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.
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I take good advice from the hon. member's comments. I did hear heckling and I heard heckling from all parts and it was too much heckling. This is why I ended that heckling period and recognized the hon. member for York West for a new question, hopefully for a new reply. Thank you.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was so much heckling and you were distracted doing something else and I had to sit down. And then I said, do I have the floor and I still didn't have--
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Halifax is not rising on a point of order. She is arguing with the Chair.
I will take her advice under consideration, and if necessary, I will come back to the House. Right now I would like to finish this period of questions and comments and recognize the hon. member for York West.
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I hope this is a point of order and not a point of debate.
I recognize the hon. member for West Nova.
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, a distinguished member of the House called into question your impartiality. I believe it was wrong of that member to do so.
I would ask the member to reconsider it at some point and apologize to the House.
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
As much as I appreciate that good member's advice, I have made a ruling and I still recognize the hon. member for York West. I hope she gets to ask her question and that she gets an answer. Thank you.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I hope my time was not taken away by all that debate.
May I begin by saying how supportive all of us in the House are of our troops and how grateful we are that we have men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line. I must say to the hon. member how much respect I have for the work that she has done over these many years on these very important issues. I know how passionate she cares about it.
My question for the hon. member is how do we deal with this issue? We have been forced into a debate that is a very serious one. We are not talking about raising or lowering taxes or dealing with the GST. We are talking about the lives of men and women who volunteer for our forces. Are we to make the right decision with the limited information, six hours of debate, when we spent eight days debating the budget, but we are only spending six hours debating the two year extension of a very important mission that many of us in the House support, and want to support, but have been given very limited information.
Would the hon. member tell me what other information she would require for her to feel that she is able to make an intelligent decision if in the future we have another opportunity to have an extension of this debate, rather than an extension without our being able to even discuss it further?
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, what is required, and not just by members of the House, but Canadians require answers to a lot of the questions that have been raised here tonight that have not been addressed.
We need to hear some honest acknowledgment from the government that there is a raging debate at NATO about the future missions in Kandahar, that NATO in fact is having a great deal of difficulty getting other countries to come in. No wonder NATO is asking Canada to continue.
We need an acknowledgment that the Dutch have not gone in and the British have not gone in as scheduled because they had major concerns about the counter-insurgency effort being conducted under Operation Enduring Freedom. Even though Canada was willing to sign on to that uncritically, they were not and they are still not and they still have not gone in.
Furthermore, and it pains me to say this and I cannot imagine how it pains families of troops to know that as a result of that, many of our troops have been overexposed because not just the numbers of troops were not there to be part of that mission, but the capabilities that the Dutch and the British would have brought to it are different and in combination could have made for safer circumstances. I think we are not hearing enough of the truth about these matters.
I also have yet to hear a single word come out of the mouth of the foreign affairs minister or the defence minister about how a comprehensive--
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House as the member for Ottawa Centre, the son of a World War II veteran and the grandson of two World War I veterans. Personally, I have been in harm's way. I have experienced the theatre of war.
I share this experience with members because I believe that what we do in this place and the effects of the decisions that we make are ultimately about people, people who live in our respective communities and people around the world.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the NDP fully supports the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces and the important work they are doing around the world. Let us not sink into a debate, a jingoistic ballyhoo, when it comes to the issues of war. It demeans Parliament, it demeans citizens and it demeans the women and men who have served and are serving in our forces today.
Tonight we are here to debate and vote on a motion to extend our commitment to the Afghanistan mission beyond 2007. As many have already stated, the timelines and the process that have been provided to debate such a serious motion are not adequate considering the costs and considering the lives that hang in the balance.
In January 2002 Canada made a major commitment to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We supported that. From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the international assistance force, which had the aim of providing intelligence and security to allow for rebuilding and supporting the democratic process, something which eventually saw elections in the fall of 2005.
Canada ended this role in late 2005 and committed a battle group of about 2,000 personnel to Kandahar in early 2006. This is when things changed. The mission changed from being a UN-NATO mission to Canada then taking on the mission in the south under the American mission, Operation Enduring Freedom. It should be noted that the American Operation Enduring Freedom tactics have been to conduct aggressive search and destroy missions, aerial bombings and all-out offensives against alleged terrorist insurgents for the last four years with absolutely dismal results.
That is what we agreed to most recently take on: a role in the south of Afghanistan. It must be noted that it was the politicians who determined the mandate, not the soldiers.
When the government led by the member for LaSalle--Émard committed our forces to southern Afghanistan, it was on the assumption that NATO would be taking over from the U.S. led coalition in February 2006. It is now May 2006 and we still have no clear idea about when NATO is going to take over.
It has to be said that the reason for the delay of the Dutch and the British to join in the south stems from their concerns about the mission. Why? Because of the lack of clarity in the south, which has brought not more security but less.
It is imperative for us to recall that the NATO-UN mandated mission was not to go to war in the south, but rather to build security for ordinary Afghans through the backing of the Afghan police and military. That is what Canadians understood our forces were doing.
The Prime Minister has stated that a motion is needed to bring clarity to our role and our mandate. In the recent take note debate, our party asked some very specific questions on our role in Afghanistan. What is the military objective? What is the command structure? How long will it take to achieve these objectives? Those, among others, were some of our questions.
Sadly, these questions have not been answered with the clarity we need.
Let us take the question of military objectives for our troops. The government has stated many intentions, such as bringing democracy, fighting a war on terror, making Canada safer or allowing girls to attend school. These are laudable goals and they could and at some point should be arrived at, but for now it is not a military objective. It is not what is happening in Kandahar.
On the question of command structure, as I have already mentioned, there is no agreement in NATO about what the new mission will be. Even the British have stated that a search and kill combat role is incompatible with a peace support operation.
The question is, how can parliamentarians vote on extending the mission for two years when this mission lacks clarity? In fact, instead of signing up for two more years of a mission that lacks clarity, we should be urging the UN and NATO to look at a plan for real peace in the south, a plan that abandons the search and kill. That has failed.
We should be supporting the peace strengthening commission, which needs international support and has been championed by an Afghan Canadian. In fact, there will be no peace in Afghanistan unless a peace process is put together.
Finally, we must address the opportunity cost of the extension of this mission. In Darfur, the killing and the genocide in slow motion continue and we sit--and stand--silent. That is not good enough. That is not the Canadian way. We can, we should and we must do better.
There are over 30 countries already helping in Afghanistan. We are proud to help out in development and peace building there. If we are willing to continue to be there to build peace and shore up development, then surely we can answer the call to Darfur as well.
Citizens send us to this place to make responsible decisions. An extension of this mission as has been presented is not responsible and that is why it does not deserve our support.
Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could recognize a few things for the record and for everyone in the House. The fact is that we are having a debate here tonight, a debate that was agreed upon by unanimous consent, and ministers have undertaken to answer serious questions here. We are also having a vote. This was not done in the initial deployment under the previous government, which was a two year deployment.
The Prime Minister is trying to build democracy in this place and send a clear message to our troops. Does the member who just addressed the House realize the big picture that is going to confront all members of the House tomorrow? The headlines tomorrow will simply say that this House is either with our troops on this mission or it is not with our troops on this mission. That is what our troops will see in Afghanistan. This is what the headlines will show. Does the member realize that he will be helping to send the wrong message to our troops and that it will not be good for morale?
The leader of the NDP is going to have to explain to the House why the NDP is opposed to fighting for equality rights for Afghan women. Why is the NDP opposed to fighting for the extension of the democratic franchise in Afghanistan? Last, why is the NDP opposed to fighting for public education for all Afghans?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I began my comments by saying that I did not want to engage in jingoistic ballyhoo and I will not do that at this point. I will, however, point out to the hon. member that we do not need to take lessons about gender equality from his party. We do not need to take lessons about peace and security and building peace from his party.
What we do need to do is address the real concerns, the real questions about the mission and about the fact that bringing democracy to Afghanistan is a goal, not a military objective.
The Conservatives have not answered our questions. They have not brought logical questions to us and therefore have not convinced me that we should vote otherwise.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, for the member opposite, I will answer with only 36 hours' notice and now six hours of debate in this place, when we do not know what the mandate is, how many troops are involved and what the cost is. We know with certainty that a two year mission is certainly not going to be that, because if we are talking about cutting and running today, then certainly it will be that in two years. What we are really talking about is 10 years.
Does the member not think, in order to be honest with our troops, in order to be honest with Canadians, that we should have a proper debate about what this engagement really means and what indeed our engagement in Afghanistan will cost at the end of the day? And what is the mandate and how many troops will it involve?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, those are all good questions. Furthermore, what we need to do is examine it in committee and bring in Canadians and experts to make sure this is a decision not made in haste. It is too important.
We deserve to bring this further than a six hour debate, to make sure that the resources are there and we are doing the right thing, and as I said before, to not be involved in what has been a failure in the south of Afghanistan. We need to work on something that is more constructive, that will build peace and not bring about more of the disaster that is occurring right now in the south of Afghanistan.
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, this government talks of democracy, but the Prime Minister said earlier in the House that, if the vote did not support his decision, he could care less, he would extend the mission for a year.
This government wants to go to Afghanistan to defend the rights of women. However, today, the Fédération des femmes du Québec sent a letter expressing its opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
It added that, if the Government of Canada tried to legitimize this intervention claiming that it is to protect women and children, it had to consider that the largest group of women in Quebec, in solidarity with Afghan women, opposed this military intervention and instead advocated investing in a civil society and increasing democratic development.
What is the truth? Why does this government want the extension? It should tell us why it wants to go to Afghanistan. Why does it want to extend the mission by two years?
What does the hon. member think of all that?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. All I can say to my colleague is that I do not know, but maybe someone else south of the border could tell us. This is not something that we as Canadians signed up for, it is not what we as Canadians understand to be our mission, and it is not what I as a member of Parliament representing my constituents will vote in favour of.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about soldiers tonight, but I think we should also recognize that the civilian defence employees have been playing a large role. Those who have been to Kabul want to go back to Kandahar as well.
We have forgotten the original reason why we went. We invoked article 5 of the NATO resolutions because one of our member countries was attacked. We have not finished the job yet. One of our colleagues mentioned that the soldiers are watching and asked what this is going to do for their morale. The Taliban are watching, the terrorists are watching and terrorists here in Canada are watching. How does he think our soldiers are going to pay for the lack of resolve--
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think what we have to consider is that what our mission initially was and what it is now are entirely different. That is what we have to illuminate for Canadians. The mission is not with the NATO and UN; it is with Operation Enduring Freedom. Canadians know that now. That is why they will know that we should not be supporting this motion and why the NDP will be voting against it.
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some facts and set the record straight about the Liberal position on Afghanistan and our support for the Canadian Forces there.
For many years, humanitarian aid and development assistance were the main goals of the efforts by Canada and our government in Afghanistan following the civil war.
The Liberal Party took a 3-D approach to international operations: diplomacy, defence and development. This is an integrated, global approach to achieving our goals, whether in security and stabilization, humanitarian aid, institution building or economic development.
That is why the Liberal government joined an international coalition and, in 2002, sent some 800 soldiers to the Kandahar region to help flush out the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda members. In August 2005, the Canadian Forces returned to Kandahar and set up a provincial reconstruction team or PRT made up of 250 Canadian Forces members and representatives of CIDA, the RCMP and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The PRT's role is to strengthen the Afghan government's authority in Kandahar and the surrounding area and to help stabilize and rebuild the region. It has also helped monitor security, explain the Afghan national government's policies and priorities to local authorities and facilitate security reforms.
All these facts show the commitment of members on this side of the House to our brave Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. However, we are also committed to helping Afghanistan rebuild democratically. This commitment still holds.
This is the heart of the matter. But the Conservative government's motion has nothing to do with the heart of the matter I just described. The motion before us is just a political strategy that does no credit to the Conservative government.
In fact, the first question we should ask is this: Why did the government decide to propose this motion today when the Canadian Forces' mandate does not have to be reviewed until February 2007?
The second question we must ask is: why does the government not give all the information on this issue to opposition members? Other hon. members before me have already talked about this. For example, I learned today through the media that NATO has asked Canada to lead the international military mission in Afghanistan starting in 2008. Why did the Prime Minister not inform the House of Commons of this? This is something members must take into account when considering the motion before us this evening.
The Prime Minister has created a government that does not share the information it has, whatever its importance, with hon. members or the Canadian public. The culture of secrecy is growing under this government.
Hon. members, and the Canadians they represent, must ask a third question: will the government respect the result of the vote this evening? We are told this vote is urgent and it must be held. In the Netherlands, for example, an indepth debate was held and all the parliamentarians had a chance to speak. Here, in the Canadian House of Commons, we are given a maximum of six hours. Again, we notice a culture of ultra control and of secrecy.
I asked the Prime Minister these questions this afternoon and I have yet to get any answers.
Let it be clear: we, the Liberals on this side of the House stand in solidarity with our soldiers and the Canadian humanitarian workers in Afghanistan. We want to offer our condolences to the family, parents, friends and colleagues of Captain Goddard. However—I am sorry to say so—her death must not make us go off the course we have chosen.
The information the Prime Minister and his party are giving us is not sufficient or satisfactory. We demand answers. Canadians do not want political strategies from their government. They expect a well thought out, wise and logical approach.
It is the only worthwhile approach.
That is what will help our troops and the people of Afghanistan.
Canada's Commitment in AfghanistanGovernment Orders
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, we talked about family tonight and I would like to read just a very short letter I received from a family:
My brother called me last night from Afghanistan. He has reassured me that this current operation is well received by most Afghani civilians. Perhaps we can give this generation the opportunity to be rid of the constant threats...to live a more free lifestyle...I do support further deployments to this region based on what my brother has experienced and been able to share. If I can reach this understanding of the situation despite my obvious bias to my brother's safety, I do wish others with no emotional connection could realize its importance and the potential benefits to the Afghani people.
I ask my hon. colleague, why not?
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my question. It is truly my colleague opposite who represents the government, and it is the responsibility of this government to explain to Canadians what the military must do and why they must do it. It is now their responsibility. That is why Canadians voted for them.