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

5 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, let us make it clear right now that no matter how the vote goes tonight, all members of Parliament support our brave men and women in Afghanistan in the work that they are doing.

I have a question for the member. Has he ever seen such a shameful affront to Parliament? I respect the Prime Minister as a long standing parliamentarian, but has the member ever seen a prime minister put a motion before the House and then in his speech say the government would not necessarily follow the results of the vote and might do the exact opposite? He said the government would extend the mission anyway, regardless of the vote.

Did he not in his speech with this new information, which was a surprise and an affront to Parliament, make it hard to vote yes? What he basically said in his speech was that the mission was going to be extended for one year and eight months from today, if the House votes no. How could any member of Parliament vote yes when a no vote would mean we are extending the mission for one year and eight months from today? To vote yes would mean two years and eight months.

Why would even the Conservatives not vote for a motion that says we are going to extend the mission to one year and eight months? By voting no today we could re-evaluate and decide whether to go forward. The best vote would be no.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, during all of my time here, this is the first time I have seen a Prime Minister propose a vote and then say that, if the outcome is not what he had hoped, he would not respect the vote.

Actually, this is the second time I have seen this. I watched as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien called a vote on an agreement, the Kyoto protocol, but that was unusual. I must hand it to the current Prime Minister: calling a vote on a decision to send troops overseas or on an international agreement at least marks an improvement over the previous Liberal governments, which refused to allow the House to vote on such issues. I give the current Prime Minister credit for this.

In my opinion, the much wiser decision would be to follow our proposal. I do not see why the government will not agree to the request of the Standing Committee on National Defence to revisit the questions raised by the current defence minister here in this House on November 15, 2005 and give him the opportunity to answer those questions himself. We would then return here and, based on his answers, make an informed decision about whether to extend the mission. However, we need more information. I see nothing wrong with asking the same questions as the current minister did in the past.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I strongly suspect that the debate this evening is going to get quite heated after hearing some of the comments being made. This is an issue that obviously many of us get very emotional about when it comes to the military, myself in particular. Although I have never had the privilege of serving, I feel very strongly about this issue, as I think a lot of members do from all parties.

I would ask the leader of the Bloc Québécois to comment on the possibility of the vote going against the government's motion tonight. We have heard that the government is going to ignore the vote anyway. That is not the case, as has been revealed. The reality is that we have made a commitment not only to our men and women in uniform but to our allies and the people of Afghanistan that we will be there.

The hypocrisy of the Liberals is unbelievable tonight. What would the Liberals have us do? What would the leader of the Bloc Québécois have us do? Would they have us put our people on the plane tomorrow morning and just abandon our commitment? There obviously must be a transition period and that is what the Prime Minister was remarking about.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, before making a commitment it might be a good idea to consult the House first. That would be realistic and responsible.

I would also like to say to my colleague that the mission ends in February 2007. There is no question of bringing people back now. Nobody said that. There should be enough time to permit the Standing Committee on National Defence to assess the situation. That is the way to go.

It is irresponsible to say that in the future we will undertake commitments, that there will be a vote and that, if we do not like the outcome, only half of the commitment will be honoured. This sort of behaviour in matters of national defence or military intervention or international affairs, would make the government look as ridiculous as it does right now in connection with the environment.

It is fine to have a vote here. However, let the government assume all its responsibilities and make sure Parliament as a whole cooperates, particularly as it is in a minority situation. Let it be sure that it does not consider committees to be extracurricular activities and that it recognizes decisions are made there. The decisions taken in the House should be respected, in so far as it believes in democracy.

If the Prime Minister travels to Afghanistan and tells its leaders that they need a democratic parliament, he will also have to tell them that they should not do as is done here, where he does not respect the decisions made by Parliament.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

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

As I begin, I wish to express, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, our profound sadness in learning today that Captain Nichola Goddard, based in Shilo, Manitoba, has been killed in service to our country in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and our prayers are with Captain Goddard's family, friends and all members of the Canadian Forces serving our country at home and abroad.

New Democrats stand in opposition to the government's plans to lock our country into a long term, war-fighting role in Afghanistan, a role that does not properly reflect the principles and ideals of the people of Canada.

For nearly five decades, Canada has pursued peace in nations around the world and brought hope to lives torn apart by war. From the Suez Canal to Cyprus, from the Sinai to the former Yugoslavia, Canada has built a reputation as a respected peacekeeping nation. Canada is not a super power but as a middle power, we have long punched above our weight, as they say, because our contribution to the world as peacekeepers, with resolve to uphold the commitment of multilateralism through the United Nations, has always been fundamental.

Our foreign policy must reflect the reality that we are a country renowned for our pursuit of peace. We are a nation of facilitators, not occupiers. We are a people committed to the ideals of building bridges, not burning them. We must not allow that legacy of good work to falter in the growing shadow of the Bush administration's Operation Enduring Freedom.

It is far too convenient to pretend that each new mission is simply an extension of the previous mission. The government is not asking for an extension, but a commitment to a new mission that will last till the end of the decade.

Some people, on either side of the House, will claim that everything will be lost if Canada redirects its energy after four years in Afghanistan. Some people are prepared to see Canada stuck in Afghanistan until the end of the decade and beyond. According to them, doing less than that amounts to turning one’s back on the problem. In truth, Canada’s military contribution has been considerable, considering our capacities.

Afghanistan is now the largest recipient of Canadian overseas development assistance. The NDP unequivocally supports the continuation of this funding. We fully support an ongoing development and diplomatic role for Canada in Afghanistan, but the government has tied war-making and aid together in this motion, and we oppose that.

New Democrats, indeed all Canadians, value our country's principled place in the world as a nation that seeks peace not conflict. There is a role well-suited for Canada to play in Afghanistan, but it is not the role that the government has narrowly thrust upon the nation in this motion.

We must also bear in mind that because of the unilateral decisions of the Prime Minister and the Liberals before him, Canada has been rendered incapable of further serious contributions around the world.

Despite hard-won debates and months of questioning in the House, the government, like the Liberal government before it, has refused to answer the questions that we have asked. What is the effective command and control structure? What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives? What is the definition of success in this mission? What is our exit strategy?

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they asked these legitimate questions, and they received no answers from the Liberals. Just a few weeks ago New Democrats asked these same questions in the House, and have received no answers. Canadians deserve these answers.

As any officer in our Canadian Forces will tell us, time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted. The government, like its Liberal predecessor, is not interested in due diligence. It is interested in merely satisfying the optics of consent.

The New Democrats have not written a blank cheque so that this government, or any other government, can drag Canada still farther into war, so that it can remove us farther from our role as international peacekeepers.

The Prime Minister and his government are entitled to blindfold the members in this House, to tie their hands and to conduct this mock debate. Canadians, however, will not be blind. In spite of your intimidation, we will not accept the unacceptable.

Time after time I have stood in my place and have asked the Prime Minister directly to fully inform Canadians about our role in Afghanistan. Time after time I am sad to say, the Prime Minister has stood in his place and refused to answer these questions. Instead he has proclaimed, in no uncertain terms, that if we question the mission, we are against our troops.

Let me be very clear. Canadians will not be lured into this false trap created by the Prime Minister's borrowed sloganeering. It is an injustice to democracy that we ask Canada's young men and women in uniform to defend, with their lives, when the government confuses patriotism with jingoism.

We will take no lessons from the government on supporting our women and men in uniform. Let us all remember that last year it was the Conservatives who voted against a budget that invested $13.5 billion in the Canadian Forces, a budget that invested $8.2 billion more than the Conservatives' budget this spring. It was New Democrats, not Conservatives, who voted for that budget and made sure it passed to ensure that our troops would get the equipment and training they needed and the financial support over the long term. That is how our party shows support for our troops.

Just this week the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore stood in his place and asked why, after 14 years, the government continued to deny benefits to the widow of a soldier who died in uniform and why the government continued to let lawyers fight to keep that family from receiving the support they deserved. That is how the government shows its support for our troops.

If we ask this country to go on waging war, every Canadian citizen must understand all the facts. Our troops deserve to know what we are asking them to do. The families deserve to know what we are asking of their sons and daughters. If there is one aspect of our public discourse that should be absolutely free of any partisan proclamation, it is our foreign policy. That also applies when we decide on our troops’ missions by asking them to defend our values and perhaps even give their lives.

It is the responsibility of every member in this House to ask hard questions, and it is the responsibility of the government to answer them.

There is an immense debate in NATO countries like Britain and the Netherlands right now about the future mission in Afghanistan. In Canada the government is trying to ram through a motion, with no room for amendment, no option for clarity. The government does not really seek a debate, but rather a rubber stamp from the House to commit the Canadian Forces to a new and highly uncertain and ill-defined mission. It is not in the interests of Canadians to blindly allow our country to be locked into a new long term commitment in Afghanistan.

New Democrats will stand against the motion because we believe the new mission, defined so poorly by the government, is not in line with the values and principles held by Canadians. It is not the right role to pursue the objectives of Canada's foreign policy.

New Democrats asked for this debate and vote. We welcomed the opportunity to stand and defend Canada's place in the world. I ask members of the House to join us. Let our country set the standard. Let Canada lead and not follow. Let us forge our own path in the world, a path that builds upon our strengths and reflects globally the values and principles of the pursuit of peace that define us nationally.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my questions quite short because many others want to join in the debate and ask the member some questions.

Does the hon. member not understand the contradiction in his comments when he states that he and his party stand unequivocally in support of foreign aid, but they would have us renege on our commitment to the Afghan people to provide the soldiers to provide the protection so foreign aid can be delivered to the Afghan people? How in God's earth does he think that the foreign aid would continue to flow to help the Afghan people rebuild their nation if the soldiers are not there to allow it to flow to the people who need it?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, perhaps Adeena Niazi of the Afghan Women's Organization of Toronto can say it better than I. She says that Afghans love the Canadians who bring security, peace and development. They do not support the combat mission. It is making Afghanistan more violent. She asked the question, “How can you bring peace when you are bringing war?”

The fact is the engagement, development and diplomacy, with security support, with a proper balance, has been something our party has supported. The proposition in front of us is very different. There is an amount identified by the Prime Minister, for instance, for development aid. It is interesting that he does not provide the amounts that would be required to support the war-fighting effort, which is bound to be dramatically more than the funds being requested for aid. I think that says it all.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sentiments expressed earlier by the member for Yukon. We support of the mission and we support our military, properly trained and equipped.

The motion, based on the speech of the Prime Minister, seems to be a bit of a moving target. From that speech, it is clear that now there is more details and information, but if there is a negative vote, all of a sudden he will extend it for one year, with the threat that the government will pull the plug and look for an election.

Is it hon. member understanding that the deployment of military is an executive decision alone and that the motion before the House is not binding on the government? If that is the case, why are we now debating and having a vote to somehow legitimize something without the same kind of briefings that the executive would have received from CIDA, foreign affairs and defence?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, our party has advocated for some considerable time the idea that when our troops are deployed in international activities, the House should be drawn into that discussion and have the opportunity to vote on the issue. We have pressed for that for some time.

When the current Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition, I can recall that we discussed these matters and we were in accord on this question. After becoming Prime Minister, he abandoned the notion that a vote was appropriate. I am pleased that he has now decided once again that a vote is appropriate.

We understand the nature of that vote and that it is advisory. We also understand it is important and the government of the day should be following the advice of the House of Commons. Sadly, in these last few days we have seen many indications that the government does not seem willing to follow that fundamental principle of democracy.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, all of the party leaders have stressed how important the debate we are engaged in is. I would like to ask the leader of the NDP whether he agrees that this House is in a paradoxical situation.

We are being asked to vote to extend one of the most important and most devastating missions in which Canada has participated in its entire history, but we have insufficient information. Does he agree that it would have been a good idea for the Standing Committee on National Defence, on a motion by the Bloc Québécois supported by his party—for which I thank him—to be able to do an investigation, do the analysis, in order to get additional information about the status of the mission? Does he agree that this House is truly in a totally senseless situation?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, we prefer that there be a study done by the Standing Committee on National Defence, so that the people who lead our military forces—and the government—can answer the very important questions that we have raised in this House but that have not received the answers we need. I agree, we are indeed in a paradoxical situation at this point. But the Prime Minister said that he wanted to go on, regardless of what this House decides, and I find that situation very sad.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of Parliament, as the defence critic for the New Democratic Party, and also as a concerned Canadian citizen, mother and grandmother.

When I became defence critic four months ago, I did not know a lot about military affairs, but I had a guiding principle then and it remains my guiding principle today. After four months of total immersion in Canadian defence policy, I am more convinced than ever that military force must be used only as a last resort.

Military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. It has profound, often negative consequences for the lives of individual human beings. Those individuals include the soldiers we send into harm's way, their husbands, their wives, their sons, their daughters, and yes, their mothers and fathers, as well as their grandmothers and grandfathers.

Never let us forget the grave responsibility we carry anytime we put the lives of young Canadians on the line. Is the mission necessary? Is it a mission that can succeed? Is it the right mission? Are we doing everything possible to ensure the safety and well-being of our soldiers? Are we doing everything possible to adhere to international standards concerning the protection of civilians, the choice and the use of weapons, and the treatment of detainees?

The decision to deploy a military force is a deadly serious one. We are not playing a video game. We must guard against becoming pumped full of aggression and testosterone, throwing caution to the wind, secure in the knowledge that we here as members of Parliament will never find ourselves in harm's way.

The NDP has serious concerns about the proposal to complete our mission in 2007 and then have a new mission for a further two years in Afghanistan. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to voice those concerns. We are not afraid to vote against this motion. Our concerns have been inadequately addressed. It is our right. It is our responsibility. The government has not addressed our serious concerns. It has failed to answer our questions.

For four years the U.S. military, the most powerful military in the world, has tried to stabilize southern Afghanistan at the point of a gun through a forward leaning, counter-insurgency approach. The U.S. military has failed in that effort. The situation has become more, not less, dangerous. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Heroin production has skyrocketed. The insurgents are becoming ever more adept at building and deploying sophisticated roadside bombs.

Today the United States wants to draw down its forces in Afghanistan and it wants its allies to pick up the slack. Most of those allies, most of NATO, have been dragging their heels, concerned that the counter-insurgency approach creates more problems than it solves. Canada, however, has rushed into this gap, taking on the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Kandahar province.

The NDP shares the concerns of many of Canada's allies that the counter-insurgency approach cannot succeed, and if it cannot succeed, why are we there? Is it simply because the United States has asked us to be there because it wants out? Or is it simply because we do not have the imagination or wherewithal to devise a better approach? Or is it because we do not want to be elsewhere on a different, less macho, more explicitly humanitarian mission, saving the people of Darfur from a full-blown genocide?

Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian overseas development assistance. The NDP unequivocally supports the continuation of that funding, especially when it supports the work of non-governmental aid organizations operating at arm's length from foreign military forces whenever possible.

Afghanistan is a large and diverse country that offers many opportunities for the deployment of reconstruction teams made up of a mix of Canadian Forces, CIDA, foreign affairs and RCMP personnel. The NDP unequivocally supports the maintenance of a sizeable Canadian reconstruction presence in Afghanistan. However, as the leader of our party has explained, the NDP believes that the extension of the counter-insurgency mission is not the best use that could be made of Canada's small but highly skilled professional army.

Genocide is occurring in Darfur. Yesterday the UN Security Council charged Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to find countries willing and able to commit troops and equipment for that all important humanitarian mission. Canada is able to answer that call with the best soldiers in the world and equipment designed specifically for robust peacekeeping, unless we vote today to extend the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.

Turning our backs on genocide is not a decision that we should take lightly or in haste. It is not a decision that should be pre-empted by a snap vote after only six hours of debate and no consideration by parliamentary committees. It is a decision that strikes at the very heart of what this country is and what we as Canadians believe.

The NDP has other concerns about the extension of the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. We remain concerned about Canadian soldiers transferring detainees to Afghan or U.S. custody without adequate protections for Canada's continuing obligations to those detainees under international law. We remain concerned about Canadian soldiers relying on anti-personnel land mines laid by foreign forces in violation of the spirit and the intent of the Ottawa land mines convention.

We are also very concerned about the cost of this mission. By the time the current mission is complete in February 2007, it will have likely cost Canadians in excess of $5 billion. The Polaris Institute has estimated that a two year extension or a new mission would cost an additional $2 billion to $3 billion.

We could provide a huge amount of reconstruction and humanitarian aid for $7 billion, not just in Afghanistan but also elsewhere. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. For $7 billion it is incumbent upon us as guardians of the public purse to confirm that there is no alternative to the counter-insurgency approach and to ensure that this is the right mission.

Finally, the NDP is concerned about the continuing uncertainty over the timing for the transfer of overall operational control over Canada's soldiers from the U.S. military to NATO.

The motion before us states that Canada's commitment in Afghanistan is an important contribution with that of more than 30 other countries to international efforts under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO. But where is NATO? When the current mission was decided upon last summer, the Liberals told us that Canadian Forces would be transferred to NATO operational control by this spring, by February. The transfer has been delayed, not once but several times. Today we read newspaper reports that Canada might well end up leading the NATO mission, presumably because no other NATO country wants the job.

It is a misleading motion before us. Our current commitment is under the auspices neither of the United Nations nor NATO. It is under Operation Enduring Freedom. In this situation, facing this uncertainty, the NDP could not in good conscience vote for it.

I have spoken today as a member of Parliament, as a citizen, as a mother and as a grandmother. The decision to use military force is one of the most important decisions a government could ever make. I repeat that this is not a video game. We are talking today about the lives of millions of people, Canadian lives, Afghan lives and the lives of the people of Darfur. We have to ensure that we make the very best decision, that this is the right mission and that all of us can in one, two or ten years look the families of our soldiers in the eye and say yes, it was a mission worth dying for.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic to hear the member and her leader talk about military tactics.

Let me refer to Sun Tzu's The Art of War. One of the principles is maintenance of the aim. One of the aims in Afghanistan is fighting for equality rights for Afghan women. One of the aims in Afghanistan is fighting for the extension of the democratic franchise in Afghanistan. One of the aims in Afghanistan is fighting for public education for all Afghan children and there are many more.

We talk about delivering funding and aid with no security. We cannot do that.

I would ask my hon. colleague, if not us, who, and if not now, when?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member, who is also on the defence committee, to look at the statements that Afghan women here in Canada have made exactly about the counter-insurgency role that Canadians are performing in Afghanistan. They have said it is not making Afghanistan a safer place for them. They are saying that it has raised the level of violence in Afghanistan. I think the voice of women in Afghanistan should be heard.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Art Hanger

Go over there and find out.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Gary Goodyear

Are you kidding me? Two-thirds of the country is under control now. Two thousand schools are now open.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members who are yelling and carrying on over there that we have been at the forefront in asking for aid for Afghanistan for many years. We support in every way aid for Afghanistan.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Gary Goodyear

Who is going to deliver it?

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Canada has committed a lot. We have done a lot. We will continue to do a lot. This mission is not working.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

May I ask for a little bit of order during the rest of the questions and comments.

The hon. member for Guelph.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the hurried manner of what is happening here this evening. Indeed, I share those same concerns about the hurried manner. There are so many questions that have not been answered.

We do not know about the Darfur component. We do not know about the aid component. Even in question period today the Conservatives were confused about the exact amount of aid. We were getting different numbers and different components.

What is right for our troops? We do not know. We do not know what has been evaluated, what went right in this mission and what went wrong. We do not know all those things. Our own committee of the House has not looked at this.

I share the member's concerns that this is a very hurried process and it is an affront to our troops. It is a terrible thing.

At one time someone said that if we would not send our own children, then we should not do this. I would ask the hon. member to comment.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have actually put myself through that thought process because I am a mother of three sons who are of an age that they could be part of the Canadian Forces. Two of my sons are police officers in Canada, so I know something about having sons who face danger in their lives every day.

I am not prepared to support this new mission in Afghanistan because we do not have answers to the questions. We know that the Americans have been fighting a counter-insurgency role for four years in Kandahar province and that the situation has only become worse.

Every independent analyst and in fact even the minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs have told us that it is far more dangerous now in Kandahar province than it has ever been. This is after the strongest military in the world has been fighting a counter-insurgency role there for four years.

In my view this is not the right mission. There are things we can do and have done in Afghanistan that have improved the lives of Afghan citizens and Afghan women. We commit as New Democrats to continue that kind of development diplomacy.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague concerns the fact that this motion we are discussing today is not amendable.

Would my colleague comment on the fact that we cannot amend this motion? This is an unusual practice.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the whole process, with six hours to debate the issues of lives, destruction, war, and not have all the information that we should have before we make informed decisions, is shameful. I think the process is wrong. I think the fact that we vote up, down, with no amendments, is a mockery of democracy and disrespectful to our Canadian forces who are putting themselves in harm's way right now in Afghanistan.

Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to take part in the debate here this evening, a historic debate by all accounts, and I congratulate all members who have taken part this evening and who will take part.

This debate can be placed very much in the context of how much Canada has already accomplished by its commitment and its mission in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, as a country, in just over three years is impressive by any standard when we look at from where it came. Its GDP has doubled. Some 63,000 former combatants have been disarmed, demobilized and reintegrated. Approximately 11,000 heavy weapons have been removed and safely secured. A national police force is being built. Women are starting small businesses. Refugees have returned in the millions.

These are just statistics. There is much more that we have to examine in the context of what Canada is accomplishing. These statistics do not adequately convey the profound human dimensions of such striking progress. They do not capture the many individual triumphs that Afghans have achieved since 2001: the little girl that is going to school for the first time; the widow becoming self-sufficient; the voter being empowered by choice; and the family of refugees finally coming home.

I am privileged to say that I saw these people with my own eyes when I was in Afghanistan, to say that I looked into the eyes of a little girl in an Afghan school in Kabul, a school that was sponsored by the Canada Fund. It allowed young Afghans to go to school and receive vocational training, basic human skills of sanitation and discourse, reading and writing. This little girl would never have had that opportunity were it not for the intervention of the allies, including Canada. I asked that little girl what she liked about school and she said she enjoyed math. I said, “What do you want to do when you finish school?” She said, “I want to teach other little girls so they'll have this opportunity as well”.

That is the human impact of Canadians being in Afghanistan today. Those opportunities would not exist. These are the exact Canadian values that we embrace in this country. What is more Canadian than ensuring that young women have that opportunity to go to school, be educated and lead productive lives?

Protecting and ensuring a safe home, a chance at education, free from exploitation or worse, violence, abuse, building democracies, these are all such important bedrock pillars of our society. Why would we not want to share this with the people of Afghanistan?

Canada is helping to create freedom from fear, a freedom that will allow ordinary Afghans to lead their daily lives without fear. I saw this directly during this visit to Kabul and Kandahar, a palpable sense of hope that after so many decades of devastation that country is well on its way to recovery and renewal.

My colleagues mentioned some of the other tangible impacts such as clean water. Thousands of schools are being opened. Millions of children are now able to attend school. The Afghans I met there, whether they were leaders, high level officials or ordinary Afghans, went out of their way to thank Canadians who were there, Canadian officials, to specifically express their gratitude for Canada's contributions. They also took the time to express their sympathies for our considerable sacrifices, meaning the lives of Canadian soldiers and diplomats who have given so much in the cause.

The president himself, Mr. Karzai, was particularly gracious in expressing that sentiment. He echoed the comments that I heard at numerous meetings, whether they be NATO meetings, EU meetings, or meetings with our allies generally. The Afghan people recognize, appreciate and commend Canada for its contribution to the cause of rebuilding Afghanistan.

They were all unanimous in expressing their deepest hope that we would not abandon them in this critical hour.

After two and a half decades of conflict, the Afghans themselves have made considerable investments in their own future. The progress made has taken hard work, but positive change can be seen everywhere. Afghans enjoy opportunities that were inconceivable under the Taliban, including, and especially, for women and children, whose dignity had been systematically trampled under a repressive regime.

Now is not the time to capitulate. Now is the time to capitalize. It is fundamental that these institutions that have been built and the stability that is still being built are not abandoned at this critical time.

The foundations for responsible, effective Afghan management institutions have been laid: a constitution has been written, and a president, a parliament and 24 provincial councils elected. The country is now in a position to capitalize on this democratic progress, and large numbers of Afghan citizens are looking forward eagerly to the elections coming up in 2009. This is further evidence that our initial efforts will have lasting effect.

The Afghanistan Compact that was signed earlier this year at the London conference will provide a guide for the ongoing rebuilding of Afghanistan over the next five years. It lays down specific benchmarks for security, management and development, benchmarks that the Afghan government and the international community have agreed to pursue jointly, for example the destruction of all antipersonnel mines, the enactment of anti-corruption laws by the end of 2007, and a 20% increase in the number of women in the workforce by the end of 2010.

These are benchmarks that were identified and espoused by the Afghan government itself as the best way to ensure future security, good governance and prosperity for the Afghan people.

While Afghan authorities are working hard to build a truly national government, Afghanistan cannot yet move forward on its own. President Karzai and the Afghan government however recognize that sustained support will be required to reach these critical milestones. They expressed that to me in very emphatic terms, as they did to the Prime Minister during his very first visit abroad which took him to Afghanistan, a commendable and brave effort on the part of our national leader.

These are critical times for a truly remarkable man, President Karzai. This is the time for us to support him in this fashion. This is a president of vision, a president who is demonstrating exemplary leadership at a difficult time. He has asked specifically that Canada continue its commitment and demonstrate resolve. He recognizes, as we should recognize, that there is a responsibility to support Afghan state building efforts.

The international community undertook to help Afghanistan realize these goals with more than 60 delegations, including Canada, participating in a London conference on Afghanistan which was co-hosted by President Karzai, the United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan and U.K. Prime Minister Blair, on January 31, 2006. Strong, unambiguous support for the Afghanistan compact was expressed in London by our allies and included a thorough $10.5 billion in pledges.

I want to speak to Canada's commitment and the Leader of the Opposition, who is a former minister of defence and of foreign affairs. He has asked some very specific questions which I hope to address in my remarks.

Canada's engagement in Afghanistan is an important part of the international effort to support Afghanistan as it does move forward. Alongside our Afghan, UN, NATO, and other international partners, we are working for clear, measurable results identified within the Afghan compact. Our common objective is to ensure that the people of Afghanistan and the country itself succeed in the vision of the compact as enunciated.

This is a considerable undertaking and that is why it is so important that we take our own international responsibility seriously. Canada has made a commitment to the United Nations to stay engaged in Afghanistan. We made a commitment to our allies and to NATO as part of the alliance's most important mission in its first out-of-area operation and a critical test of its ability to respond to a 21st century security challenge.

NATO as a security provider has played a vital role in the achievements to date and will remain key to the future progress of Afghanistan. Extending our engagement is in line with commitments made by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, our key partners along with others in southern Afghanistan. Both of those countries I note, as the Prime Minister did today, have already extended their commitments.

The Netherlands, I am also quick to note, is very much in the region and has committed to this mission because of the Canadian commitment. We were part of the discussion that took place in the Dutch parliament. Most importantly, we made a commitment to the Afghan people themselves to stay the course. It would be gravely irresponsible, and the effect itself would imperil the success of the mission, if we were to bail, as has been suggested by some in the House tonight.

To reduce or withdraw our presence before the Afghan government is fully established would be to invite the return of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, negating our accomplishments to date and ultimately threatening not only Afghanistan's long term security but Canada's security itself. That would be nothing short of irresponsible.

We cannot be seen as being part of an effort to destabilize or fall-back on our nation's word and reputation. Canada does not shrink or shirk duty in the face of adversity. In times of turmoil, in places where security is at risk, Canada has always been there. We step up, we step in, we carry our load, we keep faith, and we do not break our word.

An extended commitment to Afghanistan involving integrated Canadian stabilization, governance and development efforts is taking hold. It will allow Canada to continue to help the Afghan government and the international community to get the job done.

Furthermore, the enhanced Canadian engagement in all three areas announced by the Prime Minister will ensure that we are well positioned to continue to exercise leadership in Afghanistan and within the NATO mission which will continue.

This is not a traditional peacekeeping mission. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban refuse to recognize the will expressed by the Afghan people through successive and successful elections. Their efforts to destabilize Afghanistan and provoke the departure of international military forces must not be allowed to succeed. Our continued commitment will send a strong message to the insurgents regarding our resolve. I would suggest that any lack of resolve would send the opposite message, also imperiling the life and safety of Canadian troops and our international partners on the ground in that country.

An extension of our troop presence will also help the Afghan security forces in meeting their training and development benchmarks identified in the Afghanistan compact. This 24 month time period also coincides with the commitments of our NATO allies and it will bring us in line and give us time to help build the secure environment necessary for Afghans to make progress in building critical institutions and infrastructure.

Our presence in Kandahar, in particular, will help the Afghan government bring the benefits of reconstruction to the southern regions of the country in line with NATO's plans to extend its area of operations in support of the Government of Afghanistan in that part of the country. This is a critical time, I emphasize again, and this is the area of the country most in need.

I met with the governor of Kandahar who similarly expressed a desire to have Canadians there to work with Afghan army officials and NATO allies to finish what we started. Even as the security situation improves, non-military elements will be required, including ongoing assistance and a permanent Canadian embassy, a presence in Kabul. For this reason, as important elements of Canada's overall efforts in Afghanistan, we have planned for additional results based development assistance and enhanced diplomatic representation.

As I mentioned, the Leader of the Opposition has expressed specific concerns which I wish to answer.

Canada will increase its international development assistance. An increase of $310 million in development assistance, raising our total contribution to nearly $1 billion over 10 years to the year 2011, will rank Canada among the leading international donors to Afghanistan's reconstruction. The Leader of the Opposition can take pride in knowing that it was his government that began this effort and we encourage him to support this government's effort to continue that capacity building.

Second, there was a question from the member opposite about Canada's commitment. Near the end of each calendar year, 2006, 2007 and 2008, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence will evaluate results with our allies according to the criteria set out at the London conference and we will share their evaluations with Parliament. That is a solid commitment to keep Parliament informed about progress and benchmarks.

With respect to other commitments in other places, and I know the Minister of National Defence will speak to this in his remarks as well, clearly Canada's commitment to Afghanistan will have some impact on our ability to make further contributions.

However, those requests will be considered carefully in light of the mission itself, which is the responsible thing to do, and demands on Canadian Forces will be given full consideration if and when that ask comes. However one is not contingent upon the other. Our commitment currently in places, such as Haiti and the obvious need for further involvement in Sudan, is not diminished by Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. One does not hinge upon the other.

As well, Canada needs to establish a longer term commitment for the simple reason that the Afghan people need and deserve that at this time.

By purchasing land and building permanent embassy facilities, Canada will be able to continue playing a leading role on the national scene in Kabul, alongside the Afghan government.

The Afghan government needs our help to provide basic services and protect its citizens. We have told them that we will do our part and more, as we have so often done in the past in times of international crisis and need.

Canada has and always will stand for something. Canada stands for democracy, for human rights, for generosity and for courage, values that the Afghan people so desperately need and want to embrace. I am quick to add that none of the development or the democracy building could happen in that country today without the presence of defence, security and boots on the ground. That is the important connection that cannot be missed.

For some members to suggest that we can surpass the security and defence aspects of this is naive beyond belief. Canadians do not believe in hopscotch democracy. These things cannot happen without security. It is not responsible to somehow suggest that we can pull our troops out and then believe that democracy and development will flourish in Afghanistan.

We have chosen to make a difference, to develop a democratically elected government, to establish accountable governance institutions across the country and to help protect Afghans while they seek to rebuild their lives by eliminating the threat posed by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that is happening. Let us just dwell on that for a moment. What must it be like to live in fear, fear that one's school or home may be burned down with no connection whatsoever to one's life? It just happens because one is there. That has been eliminated to a large degree by the presence of troops in that country.

We need to help the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank and our other international partners in their efforts to support Afghanistan's economic recovery, to help train their security forces so they themselves can have an international army, to help strengthen the rule of law, to help farmers find alternatives to poppy crops, to help women advance their lives and the quality of their lives and to help children learn. It is countries like Canada that are making a difference.

The motion we are considering tonight will also make a difference. It will help ensure that Canada continues to be in a position to finish the job we started. An extended and enhanced Canadian commitment to Afghanistan will demonstrate clearly, unequivocally and tangibly to ordinary Afghans that they are right to hold out hope that tomorrow can be better than today.

Securing Afghans' future is in Canada's interests. It is the right thing to do. I have never felt stronger upon my return from Afghanistan that we were there for the right reasons.

In this context, this House should send a clear message of support to the Government of Afghanistan, our international partners and the Canadian men and women of the Canadian Forces who wear their flag, that this mission will be a success, that we are with them all the way.