Debates of May 17th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I join all Canadians in expressing our deep sadness and sorrow at the loss of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. We will all remember her sacrifice.

Canada's commitment to Afghanistan is consistent with Canada's support of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights around the world. We are playing a leadership role in Afghanistan. Under the umbrella of a UN-NATO mission, 36 nations, including Canada, have made much progress to date, but laying the groundwork for democratic and economic development takes time and requires sustained support.

Our brave men and women in Afghanistan are helping to make Afghanistan safe for reconstruction. With our integrated approach consisting of diplomats, the Canadian Forces, development workers and civilian police, Canada is helping the Afghan people bring stability to their country, strengthen governance and reduce poverty. We are there at the request of the Afghan government.

Already we have made a significant contribution to the stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Yes, the mission is complex and risky and yes, it is definitely very different from the situations in the past. The world became a much less predictable place. The nature of the threat has changed, but we must not waiver in our resolve.

On September 11, 2001 it became painfully clear that Canada and Canadians were vulnerable in a way we had never thought possible before. We know we must defend and secure Canada at home, but we must also know that we must deal with threats abroad. This means dealing with threats in Afghanistan.

The terrorists who implemented the September 11 attacks trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda terrorist network, financed and inspired by Osama bin Laden, found a welcome haven under the Taliban government of Afghanistan. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist, first denying women opportunities for education or work, publicly executing people without due process, terrorizing an entire population and driving the country into the depths of poverty.

In late 2001 coalition forces, including Canadian forces, helped to drive the Taliban from power and into hiding in the remote hills of Afghanistan, and to crush the al-Qaeda network that it had harboured; crushed but not eliminated. The battle was won, but the international effort to stabilize Afghanistan has only just begun.

To ensure that Afghanistan was never again to be used as a haven for terrorism, it needed a democratically elected authoritative government. It needed the capacity to provide the rule of law, security and respect for human rights throughout the country. It also needed an economy capable of providing for the basic needs of the Afghan people and a capacity to curtail illicit opium production. This is a long term project that requires the long term commitment of the international community.

Afghanistan has achieved an enormous amount in only a few years. It has a new constitution. It has a democratically elected president and parliament. Its army is being rebuilt and its police forces are being retrained. Women and girls now have the freedom to go to school and legitimate businesses are emerging. Hospitals, schools and roads are being rebuilt.

With the help of Canada and the international community the Afghan people are triumphing over tyranny and taking back the country, but Afghanistan remains fragile. Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants continue to try to destabilize Afghanistan. Opium cultivation accounts for almost 60% of the country's GDP. We must stay the course until Afghanistan is able to withstand these pressures.

NATO has played a vital role in the achievements to date and will remain key to future progress in Afghanistan.

For Canada, our participation in NATO ensures that we have an equal voice in the world's strongest military alliance, one dedicated to defending the values that are fundamental to the United Nations and to Canadians, and one dedicated to addressing the new threats that we all face today.

None of us can go alone.

My government is very aware that our engagement in Afghanistan carries risks but we also know that what we are trying to do, to create a stable and secure Afghanistan that is no haven for terrorists, is worth those risks. It is because the long term security of Canada and Canadians is at stake.

I will conclude by offering my thanks to the Canadian men and women who are serving on our behalf in Afghanistan. We mourn for those who have died and we stand firm with those who continue to strive for peace and security in Afghanistan.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at Canada's reputation, for many years we, as a country and as a nation, have been the champions of human rights, of peace, of stability, of diplomacy and of democracy throughout the world. The Liberal Party and the previous Liberal governments have always been a champion in ensuring that those rights are upheld, along with our international reputation.

It is quite interesting that in the last 100 days, since the new Conservative government has been in power, Conservative members are all of a sudden concerned about our international reputation and Canada's foreign policy. If this was a priority for the government, why was it not listed as one of the top five priorities that Mr. Harper wanted to address? In addition to this--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has mentioned the right hon. Prime Minister by his name. I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to respond to her question.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member for Brampton—Springdale would accuse my party of just having human rights now. If the member looks at the record she will see that we were the ones who supported the deployment in the first place. We stood behind democratic reform and we stood up for human rights. I find those comments intolerable.

I have no idea what she means when she talks about 100 days. It was her government and the prime minister before her when he was in the Persian Gulf who said that we would be there as long as there was no shooting and then we will leave. What kind of commitment is that? She is talking about human rights. We are not flip-flopping. We stand for human rights.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the conflict in Afghanistan has gone on since the attacks on September 11, 2001. All the efforts are meant in some way to punish the Taliban, who allowed groups of terrorists to train on Afghan territory. The government in place at the time no longer exists. These people are no longer in power.

We know now that the Taliban are in the South of Afghanistan and people say in the north of Pakistan, as well. The conflict could broaden.

As the conflict could deepen, could splinter, is there an exit plan to protect our soldiers in the event the conflict becomes like the war in Vietnam or Iraq?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have stated, we have three approaches to the Afghanistan crisis: military, development and building of democratic government in Afghanistan. Once we have achieved those objectives with our international partners we will be able to leave Afghanistan proudly.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan, no doubt, is a country that needs assistance and I strongly support helping the people of Afghanistan. However, Canada is in Afghanistan, thanks to the previous government, in a combat role, a counter-insurgency role under U.S. command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Many Afghans, including the Afghan Women's Organization, do not support Canada's combat role because it interferes with peace, security and rebuilding. I will vote against the motion tonight.

Why is the government ignoring the wishes of so many Afghan people and the majority of Canadians who want to return to security and peace building but not a counter-insurgency mission?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how we can do development over there, how we can build schools and build whatever she is exactly saying about development without bringing security over there. Does she want human rights workers to be killed over there? What does she want? Our forces are helping in order to rebuild the country.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time this evening with the hard-working member for Ottawa Centre.

This time last week I was in Afghanistan in my dual capacity as the foreign affairs critic and the international cooperation critic for the New Democratic Party. I want to say that I was very grateful for that opportunity. I wish I had more time this evening to share some of those experiences but I know that as a result of the collapsed timetable and, I regret to say, a certain amount of political posturing by the government, we find ourselves in this debate this evening with restricted rules and no ability to amend the motion that is before us.

It creates howling from government benches but those are simply the facts which Canadians know.

This is an important opportunity this evening to talk about Canada's future role in Afghanistan. Let me say clearly that nothing in my short time in Afghanistan persuaded me that we ought not to have a role. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that it is exceedingly important for us to engage constructively in a process of comprehensive peace-building. However, that is not what we are doing in Kandahar and that is one of the principal concerns that my party has in voting against the motion this evening.

My first thoughts on this occasion turn to the tragic loss of Captain Nichola Goddard in carrying out her service in Afghanistan. She paid the ultimate price. She sacrificed her life. I want to express my condolences to her family. I know her family includes the troops with whom she was serving, because we all know how close they become as members of a team working in harm's way on behalf of their nation.

My thoughts also turn to the families and the loved ones of those who are there now serving. In that regard, I want to quote briefly from a very thoughtful letter I received yesterday on the eve of this debate from the mother of a young man who is now serving in Kandahar. In part, this is what she says:

Every time I hear about an attack or an accident I do not rest until I receive word from my son. I'm sure every parent of a soldier serving in these high-risk areas feels the same. There are twenty or thirty checks of the computer a day, and prayers, and checks of...news.... I would be more in support of continuing to have our troops overseas in such circumstances, and serving as peacekeepers if I felt truly informed.

Unfortunately, we go away from this debate tonight with far fewer answers than we need as parliamentarians and Canadians need to be able to say that we are adequately informed.

She continues to say:

If I felt our soldiers weren't overextended, working murderous hours, and possibly becoming less effective and responsive as they succumb to exhaustion and the pressure of the situation [I would feel better].

Perhaps some of what I share will help...in tomorrow's debate over the extension of time [proposed] in Afghanistan. Again, I wonder why it's painted the way it is in the paper today - that if we choose not to extend the time, that means we don't support our military.

We must keep in mind that this is the mother of a young man serving today in Kandahar. She goes on to say:

The assumption is that it will filter to the troops who will feel we don't support them.

This idea that we aren't supporting Canadian troops is an illogical argument, one put forth to silence [legitimate questions] and to gain what the military leadership and the government wish...but is it in the best interest of Canadians.

She finishes by saying:

I support the military but I do not support the wasteful and senseless loss of Canadian lives. No amount of control over an Afghanistan village is worth the loss of my son's life or his health...to me as his mother. I support the military, support [genuine ] peacekeeping, but not with callous disregard for the lives of our youths.

I am sure that those sentiments express the feelings of a great many parents and other loved ones of young people and people of all ages serving in Kandahar today.

Notwithstanding the incredible commitment, the competence and the courage of the young men and women serving today in Kandahar, I am deeply disturbed by both the nature and the tone of this debate tonight. I do not know which it is, but either wilfully or out of ignorance, a great deal of misinformation and deception has been created here in this debate tonight by government members, and from time to time I regret to say, from members of the official opposition as well.

There have been many claims about how much our current mission has contributed to improved security and improvement in the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is very important that we think about this as we contemplate our future commitments. As I have said, we need to make future commitments. We need to understand that the gains and the improvements that have been made in Kabul have not been made under an Operation Enduring Freedom mission, not under the U.S. search and kill aggressive combat effort that is in full flight in Kandahar. That is a very important thing for us to realize.

I am deeply disturbed that there has been no acknowledgement that there is indeed a difference and that it makes any difference whether we are there under a NATO led mission or whether we are there under Operation Enduring Freedom. I just about fell over when the defence minister stated that he considers the NATO and Operation Enduring Freedom missions as being the same.

For the record, here is the NATO agreed upon statement on the difference between the two missions. The ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom relationship is described as follows:

ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the ongoing US-led military operation in Afghanistan, will continue to have separate mandates and separate missions. ISAF will conduct to focus on its stabilization and security mission whilst OEF will continue to carry out its counter-terrorism mission. Clear command arrangements will coordinate, and where necessary deconflict efforts within the two missions as agreed under the auspices of the operational plan.

How could the defence minister possibly say it did not really matter whether we talk about one or the other? Actually, the Leader of the Opposition made more or less the same comment. He indicated that it did not really worry him that we were not operating under a NATO led mission.

Let me go further. There has been an attempt tonight on the part of the government to completely ignore, not acknowledge the fact that there is a raging debate going on within NATO around that counter-insurgency mission that is taking place in Kandahar. It is clear and it is acknowledged by everyone from Donald Rumsfeld to a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations that there are serious problems with that counter-insurgency mission. In fact, President Karzai himself went to the U.S. and said it was time to put an end to it.

Let me end by saying that there is a reason people say that truth is very often the first victim of war. We have heard far too little in the way of concrete facts on the basis of which Canadians could feel reassured that the government knows what it is proposing we get into. It is clear that the responsible thing for us to do is vote against this motion because it is based on a flawed mission and is not revealing enough information.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Halifax, the former leader of the New Democratic Party.

I was with her in Afghanistan. I know that she met with members of the Canadian Forces. I know that she spoke with representatives of CIDA who are doing important work. I know that she takes very seriously her role as a member of Parliament and someone who represents a constituency and community in Nova Scotia that has many proud representatives of the Canadian military.

I agree with much of her commentary about the need to do more on the capacity building and the development side. She knows, as I do, that education is the bridge, that the humanitarian efforts have to continue. Yet all of that happens because of defence and boots on the ground. I heard comments about misinformation and somehow disinformation coming from the government.

We are having an open debate here. The Prime Minister made his intentions very clear, unlike the government in the previous administration who had no debate and no vote on the subject, and deployed troops for two years in that capacity.

Amidst the rhetoric and the commentary tonight, I will read a quote from the hon. member, and it states, “It is not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes we should. We need to be. We need to be in for the long haul”. The member for Halifax said that three days ago, so what I would like to know, was the truth of that statement a victim of war or was it a victim of the usual NDP hypocrisy on deployment of troops?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. Let me say that I did not just say that three days ago. I said that every day I was in Afghanistan and every day since. I absolutely think we need to commit to a long term--

[An hon. member]

How are you doing now?

[An hon. member]

You can't have it both ways.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Halifax has the floor.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to hear the foreign affairs minister of the Government of Canada say that we are going to bring about peace because of boots on the ground, the minister must know--and if he does not know, it is very worrisome--that peace is going to come about because we commit to a comprehensive peace process in which the military must have a role supporting the diplomatic work and the development work--

[An hon. member]

Without the military, without soldiers?

[An hon. member]

Alexa, give it up.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. I invite the hon. member for Halifax to look at the Chair who has called order. I will assume that the question which was asked by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has been answered, and I now recognize the hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to start--

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth is rising on a point of order. The Speaker would like to hear the point of order and the only way that the Speaker can understand the point of order is if he hears it clearly. So, I ask for the cooperation of all members. I will sit and listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Speaker recall the advice of the Deputy Speaker earlier who reminded us that our troops and Canadians are watching this debate. I would remind Mr. Speaker that it is his duty to call upon those members who were interrupting the member who was just speaking and attempting to answer the question, heckling the member, that it is his obligation--and he is now cutting off my microphone. I find this unacceptable, sir, I find this unacceptable partisanship.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!