House of Commons Hansard #136 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was troops.
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your remarks. I was only stating facts.
My question is for the Leader of the Opposition. What does he have to say to the Afghan people? To Afghan women? What does he have to say to Afghan girls who are denied the fundamental right to education? What does he say to our—
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Speaker, one thing needs to be very clear. The first paragraph of this motion reads as follows:
(1) whereas all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements may be about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;
I believe in this motion, and I believe that today's debate should take its tone from that first paragraph. That is why I categorically reject the member's remarks when he accuses people who do not share his views of supporting the terrorists. This is shameful. He should be ashamed of that statement.
As for the issue itself, I believe that the Afghan people, Canadian troops and the Canadian people will be better served by clarity than confusion. The Prime Minister wants to commit us to a mission without setting an end date for the combat mission. That date has never been set. Last May, in fact, he asked the House to extend the mission to 2009. If he wants the end date to remain open, then he should tell the Canadian people as much. He should state clearly, as President Bush has done in Iraq, that he intends to stay in Afghanistan until certain conditions are met. He should say so, but he should not have us believe that he wants to end the mission in February 2009, as we are clearly stating. I am calling for clarity. I have always believed in clarity.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Halifax has one minute for the question and then we will have one minute for the reply.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the Liberal leader's opening comments, which is to acknowledge the courage and the dedication of our troops. However, let me also say, given the amassing evidence that the current search and kill combat mission, the aggressive combat strategy, in Kandahar is utterly failing, that it is bringing more insecurity to the lives of ordinary Afghans.
It is very difficult to understand how the Liberal opposition that, when in government, dragged us into that ill-conceived mission could now argue for an extension by two more years of a mission that actually a majority of those members expressed serious reservations about, going back almost a year now.
I would like to ask the Liberal leader this. How does he reconcile the increasing evidence that this is a failed mission, that the insecurity is growing, that the number of deaths among our troops and civilians is growing, with a proposal put before us now to extend the mission by two additional years?
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Halifax about the necessity to show, despite the arguments, that we are trying to help the people of Afghanistan and play a good role. I respect her point of view. I still think we may do good things in the next two years.
Canada is committed until February 2009. The motion does not create this commitment. The commitment has been made, and Canada must honour it.
We are part of a coalition. We will be better players on the team to help the people of Afghanistan if we are clear about what we intend to do. That is my point and the point of the motion. I call on the NDP to agree with that.
I understand that the NDP thinks the mission of today is a failure and that we need to get out, but I still think Canada can do positive things over the next two years. This will be facilitated if we are clear and not ambiguous about how long we will have the combat mission.
Opposition motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Macleod Alberta
Conservative
Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.
I, too, on behalf of the government, would like to offer condolences to the family and the friends of the soldier who died in Afghanistan yesterday. It saddens all of us to see this happen.
I rise to speak today to the motion, which states that the combat operations in south Afghanistan conclude in February 2009. This is a place for reasonable debate, but, to me, this is the worst form of cheap partisan politics the House has seen.
The member for Bourassa and the Liberal Party are jeopardizing the safety and the lives of our brave men and women who are risking their lives to bring hope and freedom to the people of Afghanistan.
We in the House know that it is not just Canadians who are watching this debate. It is not just Canadians who hear the date that has been put forward. That shows an incredible weakness, vulnerability and opportunity for the Taliban to declare victory. This is unacceptable to me.
I highlight the fact that the Government of Canada's commitment to the reconstruction and security of Afghanistan is not limited to southern Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian development assistance. Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of that country is improving the daily lives of many thousands of people. The efforts of our soldiers, diplomats and development specialists are bringing about positive change in a very challenging environment, and we are making real progress.
Let me share with the House some of the achievements to which our assistance has contributed.
Canada is among the top five donors of the Afghan reconstruction trust fund, a multilateral mechanism that contributes to regular salary payments to more than 270,000 civil servants, including 144,000 teachers. The Afghan government was especially proud that over 6 million children had returned to school by last month, compared to 5.4 million last year. Nearly 35% of that number is girls. This is a major accomplishment. By contrast, only 700,000 children were in school in 2001 and not one of those was a girl.
The Minister of International Cooperation and myself were in Afghanistan last week. We met with the education minister, a very eloquent man. I am sure some members of the House met with him when he was here less than a year ago. He could not say enough good things about the difference Canada had made in getting children back to school, in paying teachers' wages, in providing education for these teachers, who can in turn impart it to the children so those children can have hope of a better life.
Another solid building block that has exceeded our expectations is the micro-finance investment support facility for Afghanistan. I will refer to it as MISFA. As of February 28, over 325,000 Afghans, almost three-quarters of whom are women, have obtained small loans and savings services. Each month the program reaches an average of 10,000 new clients. Last week the minister and I met with a group of these women.
This is the hope that we impart to these women. Not all people will be entrepreneurs, but we met with a group of them who are. I spoke with one middle aged lady who had no hope at all under the Taliban. This lady is manufacturing suits and clothing. Her husband is now working for her as are 14 other members of her family. She is earning a living for her entire family through a microcredit loan that was provided to her with the support of the Canadian government.
Other women are making pottery, dishes, processing food, all kinds of small home-based industries that would never have started under the Taliban, that would have been unable to be financed unless countries like Canada and other donor countries had not stepped up and become involved in that process.
Through CIDA, the Government of Canada is also proud to be a trusted partner in the national solidarity program, which has been successful in Kandahar and elsewhere in the country. We have 16,000 community development councils, elected by the local village people, that make decisions as to what projects should be funded. Local councils decide where the money from CIDA and other donor countries will be spent.
Minister Zia, with whom we met, told us that not one of those projects, which had been decided by a local council, had been targeted by insurgents. This is the success that we need to provide the environment for these projects to flourish under. Minister Zia met us at one of these community development council meetings, which was about 40 kilometres outside of what we refer to as the wire.
The Minister of International Cooperation and I travelled outside the wire where Canadians and civilians would not have dared travel a year or two years ago. We sat down with the local council and discussed what its projects were. This has to continue. This is the opportunity that we have provided.
Yes, it takes as military presence to provide the security for this kind of project to flourish under. Those projects bring water to new crops. This is the way we will solve the opium problem. There is irrigation water available, but until we fund the process to get it to these fields so they can grow alternative crops, we will be unsuccessful in getting rid of the opium crop.
Canada is supporting projects that are changing the lives of the people of Afghanistan. From helping UNICEF establish a maternal health clinic in Kandahar to funding projects that provide alternatives to poppy production across the country, Canada is making a difference in changing lives.
It is remarkable that the Liberal Party can stand up and talk about balancing aid to military involvement. Canada's military has been involved in some of the greatest conflicts of this century. As a nation, we believe the lives of people outside of our borders have value and fighting for democratic freedoms is worth it.
To the Liberals, the numbers of people helped through Canadian aid in Afghanistan are just that, numbers. They are unable to see that each of those numbers, each of those millions of little girls going to school, has a name, a face and a hope that there is better life than the one they have known. Canada is not helping numbers. We are helping real people who deserve no less than we do: shelter, food, water and the ability to provide for their families. Why do the Liberals believe the people of Afghanistan deserve to be abandoned?
Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. The hon. member started his comments by suggesting to members of this House and to the Canadian public that by having this debate we are somehow being disloyal to our troops and giving comfort to the Taliban.
I would suggest to him that if that logic takes place, we will never be able to ask in committee a question of the Chief of the Defence Staff as to whether or not the operational tempo of our troops is being stretched. We will never be able to ask a question of any of our operational leaders as to what the nature of the success of the mission is. It will always be hidden under the pretext that we are giving comfort to the enemy.
I would suggest to hon. members that as members of this democratic institution we will have lost this war today if we give to the Taliban the control as to what we can debate in this House of Commons. We should never allow ourselves to go there.
This motion recognizes the fact that our troops are often stretched in these missions. We have committed, as our leader said, for the longest period of time. It is a reasonable proposition for us to debate.
Here is what I would like to ask the hon. member to say from his departmental point of view. If we had the commander of the forces in the south in this House or before the committee, would he say that CIDA is delivering the type of aid and the amount of aid necessary for them to conduct an anti-insurgency operation?
Our understanding is that we are not delivering the level of aid necessary to do that, and while we can say that there are some successes, those successes are not sufficient to allow us to win what is not a military war but an insurgency matter, which requires an approach of aid, of diplomacy, of governance and of winning the war against opium trafficking and corruption and all the other issues in the Afghan government.
If we do not have that coordinated approach, we will never succeed at this, because it is not a military operation. Our leader made that clear in his speech and that is the thrust--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the hon. member that I did not at any time suggest disloyalty. What I suggested is that this is playing partisan politics with people's lives, with our soldiers who are willing to place their lives on the line to help our neighbours in Afghanistan. I never suggested the word “disloyal”, nor would I.
But I do want to clarify that if we suggested or made a decision in this House that we are going to withdraw our troops in February 2009, what message would that send to the Taliban? All the Taliban needs to do then is sit back and wait for us to leave.
What does that do to that woman I met in Kabul? What future does that leave for that woman? What future does that leave for the little boy that I met out in that field in Afghanistan who trusts those soldiers with his life? He came over and talked to us. He came over and held his hands out to us and said, “Ball”. That little boy trusts our Canadian soldiers because our soldiers are there not only to protect them but to provide friendship to them.
We cannot abandon these people.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary speaks about the loyalty that we owe to our courageous troops and I would say the loyalty that we owe to the people of Afghanistan.
Would he not agree that since the beginning of the Kandahar mission neither the Liberals, who committed us to this Kandahar aggressive combat mission, nor the Conservatives, who carried it on and propose to carry it on even beyond 2009, failed to do the due diligence necessary? Would he not agree that they failed to do the due diligence necessary to ensure that we had a comprehensive strategy and that we would not be increasing the insecurity that is resulting in thousands and thousands of civilian deaths and is driving people into the arms of the Taliban?
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I owe the hon. member who spoke previously an answer to his question. I got a little caught up in my answer and I did not answer the question. Yes, the commander communicated to us directly that we are making a difference and that we are improving the lives of those Afghans that we are there to help. Can we do more? We can always do more, and we can do more on our own soil, but yes, we are helping.
I believe that the loss of lives of the local Afghans is a very sad reality, but it is not because of a lack of focus. It is not because of a lack of effort on our behalf. It is because we are dealing with people who want to destroy the lives of the Afghan people.
Opposition motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale B.C.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we deeply mourn yesterday's loss of a dedicated soldier and a fine Canadian. A member of Canada's Special Operations Forces died yesterday due to injuries from an accident that occurred in Afghanistan.
This is a time of great sorrow for his family and friends. On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to them during this difficult time. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.
Canadians stand united in pride and gratitude behind our Canadian Forces. We honour their courage and commitment. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten.
We are here today debating this motion because the Liberal Party of Canada now sees fit to abandon the mission to which it originally committed our nation. It seems that even in opposition the Liberals are determined to continue their new leader's record of not getting the job done. Is that the legacy we want to have for our Afghanistan mission? That we did not get the job done?
Interestingly, the deputy leader of the opposition, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, has some different views. Let us look at what he has said about this mission just in the last several months. He said:
What I learned there is you cannot do development in Afghanistan unless you control the security situation. The schools and clinics you build by day are burned down by night unless you have the troops to secure the development gains that you have made.
Is the Liberal Party now committed to abandoning the children and patients even if we have not stabilized the security situation by 2009? The deputy leader said:
States like Canada cannot be safe if we let Afghanistan fail...and become a base for terrorist attacks.
Is the Liberal Party now committed to gambling that Afghanistan will not become a safe haven for terrorists again? The deputy leader said:
We have got to be a party that stands for human rights everywhere, that does the tough lifting when it has to be done...You ask us to do something hard and difficult and we can do it. We're doing it in Afghanistan. It's in the greatest tradition of our country and that's the kind of country we want.
Is the Liberal Party now committed to risking human rights and the great tradition of our country?
He went further. He wrapped the mission in his own party's flag just last summer when he said:
Liberals need to remember this is a Liberal mission. We're in Afghanistan because of the leadership of the two previous Liberal governments...We, as a party, cannot abandon what is right or what we believe for political convenience.
Finally, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party told us, “We should stay there until we get the job done...”.
In 2009, are Canadians going to be saying that we did not get it done? We are talking about the future of a country. We are talking about the future of some 30 million people, people just like us, except that we have the good fortune of living in Canada.
At this time of year, while many Canadians are engrossed in NHL playoffs and tax returns, Afghans are overwhelmed by much more fundamental preoccupations. Will their daughters be safe as they go off to school today? Will their crops wither from the drought this year? Or can they really rest assured that the Taliban who scattered from their village months ago have no plans to return?
Human lives hang in the balance. The motion hastily put forward today, which asks this House to call upon the government to terminate the Canadian Forces operation in Afghanistan by February 2009, demands that we make a hugely important decision without sufficient information and analysis.
Certainly February 2009 is the current date to which we are held. It is the date that the members of this House supported. For that reason, it must be taken seriously.
However, any proposal for an extension or a termination of our military mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 must be analyzed with the highest level of scrutiny, with the utmost appreciation for the work that Canadians and our allies have invested thus far, and with heartfelt concern for the plight of the Afghan people.
Out of respect for the vote taken by parliamentarians in May 2006, I insist that we not rush to judgment here today.
We brought forward a motion to the House to extend the current Afghan mission to February 2009. The government has been clear that if it were to seek a further extension it would come to Parliament to do that, and that remains our position.
There is no doubt that this mission has come at a cost. Tragically, it has cost Canadian lives. The costs to Canada form a crucial part of the equation when we look at the viability of this mission for Canada in the years to come.
However, the costs are only one part of the equation. The men and women who are currently facing danger in Afghanistan are well aware of this.
They understand that when we evaluate this mission we also need to weigh the reasons for it and the potential to make a difference.
The reasons are straightforward. The government of Afghanistan has asked for our help. Our allies and partners are depending on our contributions. The mission has been authorized by the United Nations and is being led by NATO. And quite simply, the future stability of Afghanistan has a bearing on the security of the world and the security of Canada.
This mission is not just about help for the Afghans. It is about international peace and security.
For example, as the Minister of National Defence highlighted in Montreal a few weeks ago: six million Afghan children, one-third of them girls, now go to school compared to 700,000 in 2001, all of whom were boys; 6,000 kilometres of roads have been built and repaired; 2,500 villages have electricity for the first time; and 80% of Afghans now have access to basic health care, compared to only 8% in 2001.
What if we took the Canadian Forces out of the equation?
The fact is that security is needed for development and reconstruction initiatives to move forward. Development and reconstruction need to continue if the people of Afghanistan are going to have faith in the ability of their democratically elected government to provide for them.
This mission is an integrated pan-Canadian effort. Not only that, but Canada's efforts fit into a larger multinational mission. We are in Afghanistan with 36 other countries. We are clearly not the only ones bearing the burden of this mission. In fact, Poland, Australia and the United States, among others, have just stepped up their contributions.
Thanks in part to the efforts of the Minister of National Defence, significant progress has been made in strengthening our collective efforts in southern Afghanistan. In fact, just last week the minister held a meeting with the defence ministers of the other countries working with us in southern Afghanistan. We are part of a multinational team, a team that is depending on us.
The motion that stands before us today, which aims to carve in stone a deadline of February 2009, would have an impact far greater than many realize. It would let down our allies and partners in this mission. Quite simply, we would be shirking our responsibility to provide international and, ultimately, Canadian security.
Not only do we have international partners depending on us, but even more importantly, we have Afghan lives on the line.
Setting a deadline for the Canadian Forces' withdrawal right now would send a clear and dangerous signal to the Taliban. For the sake of the Afghans, our mission cannot be measured simply by the number of years or months we have invested. That is not an indicator of success, but simply a mark on a calendar.
We should not impose artificial deadlines that ignore the facts about progress being made toward agreed development and security objectives. This mission is to be measured by the impact we are making and will continue to make for the people of Afghanistan and for the people of Canada.
We cannot take today's motion lightly. The government will make an informed decision about this extremely important issue, based on extensive deliberations. We will also give Canadians and Parliament the opportunity to express their views on this issue.
Michael Ignatieff Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary. It appears that he has not paid sufficient attention to the terms of this mission.
Loose talk has been engaged on the opposite side of the House to the effect that this side of the House wants to abandon Afghanistan, whereas clause 5 of this resolution makes it very clear that we imply, as any sensible person would imply, that Canada's commitment to reconstruction, to diplomatic engagement and even, let me add, to military contributions to security in Afghanistan might well continue after February 2009 under a Liberal government. The issue here is whether it involves indirect combat operations in southern Afghanistan. That is point number one.
A second point that needs to be emphasized is that the parliamentary secretary talks as if the deadline was imposed by this side of the House. I would remind the member that February 2009 was the date proposed by the government. We on this side of the House are simply saying that the deadline is a fixed deadline.
I will make another point. When this deadline was brought before the House in May 2006, this side of the House was given six hours to debate a matter fundamental to Canada's national security.
If the government brings back another motion to extend the mission, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to allow the Canadian people and this House to have the debate that the motion warrants, as opposed to the situation we had last time when the debate was basically not enough time to give Canada enough time to consider the matter in all its gravity.
Given that there were meetings with Canada's allies in Quebec last week, what discussions were held in Quebec about the future of the mission, the extension of the mission? Canadian citizens have a right to know what engagements the Government of Canada is making with respect to the future of the mission.
I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could clarify what discussions are underway with our allies in respect to the extension of the mission.
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member say that the motion is clear as it implies. Right there is the evidence that there is not much clarity at all.
He talks about the frustration that he has experienced with this party. The reality is that our government was the first government to provide a vote on this mission. The Liberals, when they launched this mission, gave the army--
Opposition motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Shawn Murphy
Answer the question.
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
This is important. I would like you to hear this because since you were not here at the time you might not know. The member's government gave the army 15 minutes' notice about the fact that they were going to Afghanistan. There was no debate in this House, not even for six hours, and no vote in this House. It was simply an announcement that was made off the cuff without any notice to anyone.
The fact that we have taken these steps--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has sufficient experience in the House to know that when he refers to other members of the House he should do it in the third person.
I now recognize the hon. member for Halifax for a question.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the Liberal member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore trash the debate that took place in this House when the government saw fit to extend the mission from 2007 to 2009. I listened to the Conservative member who said that any decision about launching such a mission or extending such a mission would require “the highest level of scrutiny”. He went on to say that it would require indepth analysis of the mission's success or current progress.
I must say that one is left to realize that there is not a whit of difference or a tiny beam of light between the Conservatives' position and the Liberals' position in how they have dealt with this mission.
How can the Liberal member who just spoke apply to this motion the highest level of scrutiny saying that we need to have a full evaluation before extending such a mission or terminating such a mission when his government utterly failed to do that when it extended this mission in May 2006 for two more years?
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that we have committed our troops to this mission. We will take the time that is necessary to address this issue and have a vote in the House of Commons as opposed to dealing with it in the haphazard manner that the opposition is trying to do.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and I would also like to extend our condolences to all the families of the soldiers who died on Afghan soil.
I want to start as well by getting one thing out of the way for the Bloc Québécois. I must admit that we are totally fed up with being told every time we ask a question about the mandate of the mission that we do not support the mission or do not support the troops in the field. This is a totally Bush approach, so named because President Bush always says that whoever is not with him is against him.
I would like to remind my Conservative colleagues that this is a parliament. A parliament does not express a single point of view. The government is entitled to its point of view, but the opposition is too. The Liberals are entitled to their point of view, just as the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are. We are elected by people who send us here to represent them. It is only natural that we will not always have the same approach or look at issues from the same angle. The opposition and the Bloc Québécois are tired of hearing certain things. Every time we question the government, every time we introduce a motion or a bill that is not in line with government policy, they tell us that we do not support the troops. That is simply not true. We should show respect for all points of view in the House, try as much as possible to reach a consensus, and then decide the issue on a vote. That is what democracy is all about.
So we are a little fed up with constantly being told that we do not support the troops. We support them, and even with the motion before us today, we will continue to support them. I would like to remind the government, though, that in politics it is the civilian authorities who decide what a country’s armed forces will do. When that is not how it works, it is simply because it is not a democracy any more. The day we have 308 Conservative members here, we will be living in a dictatorship. It is not very hard to figure out and I hope things never come to that. That is why parliaments are responsible for dealing with these issues and why they are made up the way they are with a government and an opposition. We should respect the points of view expressed by all the parties in this Parliament.
I would like to quickly review a little history. First, people are wondering how it is that we have Canadian soldiers on Afghan soil. We have to recall the entire situation. This is important, because we need to keep repeating how this came about. It is not complicated; it came about in response to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The American government reacted very strongly and the UN also reacted. The next day, or the day after, the UN declared that the American government had the right to defend itself. Also the next day, NATO, which is a military and political alliance, invoked , for the first time, Article Five of its constitution declaring an attack on one member to be an attack on them all.
From that point onward, the Liberal government of the day and the Bloc Québécois said that it was entirely legitimate, and most importantly legal, internationally, to send soldiers there. That is how it started, under American command, with Operation Enduring Freedom. People went to Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from power, to ensure that this could never happen again. There were in fact a lot of terrorist training camps, and that question had to be settled once and for all. Canada, like many other countries, said that we had to support the Americans there. We have no problem with this, unlike with what is happening in Iraq. We had a UN mandate and a NATO mandate, and so it was entirely legitimate for us to go there.
Operation Enduring Freedom began and the Americans decided that they had to stabilize the capital first, and so they stabilized Kabul. We helped them do that. We had troops there. As well, NATO was getting more and more involved. There were discussions among all of the allies, and everyone seemed to be saying that NATO should be the organization in charge of the entire operation. That is what started to happen. As soon as Kabul was stabilized, NATO began to take control, and after that it was decided to move backward around the compass, in terms of the cardinal points. To explain, the NATO forces started by stabilizing the north, and then NATO took control.
The west was stabilized, and then NATO took control. The south was stabilized, and then NATO took control. On July 1 of last year, NATO took total control of Afghanistan. Certainly the Americans are still there, but a sort of division of labour has occurred. However, everyone agrees that it is NATO that now holds the mandate. We are currently participating in a NATO operation. That is why Canadian troops are on Afghan soil.
As for what has been going on in Kandahar since we have been there, there is a problem. A military operation has its limits, and the Conservative government has failed to understand this. It has placed too much emphasis on the military operation.
People say that the logic is simplistic when we talk about the 3D approach—the government's official policy: defence, diplomacy and development—and when we say we have 2,500 soldiers in the ground in Afghanistan.
For development, we have six people looking after CIDA's development projects. I do not want to hear anyone say this is false, because we were there and we were told this when I asked the question of how many people on the ground were assigned to CIDA and development programs.
For diplomacy and Foreign Affairs, we have six people as well.
I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this mission is very unbalanced. Everything that is happening proves this to be true.
Consider the escalating military involvement. The minister said we would not be sending tanks over there. But then what happened? And it is not just tanks. More purchases are being justified every day. We have now bought $21 billion worth of military equipment. These purchases are often justified by saying that it is for Afghanistan.
Consider the C-17 strategic lift aircraft. My colleagues have already talked about this. Before now, it cost about $50 million or $100 million to lease them. Now, they are costing us $3.4 billion, and on top of that, the economic spinoffs were poorly orchestrated. Once again, Quebec has been victimized in terms of these contracts. Clearly, the military is ramping up.
First, we sent tanks. Then, oddly enough, after a meeting in Quebec City with the military personnel responsible for southern Afghanistan, including the Dutch, the minister stated that we would lease equipment from our German friends and buy it from our Dutch friends. The deal was probably made at that meeting. These discussions must have taken place in Quebec City. All of a sudden, the tanks are arriving, with a $650 million price tag. All that taxpayers in Canada and Quebec have to do is pay the bill. There is no doubt that the military is ramping up.
The Pakistan issue is also a problem. When they say the situation has deteriorated, that means they are having problems catching the Taliban. As soon as things heat up, they take refuge in the Pakistan oasis. I call it that because when their fighters are tired out, the border is so porous that they can get into Pakistan easily. Neither the NATO troops nor the Canadian troops can follow them into Pakistani territory because that country is an ally in this war. Nevertheless, intentionally or otherwise, NATO troops have a very hard time controlling the border. Pakistan is therefore a huge problem.
Furthermore, we have seen no progress regarding poppy cultivation. This is a fundamental problem in Afghanistan. We have been hearing for months that this issue needs to be resolved. The government, however, prefers to bombard us with the importance of military force to drive out the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Taliban encourages poppy cultivation. They use it to fuel and finance their activities. Once again, a misunderstanding by Canada and its allies on this matter suggests eradication or aerial spraying of chemicals to destroy the crops.
Then what? What do we say to the peasant who earns his meagre income from that? For it is not the peasant—the one who grows it—who profits most from it. It is the middleman who comes afterwards. So what do we say to that peasant? That we are sorry, but this afternoon, our dozens of tractors in his field are going to put an end to his poppies?
People have begun saying that, if we wanted to drive them into the arms of the Taliban, there was no better way to do it. The Taliban tell the people they are willing to protect them and pay them for their crops. This problem must be resolved, especially since it also causes corruption and finances the Taliban regime. The best way to solve it is definitely not eradication. We should instead be trying to find ways to use this crop to legitimately supply the pharmaceutical industry, for instance. The Senlis Council released an excellent study on this topic.
On the other hand, having attended NATO meetings, I know that there is a great deal of discussion between NATO and the European Union to determine whether, if a peasant's poppy field is replanted with potatoes or tomatoes, part of the crop can be sold on the European market. These are discussions between NATO and the European Union. That makes sense because if you replace poppies with tomatoes you may not be able to sell them because of the small domestic market, lack of money or the fact that it just is not profitable. If you sell five tomatoes at the market whereas you wish to sell five cases, it is impossible to get ahead financially. However, if the European Union and NATO become involved and share a part of their domestic markets, it can work.
There is also the matter of the caveats, or the rules of engagement. There have been significant problems in this regard among our allies. Canada has no caveats. Canadian troops patrol 24 hours a day and carry out all kinds of operations. To my great surprise, when I went to Faizabad in northern Afghanistan at the invitation of NATO, the German troops said to me, “Mr. Bachand, it is 8 o'clock, we must return to camp”. I asked why we had to return to camp at 8. They replied that their parliament had given the order to return to camp at 8 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, you will indicate how much time I have left as I do not wish to see you become impatient.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
I must remind the member that it is not permitted to name a member of the House, not even yourself.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my sentence.
The member for Saint-Jean went to the north of Afghanistan. At 8 o’clock, this poor member was told that we have to return to the camp. That was the caveat established by their parliament. At 8 o’clock, they have to return to base. I told myself that this did not make sense. How is it that Canadian soldiers do not have this caveat and all of our allies do? At present we are working very hard on this matter.
I must agree that we have a great many problems with the Karzaï government. Mr. Karzaï is known as the mayor of Kabul, which means that the people do not see him having any authority outside Kabul. Therefore, it is very difficult to establish his authority. As one moves away from the capital, his authority continuously diminishes. It is the war lords and clan chiefs who decide what will happen. Some governors —probably many—it is a known fact, have been corrupted by the illegal trafficking. Even some members of the Afghan Parliament are known as influential members of the illegal drug trade. That causes a great many problems. Many civilians have been killed. In a military operation, seeing that the bombing takes place without distinction between civilians and the Taliban, that has certain consequences. The population rises up against that. They have the impression that they are facing an army of occupation and not a liberating army. They see an army that does not make enough distinction between civilians and the Taliban.
The matter of prisoners is a very important point. We called for the resignation of the minister on this point because he misled the House. And that is continuing. When our soldiers take prisoners they turn them over to the Afghan authorities. We have received reports from the American state department that clearly show that torture is a regular practice there. People have their toenails or fingernails pulled out, or their fingers cut off. Women there are sex slaves. They are thrown in with the prisoners and so are children. It is there in the report by the state department. Those are not the words of the member for Saint-Jean; it is the United States state department.
The Canadian soldiers who are involved in that are in grave danger. The minister is an accomplice to it. The Government of Canada could brought before international tribunals; perhaps even before the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of War Crimes, to which we are a signatory. We could face charges. The Speaker of the House might also face charges. Indeed, responsibility for this situation could be extended to the entire Parliament. So, there are dangers. When the Bloc Québécois raises these kinds of issues, we are accused of not supporting our troops. As I said at the start of my remarks, what constantly irritates us is that every time we suggest the least amendment, we are accused of not supporting our troops.
I have been to Afghanistan twice and I have met with General Richards, the NATO commander. He said himself that if we do not change course and if we maintain the military approach, in six or seven months we will lose 70% of the population. People would rather side with the Taliban than with an army like that, especially in light of the abuses I have just described.
The Bloc has long been calling for a change in this mission. The numbers speak for themselves: $1.8 billion has been invested in the military and $300 million has been invested in development. Let us talk about development. Earlier, I talked about people and their responsibilities. They get Afghan companies to sign contracts, but there is no accountability. An individual is given $100,000 to dig a well in a village. A year later, no one has checked to see if the well has been dug. What did they do with the money?
There are huge problems and it is time to come up with solutions. Instead of focussing on these problems, this government wants to buy more tanks and send more troops. That is a reflection of the Prime Minister's foreign policy. He sticks close to George W. Bush all the time and tells him we are behind him. The message to our European allies is that we support the Americans, and that message is not well received.
This has happened many times. There was the war in Lebanon, and this Prime Minister has put forward many other policies that fly in the face of multilateralism, which Canada was long known for. Where did Canada's strength lie? First, in peacekeeping, and second, in its ability to find solutions. Canada had friends throughout Europe. Now, we attach ourselves to the Americans and take George Bush at his word when he says that we are either with him or against him. Canada has decided to be with the American president and, naturally, against those who are not. Of course, that is not how things really are, but I see the reluctance of the 27 NATO countries. Many say that they do not recognize Canada. We believe that Canada's multilateral approach is essentially good. But in the absence of that approach, problems arise. We become isolated and a virtual slave to the American government. Military contracts are a prime example. We are sending billions of dollars south of the border and demanding nothing. Yet we are the buyer, we are signing the cheque.
There is much to be done. Why not ask a senior UN official to coordinate everything? Why does the Prime Minister not do that? Why does he not call for an international conference? Is he afraid of antagonizing his American friends? He should call for an international conference with Iran and all the neighbouring countries, such as India and Pakistan. Diplomatic solutions—the third D—must also be found. We cannot just close our eyes and say that Pakistan is our ally and we should leave it alone, when it continually gives refuge to the Taliban.
We will therefore support the motion. We agreed to extend the mission to 2009, and the motion clearly states that military operations will continue until 2009. For a very long time, we have tried to tell this government that it should change the mandate of the mission, but it has not listened. Now we have the answer. We will carry on until February 2009, at which time military operations must end. The Bloc Québécois believes that this is a sound position. We will support this motion.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Questions and comments. I note that there is a great deal of interest on the part of members. We have 10 minutes available for questions and I would like to divide that time as fairly as possible.
All questioners should look at the Chair so that they are not embarrassed with being cut off in mid-sentence.
I recognize the hon. member for Lévis--Bellechasse.