Debates of May 17th, 2006

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I see Bloc members flip-flopping this way, I wonder who might have partisan motives in mind.

That being said, if the member wants assessments, he could contact the organization Rights and Democracy in Montreal, for example, not far from where he lives. It has succeeded in opening a number of women’s centres all over Afghanistan. Through those centres, Rights and Democracy has already trained more than 6,000 women so that they can explain to their peers that they have the right to go to school, to speak and to live in security.

That is only one example among many others. CARE Canada has also provided support for more than 10,000 widows and their families.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to echo the comments of many of the previous speakers in offering my personal condolences to the family of Nichola Goddard. It is with sadness that we received that news today and we offer our condolences to her family, friends and comrades.

I am pleased to participate in this evening's debate. I believe that in extending Canada's diplomatic, development and security mission in Afghanistan we will help to ensure a secure and prosperous future for Afghans.

The situation in Afghanistan is a matter of importance to all Canadians. I welcome this opportunity to express my views and to clearly record where I stand on this important matter.

With the help of Canada and the international community, Afghanistan is emerging from years of war and destruction. It is embracing democracy and taking the lead in ensuring that development benefits are extended to all regions of the country.

Since the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan has advanced considerably in its reconstruction. Canada has supported the country's progress through a comprehensive approach that combines security, diplomacy and development assistance. However, while the Afghan people have made progress, they continue to need our support.

Afghanistan and our 35 allies in Afghanistan are looking to Canada to extend our mission. There will be a new command structure and a new diplomatic and development commitment and so it is important to seek the approval of the Parliament of Canada by voting on the motion that we are now debating.

The Dutch and the British, two other countries with leadership roles in Afghanistan, have already renewed their commitment. Our NATO allies now need to know what Canada is prepared to do.

By extending our mission in Afghanistan, we will show that we are continuing to play a leadership role. We will provide a signal to NATO and the Afghan government that they can count on us as they begin planning the next move to ensure that Afghanistan achieves the peace and stability that will allow its people to prosper in the future.

Canadians and the Afghan people should together be very proud of their accomplishments to date but we must continue to work together for continued success.

On March 9, the Minister of International Cooperation announced that CIDA will maintain its funding in Afghanistan at $100 million for the years 2006-07. This brings Canada's total contribution to $656 million since 2001. With CIDA's contribution, Afghanistan has seen many changes.

I would like to outline some of these changes and successes that have occurred in Afghanistan. It is vital that the Canadian people, as well as my colleagues here in the House of Commons, understand the significance of their contribution and the work that has been done.

Afghanistan took a very important step and has adopted a new constitution. It has also held presidential and parliamentary elections. The national solidarity program has provided to more than half of all Afghan villages and roughly 150,000 families access to funding for basic needs such as health clinics, roads and water wells. Over 4.5 million children are enrolled in formal schools. Over 150,000 Afghans, a large majority of whom are women, have access to credit and financial services.

As a farmer, I am personally pleased with the work we are doing to help the farming community of Afghanistan. We recognize that work needs to be done for the farmers to produce their crops in quantities sufficient to market them for broad sale and distribution. For that reason, our efforts include financing and rural infrastructure, such as roads and irrigation systems, to make it easier for those farmers.

National programs are also offering these farmers assistance so that they can purchase seeds and fertilizer. By encouraging them to focus on crops, such as fruit, nuts, vegetables and grain, they are able to feed their families.

I believe that the country's farmers, with our help, will make a significant contribution to returning stability to Afghanistan.

This is not the time to abandon the Afghan people, quite the contrary. We need to show leadership and compassion, not indifference. We must also work to ensure that the Afghan people are able to look after themselves once Canada is no longer there. Sustainable development is key to their future.

Through the provincial reconstruction teams, the PRTs, CIDA has designated resources of up to $10 million for a confidence in governance program. This program is focused on creating an environment where government led programs at the national, provincial and village levels can begin to flourish. As part of the program, grants are provided to disenfranchised communities so they can begin work projects which they themselves have identified as priorities.

Through its development assistance, Canada has been able to make key contributions to governance and sustainable development in Afghanistan. It is important to remember that by helping Afghanistan to become a stable, democratic and autonomous state, we are helping to ensure that it will never again be used as a haven for terrorists.

While the Afghan people have made progress, the need for our support is still there and it is vital that we extend our mission. Canadians should be proud of all that we are accomplishing in Afghanistan and be prepared to continue our support.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave us numbers on the contributions Canada has made recently and the new contribution that his government is prepared to make over the next two years. How does that compare both militarily and domestically with what the Dutch and the Brits are bringing to solve the problems in Afghanistan? Are we the leaders in the area of retraining the domestic side in particular?

We see the military getting most of the headlines on what we are doing on that side, but on the other side is reconstructing the economy on the domestic and humanitarian side. How does our contribution compare to those of the other allies in Afghanistan?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that our commitment, certainly militarily and through development, is very significant. I also understand that we are ahead of the Dutch, but the Brits have actually donated more. As far as actual dollars, I do not know what the exact amount is but I am sure those numbers could be provided.

The thing that we need to remember is the commitment to the quality of people that we are sending. I have spoken to a number of the opposition members who were over there and they speak very highly of the quality of the troops, the well-trained personnel and United Nations people who know what they are doing in delivering the aid. It is the same as what this government is basing a lot of its decisions on. It is not necessarily the dollar amount as much as the quality of the delivery, the value of the dollars and people that we are putting into that field. We bring a force of military and development people who are second to none in the world.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his presentation. I would also like to remind the House that we in the Bloc Québécois are demanding an enlightened debate to provide answers to questions that have gone unanswered. We have a motion before the Standing Committee on National Defence where experts and National Defence employees will testify.

At present, we are being treated to an unacceptable manoeuvre seeking to hasten a decision. We are having a six-hour debate. A matter of this importance requires true sharing of information.

My question is as follows: Will the member agree that what the Prime Minister and the government are asking—to extend the military mission in Afghanistan by two years—is tantamount to writing a blank cheque or turning a blind eye to the information to which Parliamentarians and Canadians are entitled?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a valid question that we need to know what the costs are. We have had five years to analyze our involvement in this commitment. This debate just caps it off.

Canadians are committed to helping the people of Afghanistan. My constituents are saying to me that those people need help. The farm that I referred to in my speech, when one of my neighbours was in trouble, I did not ask myself what it would cost to go and help. I immediately went and helped. That is what neighbours do.

This is a large world. We are a neighbour to these people. They have less than we have. They are being hurt. The least we can do is help them and help them in every way we can and help them now. If we leave the Afghans on their own for months while we dither about a decision, how many more lives will be lost? We need to make that decision now.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before resuming debate, I would like to share with the House my pleasure in noticing for this important debate some Cubs in the gallery. I do not know who they are, but they are good citizens. I thank them for being here.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend and colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

I join with all members of the House in expressing our pride, our concern, our support and our respect for the many Canadians serving in Afghanistan and who have served there over the last number of years. They are military personnel but they are also humanitarian aid workers, civilian police, members of the Canada Corps monitoring elections and other good governance advisers.

I intend to vote against this motion tonight. Having listened carefully to members speak today and throughout this evening, I do believe that a decision on this motion is premature. We have many months before we have to make this decision. To rush this debate with 36 hours' notice, with six hours of debate to make a life and death decision of this seriousness is a request to make an uninformed decision. The defence committee itself asked to hear expert witnesses to give information on how we are doing, what we intend to do, where we are going, what our exit strategy is, so that we can make an informed decision. That request was denied.

We need to hear from all of the relevant committees hearing witnesses before them from government and outside of government, to find out where we are and where we are going. It is disrespectful if we are asked to make a decision without this information. It is disrespectful to members of Parliament and through us to the public of Canada. Most of all, it is disrespectful to those brave Canadians who are serving or will go to serve in Afghanistan. That disrespect is dangerous. It is putting them in danger without our making an informed decision and having the respect to do that and demand that. In that sense it is unprincipled.

There is a principled reason that we are in Afghanistan right now. It is principled on the best principles of humanitarian intervention as they have developed over the last decade. Canada and members of this chamber have been participants in defining those new principles of humanitarian intervention. It is a just cause.

With those principles in mind, we fashioned a new international policy statement. Canadians in Afghanistan at this time are putting into practice for the first time the international policy statement developed by the previous government. It combines security forces with humanitarian aid workers, with good governance advisers, with civilian police trainers so that it is integrated, so that it is effective.

What is the principled approach going forward before we extend this mission? The principled approach is to get the necessary information to make an informed decision. Take the time that is necessary.

We have heard reference to the Dutch decision to extend. The Dutch parliament did not have 36 hours' notice for a six hour uninformed debate without witnesses, without adequate information. It was debated for 10 months. What is the rush at this time? We need the analysis once we have the information. Then we need to plan the next phase, the role definition, the objectives, the benchmarks, the exit strategy. What do we do in the next situation?

We have the time. We owe it to those Canadians who are bravely serving in Afghanistan and those who will in the future. We owe it to the Afghan people. It is our responsibility in pushing forward to protect as an international norm. We owe it to all of those interests.

In coming to this decision, and I think it is a principled one, I have been advised by my constituents of Vancouver Quadra in a way that is unprecedented in my, albeit short, five year experience in the House. In the last 24 hours I have had more immediate, voluminous and unanimous communication from my constituents to vote against this motion.

I had one single person, in a very advised way, suggest that I support it in a conditional way. I am advised by that and I take that very seriously, with my constituents, but with the principled approach of taking the time to be informed, to be principled, to be respectful, to be secure, and to go forward and take that time.

In voting against this motion tonight, I am not saying no as in “no, never”. I am saying no as in “no, not now”. It is disrespectful because it is uninformed, and it is therefore unprincipled, and I will not make that decision.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the member might take up the issue of the 36 hours and the debate with the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP, who all agreed, in consultation with the Prime Minister, that this debate take place. That is where the problem with the 36 hours before the debate lies, if he wants to know where.

Second, he talks about the fact that this is a unilateral decision. May I remind the member that it was only through this new Prime Minister, who said that he was going to bring these issues before this House so that the House could express an opinion, that we are here to give advice? The right to make this decision continues to belong to the Prime Minister of Canada. He has come to this House to take advice from this House.

I must say that I am unbelievably disappointed in this member, who was a part of the cabinet that made the unilateral decision in the first place to send our soldiers and our humanitarian workers into Afghanistan, into harm's way. How can he possibly stand and talk about a principled decision when in the first place he was part of the decision that was done behind closed doors?

At least our current Prime Minister is prepared to come before the people of Canada and show up the kind of hypocrisy that there is on that side of the House.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question there, but let me respond to the issue of principle. Yes, the previous government took the principled decision on the best principles of humanitarian intervention to send our troops, together with our humanitarian aid workers and our governance advisers with the Canada Corps to supervise elections. Yes, that was principled, but it was time limited. There was a two year time limit.

If we are going to extend that, we owe it to those people, to the Afghans as well as the brave Canadians serving there and those who perhaps will be sent there in the future, to take the time, when we have it, to be informed and to be disciplined and respectful and therefore principled. No information is not respect.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas, I would like to remind members that there are still Cubs in the gallery. They are depending on us to show them an orderly debate.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are not supportive of Canada's military effort in Afghanistan. Many Canadians want to see a withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan. In fact, I am one of those Canadians. I oppose a new mission in Afghanistan, but I would also like to see a safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, starting now. I am glad that the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned that he is now getting many communications from people in his riding. I suspect that many of them support this position.

Many Canadians know that this is not our traditional role of peacekeeping. This is not how Canadians do peacekeeping. We are out there to separate combatants, not to be a combatant, which we are now. We are there to support UN peacekeeping efforts, not to support the American Operation Enduring Freedom. We are there to deliver development aid, but not to deliver it by the military. That is not the Canadian way of doing development work. We are there to do democratic development, but not to do it at the end of the barrel of a gun. That is not the Canadian way.

How does the member for Vancouver Quadra respond to the many people in his constituency and in my constituency in British Columbia and across Canada who think that Canada should not be there now and that we should begin a safe and measured withdrawal from Afghanistan immediately?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we have made a commitment to be there until next February and we should honour it, but we should also consider in an informed, analytical, cautious and therefore principled way whether we should extend or whether we should come back in a safe and appropriate withdrawal.

That decision has yet to be made in an informed way. We hear the member from Kootenay suggest that the Prime Minister brought this into the House for a decision when all indications are that the decision has already been made. I think that is inappropriate. That is disrespectful. We should be trying to convince the government to give us the opportunity to be informed through the relevant committees so that we can make an informed and principled decision.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I begin my comments this evening by offering condolences to the family of Nichola Goddard, a soldier who was lost today, and certainly to her friends and colleagues. I know that tragedy like this is shared by all members in the chamber and indeed by all Canadians. I think tonight's tragedy further underlines the importance and significance of tonight's debate.

Certainly over the last evening, and then again all day today, we in the Liberal caucus have had an opportunity to discuss this very important motion placed before the House this evening. There is a wide array of interventions, of shared opinions, which I believe for the most part are intellectually shared, brutally intellectually and brutally honestly shared, I believe, but respectfully shared as well.

I understand that among my caucus colleagues there are concerns just with the process that has been put forward by the government in coming forward with this motion and with the expedience that is necessary with this particular motion.

We look back to the Dutch decision. That has been referenced several times this evening. They were 10 months in debating that outcome, that extension of two years, so there is some scepticism on this side as to whether or not this is a political ploy on the part of the government.

That said, I came to this debate this evening for two reasons. I came to make sure that our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, and the parents of our soldiers understand that we support them, that this party supports their efforts and that in fact we support their mission.

I have listened to the entire debate and I will say that I also came to this debate for assurances, because I supported the initial intervention. I understood the rationale behind the initial intervention. I came here this evening wanting several questions answered.

I wanted to find out if in fact the essence of the mission would be changed. I wanted to find out if in fact there was going to be a significant number of troops added to the mission. I wanted to find out, if we were asked by the UN to intervene in Darfur, in Haiti or one of the other hot spots in the world, that we would be able to do that.

What I got tonight from the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs were their assurances that the essence of this mission would not change. All of us in the chamber know that the circumstances on the ground in Kandahar have changed. We understand that it has been amplified. It has become tougher, but if it were an easy job, it would not have been Canada that would have been asked to intervene. They would have asked a lesser country.

When things get tough, that is not the time to flinch, and that is why tonight I will stand to support the motion. We all wrestle with the same questions. People come to me all the time and ask what in the name of God our young men and women are doing in Afghanistan. Why are we in Afghanistan? I think that over time we have come to learn what troubles face that nation.

People are able to connect the dots when they watch the evening news and when they think back to 9/11. They know that Afghanistan was just a breeding ground for terrorism. They know that terrorist cells were rampant within that country. When they look at the pictures on TV, they see the squalor, the poverty and the hunger. They see women being abused and terrorized. As for education in Afghanistan, there was virtually no public education system five years ago. People here understand that and they know that at the root of the squalor is the lack of education.

Therefore, we could not stand idly by. That is why I supported this intervention initially. We did not go over there on our own accord. It was a unilateral intervention. We were asked by the UN to join in a NATO mission. We stood, we did the best we could, and we have made a tremendous impact.

Canadians must know that we are making a difference there. For anyone watching this debate tonight it has been articulated. They can see the increase in democracy and in the governance systems. We have been able to make inroads in working with the judicial system. Reference was made to the lack of a public education system. Now 3 million children are enrolled school.

We had a significant take note debate in April in the House. It garnered full support from all parties in the House for the troops and for the mission.

I spoke with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming earlier. He had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan and had been in Kabul. He has seen the things that are taking place now. People are walking the streets. They are doing commerce on the streets. Life is far from normal, but far improved from where they were four years ago.

Kandahar is where Kabul was four years ago. It has been tough. There has been sacrifice for sure, but Canadians have made a difference. We have developed infrastructure. We have invested, as I said, in education and fresh water. We have addressed human rights issues. We have been able to do that over the last number of years. As Canadians, I believe it is expected of us to stand until the job is complete.

I want to identify with the troops. In my riding of Cape Breton—Canso we have a great number of young men and women who have volunteered for the cause and have pursued a career in the armed forces. In my conversations with them, they understand the great task that they face in Afghanistan, but they are up to task.

I want to read to the House an interview that took place this morning on CBC Radio. The House was very saddened when we lost Corporal Paul Davis, a 28 year old who was killed when his armoured vehicle collided with a taxi and flipped over near Kandahar. He left behind a wife and two young girls. It was a sad event. His dad, Jim Davis, is very well known to many of the Nova Scotia MPs in the House and is very respected. He is a great Canadian and obviously a great father. In the interview this morning, Jim Davis said that he hopes all the political parties agree to extend the mission. He said:

I know our troops over there do like to know that they are supported by Canadians at home. The bottom line is, you want a united effort behind this mission.

I respect each member's decision, as they stand and vote this evening, but I want to reiterate that I will be supporting the motion.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that besides having courage over in Afghanistan, there are some people who have a little courage in the House this evening as well.

I have worked on a project with the member for Cape Breton--Canso in the past. We collaborated and saw some action. I will commit to him that I will try to continue that action.

I will relay a story to him and get him to comment on it because he is on the right track. I was conversing with a soldier in Afghanistan. He was part of the troop that was involved in one of the first accidents over there, when people were very seriously hurt. He was explaining how automatically the training they had been given kicked in and how it was absolutely impressive to see that happen under fire.

He also talked to me about going into the communities in Afghanistan and working with the children and the people who had nothing. Even though the troops supplied them with very little, the people were so grateful to receive it. He described that as being the face of Canada.

Could the member comment on that aspect of it? We are seeing some positive results and we are going to be able to measure those results. We are going to see that we are making a difference.

His comments tonight in support of this extension are very valiant and faces some of the other comments from members of his own party. Would he comment on the feeling that he gets when he talks to the troops and people in Afghanistan?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my colleague and I worked together on a project for another group of heroes, our firefighters. Hopefully we can resurrect that in this Parliament.

When we talk to the brave men and women who have seen action in the theatre, they understand they are making a difference in the lives of individual. In order to impact on the bigger picture, it is little victories, one by one. That is what is imperative.

Kabul has come a long way. It has shown tremendous improvement in a great number of areas. Kandahar remains a challenge, but I know there are victories to be had there.

I want to quote my colleague from Scarborough--Guildwood. It came out in our caucus meeting today. It will probably be in the Globe and Mail tomorrow, but regardless, it is worth repeating and getting it on the record. His comment was that there was no military solution for Afghanistan; however, there was no solution in Afghanistan without the military. That is the truth about Afghanistan.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I am listening to someone who is leaving out a lot of information. I would like to give him the opportunity to elaborate on his position.

In fact, I would like him to take this opportunity to tell us much more, particularly when he states that we have made a difference in Afghanistan and that he feels there has been a positive impact on that country. Could he explain this in much more detail, rather than just spouting such phrases that may ultimately prove to be unfounded? I am giving him the opportunity to tell us a little more on this subject.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to share with the House some anecdotal information, but I know, for example, that in areas of democracy, we are over there to try to support a fragile democracy. When we look back over the past four years, we now have 12 million people who have registered for a democratic process.

I talked about how there was virtually no public school system four years ago. There now are three million students registered in the public school system who go to school each day. One-third of those are young females. We did not see that four years ago, so there are obvious improvements--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity today to speak in support of extending our important mission in Afghanistan. As we have all become too aware in recent years, we live in an unstable and unpredictable world, where terrorists operating from failed states can strike anywhere in the world, including here in North America.

On September 11 our vulnerability to terrorism was fully exposed. Among the thousands who lost their lives that day were 24 Canadians. Since then, terrorists have struck in the heartland of several of our closest NATO allies, killing hundreds of innocents in Spain, Turkey and Great Britain, as well as many other places around the world.

We also must not forget that Canada has been identified by al-Qaeda as a target. The present threat to Canada must be taken seriously. However, the government also takes its responsibilities to defend our nation seriously.

Let me be clear. When it comes to defence and security, the government believes in putting Canada first. We will not stand by and allow others to decide the fate of Canadians. That is why the government is committed to strengthening our independent capacity to defend our national sovereignty and security.

As a result, Canada is prepared to meet threats to its security anywhere in the world. That is an important part of the reason why we are in Afghanistan.

The troops we have deployed to Afghanistan, along with our diplomats and humanitarian workers, have helped the Afghan people elect a responsible government to replace the aggressive Taliban regime.

And let us not forget that the Taliban provided training facilities and safe haven to the terrorists behind the September 11 attack.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Calgary East.

Today, Canada's objective in Afghanistan is still to prevent the country from becoming once again a haven for terrorists and their destructive network. As such, our soldiers in Afghanistan are protecting Canada and Canadians. We are in Afghanistan to offer humanitarian aid and to lay the foundations for the country's economic, social and democratic development. We are there to demonstrate Canada's leadership role in the world. We are there because it is in our national interest.

Canada has more than 2,000 men and women in Afghanistan. Most of them are in the Kandahar region, a known Taliban stronghold. Our soldiers serving there truly believe in our mission. They know that their efforts are bearing fruit. These brave soldiers, sailors and airmen and women are true heroes, heroes who are putting their lives on the line to protect the lives of their fellow Canadians here at home.

We are proud of our fighting men and women and we are grateful for the sacrifices they are making to defend us on the other side of the world.

Our mission in Afghanistan includes activities from humanitarian assistance to rebuilding roads and institutions. Our mission would be impossible without the Canadian Forces.

Our soldiers are helping to create the security environment that will allow the Afghan people to live safe lives and rebuild their communities. They are working for the return of stability to the country. They are also preventing insurgents from disrupting the establishment of this secure environment.

We are also making substantial progress in development and diplomacy. For instance, Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian development assistance, with $656 million pledged since 2001. Our government will allocate an additional $310 million, raising Canada's total contribution to nearly $1 billion over 10 years.

Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan are also helping the Afghan people rebuild their political institutions. To support our diplomatic affairs, we will establish a permanent embassy in Kabul.

Individual Canadians, and the private organizations they support, are also doing their part to help Afghanis. For example, CARE Canada has people on the ground involved in food distribution, road construction, irrigation system repair, erosion control, water and sanitation system rehabilitation, home schooling and growing small businesses. These efforts must not be allowed to lapse in February.

With the help of Canada and the international community, the Afghan people are triumphing over tyranny and taking back their country. The signs of progress are clear. Shattered communities and lives are being put back together with international help and reconstruction efforts are helping reduce poverty and misery.

Schools, hospitals and roads are being rebuilt. Millions of people are now able to vote. Women are enjoying greater rights and opportunities than were ever imagined under the Taliban. Close to four million refugees have returned home.

Clean water is a growing reality for thousands of villages. Tens of thousands of small arms and heavy weapons have been collected and secured. Land mine removal is under way and more than 4.5 million Afghan children, more than one-third of them girls, are now enrolled in school. Last but not least, critical instruments of national security such as the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police are increasing their capabilities, and reaching out to all areas of Afghanistan. Canadians are playing a key role in their training.

These efforts are showing positive results. They have undeniably enhanced the ability of the Afghan security forces to respond to threats, whether they are terrorist threats to the new Afghan national assembly, or drug lords pursuing their illicit trade. Our efforts to help bring security to Afghanistan, strengthen governance, and reduce poverty are making a real difference in the lives of Afghanis.

That is why the House should support the government's decision to extend and expand Canada's mission in Afghanistan to February 2009. Through this decision we are demonstrating to our allies and the rest of the world that Canada is a country that can be counted on in tough times.

Canada's history is filled with examples of how we have accepted our responsibilities, be they at home or overseas. We have always been willing to help those in need and we have always been steadfast in our support for democracy, individual rights and the rule of law.

We know that some think we should retreat from Afghanistan and devote ourselves exclusively to our own domestic affairs. They speak of costs and casualties. Let me tell them this. Yes, there is a cost to protecting Canada, our freedom and our interests. There has always been a cost, but they are mistaken if they think we can separate ourselves from the real world and the real threat to Canadians.

Others suggest that extending the mission there to 2009 for a total of seven years since Canadians first put boots on the ground is too long. To them, I say there was a Canadian military presence in Cyprus for 30 years. For 33 years Canadian troops kept the peace in the Golan Heights. While our Afghan mission will take only a fraction of that amount of time, it is clear that in the pursuit of lasting peace and security, our Canadian commitments must not be arbitrarily constrained.

A Canada first defence policy means accepting that Canada must engage in an often dangerous world beyond our peaceful shores, that we have responsibilities when it comes to international peace, security and stability.

The Canadian commitment in Afghanistan is a clear demonstration of how Canada can be counted upon to act on these responsibilities. Afghanistan must have the opportunity to develop into a more stable, secure and democratic state so that it does not again become a base for tyrants and terrorists.

I urge all members to support this motion, and may God keep our land glorious and free.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about one thing. I am supportive of our mission and our troops, but the mission we spoke about in the House a little over five weeks ago was to end in February 2007.

The government is asking for a new and expanded mission without even consulting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As a member of Parliament I am insulted by the fact that we have only six hours to deal with such an important issue as this, an issue that we should be discussing with Canadians and receiving their opinion. My own constituents have not been consulted about this expanded mandate. I am frustrated that, given the limited time, I will not even be able to speak on this issue but only be able to get my views across by asking a question. It is extremely frustrating.

The government is asking for a blank cheque. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the Dutch, but the Dutch had 10 months to debate this issue. The Prime Minister is giving us six hours to debate the merits of this important and critical expanded mission.

I feel that my rights and those of my constituents have not been heard. I feel sad about this particular debate. The Prime Minister talked about the fact that this was requested by NATO. We do not know that NATO has requested it. Has there been a letter from NATO? Has anybody seen a letter from NATO? There has been no request.

The member said he was concerned about our image internationally, but we are being laughed at by the fact that we are not respecting the Kyoto protocol and not going forward on it.

I am curious to find out where the member wants to go in terms of our commitment. Does he not feel that we should have a proper debate instead of just a six hour debate?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that emotions are running high and we want to address this matter with the seriousness that it deserves.

In his opening remarks the member mentioned that we are expanding the mission. I want to clarify for his benefit and perhaps all those who are watching tonight that we are not in fact expanding this mission. We are simply extending the mission beyond its current mandate. Let there be no mistake. That is what we are doing. We are not trying to carve off more of a responsibility than we currently accepted. We just want to continue that responsibility.

What is happening this evening is historic. When the troops were first dispatched to Afghanistan four or five years ago, there was no debate in this Chamber. There was no discussion. There was no six hour debate or two hour debate. There was nothing. There was no vote at that time either. What is happening this evening is actually very historic.

With all due respect to my colleague, our troops have been in Afghanistan for nearly five years and during that period of time there has been ample opportunity for all members of this Chamber to evaluate the progress that we have made there. We are simply trying to extend that mission while respecting the security needs of our operations in the process.

I notice the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore is here this evening and I appreciate his presence--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member knows that we do not mention the presence or absence of other members in the House.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker.

I want to quote what the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore said some time ago because it gets to the core of the issue here. A lot of members have talked about the need for increased development assistance to Afghanistan or other nations, but the reality is there cannot be that sort of development without a secure environment. It simply does not exist. People of good faith and people of goodwill will not enter into that environment without knowing that their lives are not at risk.

I quote from Hansard of April 10, 2006, not that long ago. The member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore said:

What I learned there is that we cannot do development in Afghanistan unless we control the security situation. The schools and clinics we build by day are burned down by night unless we have the troops to secure the development gains we have made.

That is exactly what we are talking about here. We are making tremendous gains in Afghanistan and we want to continue to do so. We can only do so if our men and women in uniform are there playing a key role.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before we resume debate, I would like to ask the cooperation of all members that during the question and comment period we restrict the length of the comments, so that there can be more questions and more answers. Right now I am resuming debate and I recognize the hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.