Debates of April 19th, 2007

Opposition motion—Afghanistan

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. We are going to have a little bit of order for the rest of the speech by the Chief Government Whip. If members take issue with something that is said in the speech, then they can certainly respond to that in questions and comments. I have not heard any unparliamentary language yet. As soon as I hear something, I will stand up and stop it, but we need to have some order as we finish off the debate in this round.

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you are going to add that time to my short 10 minutes.

We on this side of the House believe fervently that we are combating the most evil people in the world today. We believe that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are evil.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You supported the mission. We initiated the mission. You do not know what you are talking about, that is your problem.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

You do not support the mission.

The reality is we believe that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, a war on evil people, just as we were during the first and second world wars. We believe that these people have to be brought to justice.

As I was about to say, imagine if in 1939 this place passed a motion saying we were going to engage in combat, we are going to try and bring Adolf Hitler to justice and all the Nazis who support him, but we were only going to do it for a couple of years. Imagine if we said in 1943 that we were going to cut and run, we were going to get out of there. Imagine if we said whether we won or lost, whether they were brought to justice or not, we were going to quit. Imagine that.

Those members say they believe in the mission. Not a chance. The mission is to bring these people to justice. The mission is to ensure democracy and freedom in Afghanistan. The mission is to ensure that country is never used again as a base for terrorism, as a base to launch worldwide terrorist attacks such as the one that took the lives of over 2,000 people at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and in that hijacked aircraft--

[An hon. member]

Including Canadians.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

--including Canadians.

Countries have tried isolationism in the past. Countries have tried pacifism in the past, and it does not work when dealing with evil people and evil regimes. Let us look at history.

Do I wish that our NATO allies would step up to the plate more in southern Afghanistan and carry some of the heavy lifting that we and a few others have been doing? Of course I do. The troops do as well. They told me that when I was there. We all do. I would remind people who are viewing this debate today that this is nothing new.

Did our forefathers wish the Americans had become engaged in World War I before 1917? Of course they did. What did the Americans learn by being isolationists before 1941 when for nearly two and a half years Canada and our allies carried the fight with the Nazis? They learned, much to their horror, with Pearl Harbour, that isolationism does not work when we are dealing with evil.

The NDP has suggested that somehow we can reason with the Taliban, somehow we can negotiate with al-Qaeda. That is ridiculous. That does not even warrant serious debate. There is only one way to defeat evil and that is to fight it with all our strength, to fight it with all our courage every day, and to fight it united. If we give in to temptation and support this ridiculous motion, evil will triumph.

The Liberals may honestly believe that this debate and this motion will somehow give some comfort to the men and women in Afghanistan and to the grieving families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, but it will not. It will only give comfort to our enemies, to the Taliban.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to pay my condolences to the families and friends of yet another lost Canadian soldier.

After listening very carefully to that speaker, I would suggest to him that he read the points that this motion is based on. He was totally off in a different direction by talking about the second world war. Let us put everything into perspective.

As the Leader of the Opposition and as the defence critic clearly pointed out earlier today, this is an international mission. Canada committed to a certain timeframe. Unfortunately, the Conservative government prematurely committed to extend it without any conditions. I want the member to answer to those so-called caveats. The government is stuck with this without being able to take off these so-called caveats.

If we are in this mission together like we were during the second world war that he referred to, we should engage collectively. Other nations do not want to get involved. They say they suckered the Canadians to be there because we committed without putting in the terms of engagement first.

How does the member answer to his people and to the military? It is shameful to say that we do not support our military because we want to debate this motion.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I singled out the part of the motion that I find personally the most reprehensible and the most offensive.

The member talks about conditions. What are the conditions for extraction? What are the conditions for ending the mission? As one of my colleagues who spoke before me said, the condition is success.

This is the part the Liberals do not understand and that I was trying to communicate. I hope, for the viewing public at home today and those in the gallery, that I am doing a reasonable job of trying to communicate this. When someone is in a life and death struggle against evil there are no conditions for withdrawal. It is either win or lose and that is how simple it is.

For the other parties to somehow suggest that we can set some parameters around a fight against evil is extremely shortsighted. It does a complete disservice to both the men and women in Afghanistan on the front lines and their families back home.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find it actually quite terrifying to listen to the chief government ship. He states that all the Taliban are evil, that there is nothing but winning or losing, and that there is nothing but a military approach to dealing with the insecurity and the very severe complex problems that exist in Afghanistan today.

He advocates in a very specific way that not only should we completely ignore the idea that supporting our troops means asking tough questions on their behalf, doing our homework and where the mission is failing actually being prepared to stand up against the abuse from the government to say so and, if necessary, against public opinion to say let us find alternative approaches. His suggestion was that we should actually take our lead from the troops themselves on what the military strategy should be.

Does the member, in taking that position, actually reject totally the position that has been expressed publicly again and again by many distinguished military leaders who say that there is a very important reason why parliamentarians are responsible to make these decisions and not the troops and--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. chief government whip.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the agreement that we have entered into with the government of Afghanistan and our allies, the Afghanistan Compact, very clearly lays out the conditions of success. The key there is the conditions of success.

That is why I return to my earlier point. There is a struggle here against an evil, the likes of which are the Taliban. For that member to suggest that we can negotiate with people that would come into a school and behead a teacher in front of a class because that person dared to teach a female child, a girl, that somehow we can negotiate with that type of evil, is ridiculous. There is only one way and that is to engage--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There has been quite a lot of disorder in the last few minutes. The hon. chief government whip has about 20 seconds left to respond to the question. I would like to be able to hear him.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. To the troops on the ground in the forward bases that I was so privileged and honoured to talk with that are engaging the Taliban in active combat, as they are today, that are pushing back the Taliban to win the rights and freedoms for the people of Afghanistan, I am keeping my promise.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

As I stand here to debate this motion today, I want to first extend my deep sympathy to the families and friends of all the soldiers who paid the ultimate price and sacrificed their lives serving their country. I also want to wish all who have been injured a full and speedy recovery.

Today I am going to refrain from using any partisan finger pointing. Given the magnitude of this matter, I am hoping that by avoiding partisan accusations parliamentarians will actually debate the substance of this motion and not be distracted by one-upmanship in order to make a point. This discussion is not only critical for Canadians and our Canadian soldiers, but it is also very important for Afghanistan and our international partners.

Today many doubts persist about the future and success of our current mission in Afghanistan. The goals of the current mission in Kandahar appear to be ambiguous and uncertain. Canadians have many questions about our strategy in achieving our goals and about tangible signs of success. They have questions about the length of this mission. They have questions about the exit transition. Surely these questions deserve real discussion and responsible answers.

Canadians supported the initial deployment in Afghanistan. The original goals were to help the Afghani nation dispose of horrible, radical and destructive elements and to participate in helping establish a democratic system that would enable genuine progress. Recently though, Canadians have been observing a marked change in tone and scope when it comes to this mission.

It appears that the current approach is not working. It is unquestionable that the Taliban has gained popularity and support. It is undeniable that opium growth has more than doubled over the past year. It is a fact that our Canadian troops have been suffering more casualties.

I want to encourage all parliamentarians who are going to engage in this discussion to avoid the silly accusation we have already heard today that this debate offends our troops or represents a lack of support for their sincere work. Parliamentarians and Canadians are extremely proud of our soldiers and support them wholeheartedly.

This is exactly why we are having this debate and this is exactly why Canadians are watching this debate. Our support must be expressed by being responsible when making serious decisions about their future deployments. So for anyone who is thinking about it, please spare us the rhetoric and help us focus on a healthy, serious and effective debate that will honour the sacrifice of our soldiers and their keen willingness to serve our country.

I would also caution any parliamentarian who will spend most of their time describing the ruthlessness of the Taliban and its supporters. All Canadians are aware of the Taliban. This not about whether the Taliban is evil. What we need to examine is how effectively we are helping the Afghan people to progress and to prosper.

If our mission strategy is to chase Taliban elements around the rural areas of Afghanistan, it would be fair to assume that this would become an endless and counterproductive objective. This would only embolden the Taliban and stir resentment among villagers.

The best approach to defeat the Taliban is to marginalize it by offering hopeful alternatives to Afghans and shutting the door on its attempts to exploit frustrated and angry villagers. We must focus our efforts on creating a vibrant and rewarding environment where civil institutions are strong, job opportunities are growing, political expressions are encouraged and education is accessible.

If we make this mission into a pure military operation, no one wins. If we frame this mission as a form of retribution, it loses sight of its real intended objectives, and if we focus on engaging the Taliban in an arms race as the minister has said, it is bound to turn into an aimless and endless goal. Our soldiers have served honourably for five years in Afghanistan and by 2009 it will be seven years.

We must take a long, hard look at what we have accomplished to date, celebrate our successes and learn from our experience. It is unacceptable that we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well.

There are many real and serious questions. The government is making these questions more urgent by remaining ambiguous and unclear about the future of the mission.

Canadians are uncertain about the intention of the government in regard to the future of our deployment. We all know that Canada is committed until 2009. What we do not know is the intention of the government beyond that. The Conservatives insinuate that we could be there for an additional 10 to 15 years, but when they are asked direct questions, they avoid clear answers.

With this motion, we are hoping to send a clear message to all Canadians about what the House of Commons expects in the future for the mission. By voting to support the motion, we are making it clear that we want our troops to leave the southern part of Afghanistan by 2009. By voting against the motion, parliamentarians will further confuse Canadians and send mix messages about what are our goals. Canadians want answers to legitimate and fair questions. They expect these questions to be handled thoughtfully and openly. We do not want to lose our focus and get distracted by blind emotions or ideology.

The mission is multidimensional, complex and it deserves thoughtful deliberation. Simplistic and one dimensional slogans are not satisfactory. One need only examine history or current world affairs, including what is happening in Iraq, to see that even the most sincere intentions can end in failure if various cultural, humanitarian, military and economical aspects are not considered. Reflecting on these factors is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength. Ignoring these factors can only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and negligence.

Canadians want us to ensure that our brave troops are sent on peacekeeping missions with well defined goals, a clearly outlined strategy and a well defined time commitment. Canadians can also see that we need to re-examine our current strategy and clearly explain the horizons of our goal and scope.

That is exactly why I am supporting the motion.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, as well as myself and others, had an opportunity to talk to a lot of veterans or people from the military who have been in Afghanistan, who know what is going on and have been on the front lines. There is one person I talk to extensively about it. He spent over a year there. He is a pretty close member of my family.

In 2006 there was a vote in the House that said we would stay in Afghanistan till 2009. The first question I had from some of the people who had been there was, “Whatever makes people in the House of Commons think that by 2009 it would be the time to move out? Whatever put it in their heads that would be the time to leave Afghanistan?”

One person was seriously aggravated, asking if we were saying that we should pull out of Afghanistan at a specific time, that we should give the enemy enough time to survive until then and let them rebuild and become very strong so maybe they could bring the battle to the soil of Canada, to the North American continent. He asked if we did not realize that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were trying to destroy western civilization. He wondered why we were saying there would be an end when we would have to pull back. He said that they would be on our soil and that we would have to defend our people on our land. If that was the case, why were we not going after them?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with veterans and with soldiers. There is no doubt that there is a difference of opinion among many soldiers and veterans about the conduct of the mission.

I would request the hon. member to ask the Prime Minister why he put the motion that the mission would only be extended to 2009.

Today we are asking what the government's plan is beyond 2009. Many of us are saying that we must pull out by 2009. Is the member telling us, are the Conservatives telling us that they want to stay beyond 2009? How long do they want to stay? What is it they want to accomplish? Is it to help the Afghani people or is it to go on a witch hunt, killing everybody around the rural areas of the Taliban? What do they want to accomplish? Tell us what they want to accomplish.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Destroy the enemy. That's what war is all about.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Let us have a little order for the rest of the questions and comments.

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Mississauga—Erindale and I do not question his sincerity for a moment. In fact, I think he is one of the more serious and thoughtful members of the Liberal Party in Parliament.

Last evening I had the opportunity to meet and speak with a young man I had not met before. He was recently honoured in this community for his contribution to a greater understanding of what was happening in Afghanistan and for his contribution to peace building.

He stated, unequivocally, from a position of knowledge, intelligence and thoughtfulness, that without question, despite the sincerity, courage and effectiveness of our troops in Kandahar, what we were doing in Kandahar today was making the situation worse. There is greater insecurity, more deaths directly and indirectly of civilians, a great loss of life to our troops. He argued vociferously that we needed to end the Kandahar mission of aggressive combat and enter into meaningful negotiations, peace building activity and--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will not have time for the rest of that question.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale has about 45 seconds to respond.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is saying. Canada right now has a commitment until 2009. What Liberals will continue to do from now until then is urge the government to exercise wisdom in its decisions of how it conducts the mission and to focus on diplomacy and development as well as defence.

However, the motion talks about what we will do beyond 2009 and encourages the government to withdraw our troops after 2009.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first would like to salute our brave men and women in Afghanistan who put their lives on the line every day for this country.

Having visited our troops in Afghanistan in May 2006, I can tell members they are the most committed personnel we will ever see and they understand why they are there. I believe all members of Parliament, regardless of party, support our troops in the field.

However, we should understand this motion. The motion clearly says that we will end our military engagement in Kandahar in February 2009. It does not preclude other Canadian activity, military, diplomatic or development-wise, in other parts of the country. It talks about in Kandahar.

This is not solely a Canadian mission. Under the auspices of the United Nations, and NATO in particular, we are shouldering the responsibility along with other NATO allies. What is important to keep in mind is that the government has not announced, in terms of rotation, to NATO who will come after us, as we did before, under the previous Liberal government, in Kabul where the Turks came in after Canadian troops had served there. Therefore, the issue is about notifying NATO that someone else will have to step up to the plate.

We are not abandoning Afghanistan. Nor are we walking away. We may in fact have a different focus in Afghanistan after February 2009. However, as long as we are in Kandahar until February 2009, this party and our leader has made it very clear that we support our men and women in the field. Do not suggest otherwise. To be very clear, we support our men and women.

We want to point out that Canada has contributed significantly in the field. Although some NATO allies have covenants about terms of engagement, we believe very strongly on this side of the House that the government needs to continue to pressure our NATO allies to put more troops in the field and to assist in shouldering the responsibilities that we have under this mission. Now we only have six countries out of twenty six that are prepared to do so. That is not good enough. Canadians are prepared to, in some cases, give the ultimate sacrifice, but we cannot do it alone. It is not solely a Canadian mission.

We also need to ensure that the government puts more pressure on Pakistan. Having been in Pakistan on two occasions, recently in February, I had the opportunity to speak with both the foreign affairs chairs for the Senate and the House of Pakistan. They indicated they had 80,000 troops along the border, but, clearly, it is a very porous border. Obviously there are also political issues in Pakistan itself, but it recognizes the contribution of this country. Pakistan is stepping up to the plate more than it has in the past. Prime Minister Aziz had indicated very strongly to me that it was working with their allies, including Canada and the United States, to seek out, capture or destroy Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. However, we need more diplomatic pressure, and the government can do that.

The problem is the focus of the government has been purely military. It has not been on the other two aspects, which are critically important, diplomacy and development, which I will speak about a little later.

We have an opportunity not only in assisting and training the national Afghan army but, in particular, the national police. Back in May 2006, six RCMP officers and one officer from Charlottetown were in Kandahar helping, but that is not enough. We have a lot of opportunity and expertise to assist the police. One of the problems, quite frankly, is they are not paid on a regular basis. Another aspect is they do not have the right training and motivation, and that needs to be done.

Again, we are shouldering our responsibility. It was the Liberal government that stepped up to the plate after 9/11. We support this mission. Any suggestion that we do not is pure fallacy. The fact is, by February 2009 we are saying that others have come up to the plate and we need to look at other opportunities for Canada.

I would suggest a couple of things. First, when our leader indicated very clearly that we support this mission, he also said that we should not forget the important role that we have in the diplomatic community and how we can assist in that regard. Again, we do not hear enough about that. If in fact that is going on, we need to hear more and see more transparency on that particular issue.

We know that when it comes to the issue of the poppies, we could be doing more. We know we could be doing more in terms of CIDA. We hear about all these projects that are being created by CIDA. I can say that, in the short term, these projects are very good and putting young women and young children back to school is extremely important. However, the sustainability of some of these projects is what we must question because three or four months after the buildings have been built we often hear that they have been destroyed by fire and so on by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda forces. Therefore, we need to look at a strategy more in terms of longevity. I think that is extremely important.

There is no question that we have had a disproportionate number of casualties compared, say, to the Dutch who are in an equally difficult position, but we have never shrunk from our responsibilities. However, the question I have for the government is why is it reluctant to put pressure on our allies to say that by February 2009, a date which the government proposed in the House back in May 2006, we will end our military involvement in this region, we are now seeking a rotation ,as we did previously, but we will not be walking away.

The Prime Minister used the term “cut and run”. I do not remember anyone on this side of the House ever suggesting that. In fact, I find it extremely offensive to suggest that anyone on this side of the House would do so.

We believe, though, that we cannot have a military option without a diplomatic option and without a development option. If we really want to improve the lives of the average Afghani, we need to coordinate better all of the development aid that is going in, to which about 44% can only be spent currently by five major ministries in the Afghan government.

Again, there is the issue of accountability. Where is this money going? In terms of our aid, Afghanistan is not even among the 25 CIDA recipients and yet the bulk of our aid is going to Afghanistan. If it is going to go there, we need to be able to say that this is the status of the project, this is what is happening and this is where we are going with this particular project because we must ensure we are getting value for dollar.

At the moment, through our provincial reconstruction teams, as the House knows, we are very active but again we cannot do one without the other. We need to have them there.

I think President Karzai has been very clear on that. A military option alone will not solve the problem. We must work with our allies to be effective. Again, without that ability and without the government making it clear to those allies, we will continue to have uncertainty. Uncertainty is not good for our troops overseas and it is not good for the Canadian public. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to do our utmost to ensure an improvement.

When I see young girls going to school for the first time and learning to read and write and learning certain skills, this is something we did not see under the Taliban. We want to ensure this continues forever but we will not be able to do that unless we work in a coordinated manner with our allies to ensure this is done.

The government's response is that if we do not support 100% the direction of the government we are not supporting the troops. That is not true. We will not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to the support of our personnel overseas but we also will not shirk from our responsibility of indicating very strongly to Canadians and to our allies that they need to take more responsibility and that from six of the twenty-six that they all must end these covenants, that they must become actively engaged and that we must be doing what is the right thing, not only for the Afghan people but for our personnel whether they be military or otherwise.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about the Liberal Party's position on the Afghanistan mission because late last year the current leader of the official opposition stated that he wanted to withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan with honour. Now he is stating, through this motion, that he only wants to withdraw the troops from southern Afghanistan.

Late last year he stated that he would not take any action without consulting with our NATO allies and yet this motion in front of the House states that no consultations are to take place. As a matter of fact, it calls upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately. There are no consultations, only withdrawal from southern Afghanistan, whereas late last year it was consultations with our NATO allies and the withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan with “honour”.

Therefore, I am confused about the Liberal Party's position on this. I do not think it has made the case as to how withdrawing troops from southern Afghanistan would actually enhance the stability of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no confusion.

There is no question that if we are going to notify NATO of our intent to withdraw our troops from the Kandahar region in February 2009, then the government has the responsibility is to ensure there are other troops for the rotation. That is what the previous Liberal government did. I do not think there is any question that we notify them in the consultation.

The problem is that the government refuses to say whether or not it is even going to consult in terms of this date. It came up with this artificial date of February 2009. The House voted, and we take the will of the House, that we will accept February 2009. I would suggest that in those intervening two years since that motion leading up to 2009, the government will have lots of time to indicate what progress, if any, it is making in that regard.

The leader of the official opposition was more than clear. If we read his speech at the Université de Montréal in February 2007, it said that we will be there until February 2009, pursuant to the resolution in this House.

What the member does not seem to understand is that if we are going to notify NATO, we expect NATO to then be in a position to say, “Yes, and the rotation will be country X”. That is what we did and that is what I expect the government to do.