, in 1994, and we failed in our task. It was necessary in Kosovo, in 1998, and we assumed our responsibilities.

It is very difficult to make these sorts of decisions. Often it is unpopular, but unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary. As a parliamentarian and party leader, I have not hesitated, and will not hesitate in future, to make such decisions, even if they should prove unpopular. We in this House are politicians. We are very aware of public opinion, and it is healthy that we should be.

As I was saying a little earlier, however, one cannot make such a decision on partisan grounds. Of course, we represent the people—in the Bloc’s case, the people of Quebec. In a democracy, we have to take that into account; in fact, it is a democratic imperative. We are also responsible for making decisions that may be unpopular. There are certain fundamental issues which require us to do so. So we have to consider popular opinion, but cannot let our attitude be dictated by that alone. For it sometimes happens that, to serve the common good, we must act contrary to public opinion.

Neither should we forget the context of this intervention in Afghanistan. In the face of terrorism, a military response is neither sufficient nor satisfactory, but it is necessary. Destroying bin Laden and his confederates is one thing. Destroying terrorism is another. One has to go after its causes, which are poverty, the absence of democracy, dictatorship, and the abysmal ignorance that these things breed. These causes are no justification for the fanaticism we have witnessed. But we must realize that these causes are the fertile ground that permits fanaticism and terrorism to grow.

As for the military commitment, it was necessary to intervene and necessary to offer logistical support and, above all, humanitarian aid. We must be clear about the role of the Canadian army before making decisions that commit us for a number of years. Humanitarian aid, logistical support and intervention in peacekeeping missions seem to me the priorities that would permit the Canadian army to play a useful role, without ruling out purely military intervention.

It is the fate of the Afghan people that must guide our decision. It is also the nature of the role that Canada can and must play. It is also and above all the fate that awaits the men and women who will risk their lives in Afghanistan. We know that some will lose their lives there, that caskets will be coming back to Canada, that there will be funerals. So it is a serious decision that we will be making as we vote. There will be tearful mothers, widows and widowers, and orphans in our own constituencies.

We must and we will answer for our decisions. How can we be answerable if the decision is hasty and made without having answers to our questions?

Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois asked the Standing Committee on National Defence to take a good look at all these questions. The Prime Minister is rushing things, though, and requiring us to decide before we have the answers. How can we in all decency send people to risk their lives when we are not even sure that it will be for good reasons? What assurance is there that two or three years from now, the situation in Afghanistan will not have turned into a nightmare? If this happens, who can guarantee that this government will not decide to stay for purely strategic reasons and justify the war by this vote in the House? How can we decide to send young people to risk their lives when we do not know whether they will be sent in good conditions?

After such massive participation on Canada’s part, who can assure us that after another three years, there will be enough Canadian troops and they will not be exhausted, totally worn out? For the time being, the government is counting on a hypothetical increase in troop numbers. But what assurance is there that these objectives will be reached when only yesterday the Auditor General underlined the army’s chronic inability to reach its targets?

How can I, as a member of Parliament, ask someone to risk his life without knowing whether there is an exit plan if things take a serious turn for the worse? What will this government do if the people of Afghanistan turn against the international presence? We cannot ignore Afghan history. I cannot in all conscience ask someone to risk his life without a firm conviction based on specific answers and clear decisions.

We cannot agree to send human beings to risk their lives in this way just because our arms are being twisted and even though we are totally in the dark. We must act responsibly and refuse to blindly sign this blank cheque that the Prime Minister wants from us. I therefore ask the elected members of this House to vote against the Prime Minister’s motion.

When he was leader of the official opposition, the Prime Minister stated that governments should respect the decisions of the House of Commons. I ask him, therefore, to abide by his own principles and respect the decision that the House of Commons is going to make on the motion that he himself introduced and I encourage him to participate actively in the Standing Committee on National Defence so that we have the information we need to make a wise decision.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Pontiac Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the leader of the Bloc Québécois deserves our full consideration. The leader of the Bloc Québécois began by stating that what is at issue is basically whether to prolong the mission. I understand, and I agree with him that that is exactly right. However, he spent 15 or 20 minutes contradicting what he said at the beginning. He called the Prime Minister irresponsible. I wonder what this is really about.

Some time ago, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked for a debate on this issue. Now we have one. He asked for a vote. We have had one.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

An hon. member

There will be one.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC

I must add that the Prime Minister explained very clearly in his statement the reasons why we are in Afghanistan. We are there because President Karzai asked us to renew the mission.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois asked for an explanation and he got one. He said we acted too quickly. We know that for the four years the Liberal Party was in power, they were in a position to provide an explanation, but they just beat around the bush. We have enough information to move forward and justify our participation, information that comes directly from President Karzai, as well as from our NATO allies and other partners over there.

My question for the leader of the Bloc Québécois is this: If he supports these values overall, why is he again reneging on his promise to support our forces, our troops in Afghanistan?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with each of these elements in turn. Yes, we wanted a vote and we will have one. But that does not mean we are automatically going to vote the same way as those who gave us the opportunity to vote. That is not logical. There will be a vote, and I appreciate that, but as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote no.

As for reneging on my promise, I told the Prime Minister that there were a number of questions that needed answers. If the answers were satisfactory, we could support extending the mission, as we did in 2001 and when this House debated the current mission 10 days or two weeks ago.

The questions I mentioned are the ones that were asked on November 15—not so long ago—by the official opposition defence critic, who a few months ago became the defence minister. I do not feel it is too much to ask the current minister to answer the questions he himself asked in the past. I think it is necessary so that we can make a decision.

It was with this constructive attitude that the Bloc introduced a motion in the standing committee on national defence last Thursday. The Prime Minister says that nothing changed until we met this week, on Monday if I remember correctly. Either the Prime Minister forgot something or he did not know and had not done his homework.

The Prime Minister must be aware that a motion was introduced in the standing committee on national defence and that it addressed essentially the same issues raised by the current defence minister.

When I met with the Prime Minister, I asked him to answer those questions and to join in that motion, which was passed yesterday. When the Prime Minister announced that a vote would be held today, he was in a position to know that a motion had been introduced and would be voted on before today's vote took place. Things happened in that order. I take full responsibility for what I did. I acted responsibly and did not try to force matters for purposes other than the situation of those who are fighting for freedom in Afghanistan.