Debates of April 26th, 2007

Opposition Motion—Afghanistan

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the opinions of the member who has just spoken.

My colleague mentioned Vietnam. My memory of Vietnam is that the lesson that came out of it, with respect to the values of freedom, human rights and so on, is that these values cannot be fought for by anybody other than the people who, hopefully, will come to believe in them. Those are the people who have a tremendous responsibility to engage the enemy. In Vietnam, of course, it was the North Vietnamese who had invaded.

I have never heard NDP members refute the ideals of our engagement in Afghanistan in terms of human rights and establishing democratic government under the articles of NATO.

However, I will take the member's Vietnam analogy. If those are the values, and they are still relevant and the argument is that there needs to be safety and security, would the member agree that it is incumbent on us to train Afghani personnel and the military in policing, defending and promoting those values? Would he be in favour of that role for our troops?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Not for our troops, Mr. Speaker, because our troops are not trained well enough as police officers. A constituent of mine, a person I have known for a long time, a member of the Windsor police force and also in the reserves, is in Afghanistan right now doing exactly that job. Yes, that is what we should be doing.

I think we have limited expertise within our military, unless we can draw on the kind of expertise that my friend brings. We should be doing it. RCMP officers and police officers should be there, as well as the judiciary and lawyers. We should be there with all the infrastructure that the Afghani people need.

However, that is not solely what is going on and it is not mostly what is going on. The vast majority of the money and the resources that we are putting into Afghanistan is going into a search and destroy mission. It is just completely mis-focused. If we are going to have troops there, they need to be there on a defensive basis not on an aggressive basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this motion today.

Canadians are increasingly uncomfortable with Canada's role in Afghanistan. On the nightly news we see growing destabilization, growing counter-insurgency on our part, insurgency on the part of the Afghans, more civilian deaths and increasingly more Canadian deaths.

So far, 54 soldiers and 1 Canadian diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan. This is an incredibly deep tragedy for all those families and all those communities and is a significant loss of life. However, we do not even hear about the loss of Afghan lives. I cannot even tell this House what the number is. I do not know who knows what that number is but I am sure it is very significant.

Now we see something that our defence critic raised a year ago, and it has been confirmed, and that is concerns about prisoner transfer.

Unlike The Netherlands, which secured protection for prisoners that were captured by its troops, we see that prisoners captured by Canadian troops are open to torture and abuse. Here we are as Canadians on an anti-terrorism mission, with escalating violence, escalating deaths and destabilization, and now facilitating torture and violations of international agreements like the Geneva convention.

What is happening? What path are we on as a country? Is this Canada's international involvement? Is this what we aspire to as a country? I think Canadians are very troubled by this.

Constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have spoken with me about this and many are very troubled by this war. They want to know how much longer we will be there, how many more will die and how many more will be injured. Increasingly, they are telling me that Canada needs to get out.

I have even had some World War II veterans say to me that they fought in the war but that this war is not the same, that should not be there. Canadians are definitely very concerned about this.

Many of the troops over in Afghanistan are injured. We do not tend to hear as much about the injuries and the impact that has on the lives of those soldiers. A good friend of mine had a son in Afghanistan. He is a very proud member of the Canadian Forces. He was completing his second tour of duty in Afghanistan when he stepped on a landmine. I am very pleased to say that he survived but his life has changed forever. I want to affirm to this House that he never questioned his mission. He is a very proud member of the forces. He still does not question his mission and he is proud to serve his country.

However, our job as members of parliament is to question and debate this mission and to ensure that when we send our people in harm's way we are asking all of the difficult, tough questions that they themselves cannot ask. I believe debate is healthy and that differences of opinion are normal but I do resent some of the demonization that takes place around differences of opinion with respect to Canada's role in Afghanistan.

I want to be clear that it was the previous government that got us into this current combat mission, this search and destroy mission, which changed us from our normal peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. We were originally there on an anti-terrorist mission under U.S. command but this has now become a NATO mission.

It was a year ago that the current government rammed through a motion to extend this mission to 2009. At that time, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois voted against that motion, as did some members of the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, the motion passed by four votes which committed Canada until 2009, which is the current mission date. Who knows what the government's plans are in terms of extending the mission beyond that because we cannot get any straight answers.

My party's position is clear and well known. The government does not have a clear strategy for bringing lasting peace to Afghanistan. The NDP believes that ever since the mission in Afghanistan began, neither the former Liberal government nor the current Conservative government demonstrated due diligence before getting the Canadian Forces involved in this mission. Our party is asking for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission. We should begin to withdraw as soon as possible in collaboration with our international partners to ensure a safe, smooth transition.

We want to notify NATO immediately that we have already made a huge sacrifice, a disproportionate sacrifice, and we cannot allow this disproportionate sacrifice to continue without any clear goal or definition of success or without any clear achievements in this mission. In fact, I would argue that we are going in the wrong direction and that things are going from bad to worse.

We do not support continuing this anti-terrorism mission as it is, unchanged, for another two long years, as my colleagues in the Liberal Party would have us do with their motion last week. It is not acceptable.

A redeployment would take time, of course. Some have said in the House that we cannot just snap our fingers and have the troops leave. Of course we cannot do that but what we can do and what this motion speaks to is making a decision to change our role and to leave this mission. We can then set in place plans for a safe, measured disengagement from this particular anti-terrorist mission and then maybe we can engage in a more constructive role in Afghanistan.

This conflict is about political problems, not military ones. Therefore, we must seek a political and diplomatic solution. That being said, we do not want to abandon Afghanistan.

Previous speakers have spoken with pride about some of the achievements that have taken place in Afghanistan. I have no doubt that there are some achievements in Afghanistan but I suggest that they are, for the most part, in the north where troops are predominantly in a peacekeeping role and not in places where NATO bombs are falling on homes and where we see on the nightly news the destabilization and escalating violence. I believe we can continue to provide support where many other NATO forces are located but, with escalating violence in the south, I believe NATO and retaliatory bombs will keep escalating the violence.

Our motion speaks to the safe and secure withdrawal from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. I believe this can be planned in such a way that our troops are safe and it does not destabilize the south, but the motion also calls for Canada to now focus our efforts on assisting the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution and to redouble our commitment to reconstruction and development.

If we want peace, we need to promote peace. If we truly want to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan, the best thing we can do is give them food instead of violence.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion from the NDP is reckless because it jeopardizes the safety of our soldiers.

The Taliban watch television. They read newspapers. They know what is going on in the House. They know that if they attack our forces and we take casualties, the NDP will be there telling us to pull the troops out of there.

I want to also follow up on what my colleague said. She said that we need to debate this in the House and committee, somehow implying that we are not debating it or that we have not done so in the past.

I point out for the House that the issue of the Afghanistan mission has come up 27 times in Parliament and in committee. There have been seven appearances in front of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, fifteen appearances by the minister in front of the Standing Committee on National Defence, two appearances before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, three debates in the House on Afghanistan, including two take note debates and one in committee of the whole, not including the motion that we are discussing today, or the motion that we discussed and voted on earlier this week. This is being debated in the House, but this is a reckless motion.

These types of motions undermine our troops and they jeopardize the safety of our troops? When will it end?

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

Mr. Speaker, I echo the question of my colleague, when will it end? When will the mission end? What are the plans of the government to exit Afghanistan? We have no sense of what the goal is, or when they will be successful. The government has ordered more tanks. We have no idea when the mission will end.

It is interesting that my colleague focuses on how much debate we have had on this. We ought to be debating this. What I was commenting on is that every time we have a debate, there is an attempt to undermine those who are calling for a debate. That is what is happening here. We cannot have too much debate.

Lastly, on the Taliban watching TV, it would be a better role for Canada to play if we were providing food and ending poverty, rather than worrying about—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park for her very reasoned comments. I think she reflects the very deep concerns that all of us are hearing from people across the country, the growing concern about Canada's involvement in this war.

She posed a very good question. We have repeatedly asked in the House when Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan will end.

We know the motion was passed very narrowly in the House, saying the mission would continue until February 2009. However, all the questions that we have now asked in the House of the defence minister, we have been given us different responses, whether it is 2011, 2015, maybe even to 2020 or 2030. There is no end in sight.

This is very crucial to the debate in terms of what Canada is doing there and what its exit strategy is. Would the member to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP keeps posing this question. We get different answers. One of the key problems is that the goals are unclear, the timing is unclear, the process and the whole nature of the mission are unclear to us.

Again, it is that open-ended mission, under the auspices of an anti-terrorism mission, that makes Canadians concerned that the current mission has gone on longer than our involvement in the first world war. Canadians are asking how much longer?

I argue that if we were to transfer our focus in Afghanistan to a war against poverty, I have a feeling the violence would end very quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Lethbridge.

The success of the UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan of providing security, promoting good governance and delivering development assistance is important to Afghanistan and Canadians alike.

For the people of Afghanistan, it means a chance to overcome a history of violence, tyranny and oppression in favour of a future built on freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

For the people of Canada, a stable Afghanistan free from extremism means enhanced international security and thus greater security at home.

The NATO-led ISAF mission is solidly supported by the international community through the UN Security Council mandate. We are there to help the Afghanistan government implement the goals set out in the Afghanistan compact, which sets out clear benchmarks to guide progress. The compact's goals are Canada's goals.

The Afghanistan compact was carefully developed jointly by the Afghanistan government as well as by over 60 nations and international organizations.

The compact sets out detailed outcomes, benchmarks, timelines for delivery and mutual obligations between now and 2011, which aim to ensure greater coherence of efforts between the Afghanistan government and the international community. It also spells out the Afghan government's priorities for accelerating development, increasing security, tackling the drug trade and strengthening governance by identifying three critical and interdependent pillars of activity: security and stability; governance, including the rule of law, human rights; and tackling corruption and economic and social development.

The compact commits the international community, along with the Government of Afghanistan and the UN, to achieve progress in these three areas.

Canada is working in close cooperation with the Government of Afghanistan in helping it realize benchmarks for each of these pillars. We are also working in close cooperation with the United Nations and with 36 other ISAF countries. They are valued and trusted partners in our efforts in Afghanistan. This is a community effort.

It is good to know that real progress in Afghanistan can be measured. It is occurring in expanded security, in building democratic institutions and public infrastructure and in providing humanitarian and development assistance. Pulling out now and allowing the Taliban to regain control would result in all of this being lost.

Let us look at political progress. All Canadians can be proud of the progress our collective efforts have achieved thus far.

The first is democracy. The 2004 presidential elections marked a watershed in Afghanistan's transition toward a democratic self-sustaining state. Afghanistan's first parliament in more than three decades was inaugurated in December 2005.

The second is governance. Progress is visible in other areas as well. Governance, the rule of law and human rights form a central pillar of the Afghanistan compact. Canada is helping Afghanistan strengthen governance by supporting and training of judges and prosecutors, encouraging a transparent and qualifications based process for senior appointments such as police chiefs, supporting the reform and development of Afghanistan's legal and justice institutions and improving access to the justice system through legal aid.

In 2006 we saw measurable progress in Afghan governance. An Afghan supreme court was confirmed. An Afghan action plan on peace, reconciliation and justice was launched. A senior appointments panel was established to ensure transparency and accountability for high level appointments to the government and judiciary, including governors and police chiefs.

The third achievement is progress in human rights. Coupled with good governance, Canada has made the promotion and protection of human rights in Afghanistan a priority. We do not believe fear and tyranny should guide the daily lives of people.

We have spoken out clearly in favour of freedom of speech and freedom of religion and are achieving concrete results for our efforts. Challenges do remain. Violence and discrimination against women and girls persist, especially in rural areas. Female politicians, activists and workers face intimidation. Freedom of expression still faces major obstacles, yet progress continues to be made.

Afghanistan adopted a constitution that enshrines the concepts of human rights, equality of men and women, ethnic plurality. With Canadian financial assistance, Afghanistan is working to increase its capacity to comply with that report on its human rights treaty obligations.

Let us now look at the social and economic progress. Canadian assistance is going to provide food, water and basic necessities. It is also going to schools, to villages and to communities, to microcredit for individuals, especially women, so they can start small business, support themselves and their families and take control of their future. Canada is also providing critical food assistance and vocational training to widows and their families.

Where do we go? The Prime Minister recently has announced that Canada is providing an additional $200 million for reconstruction and development. This is in addition to our allocation of approximately $100 million per year to development activities, which has made Canada one of the leading donors in Afghanistan. The funds support a wide range of critical Canadian and United Nations programs, including police development and counter-narcotics enforcement.

Progress achieved in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban has been remarkable. Where once there was unaccountable tyranny, there is now a democracy. Where once women were brutally oppressed, girls can now attend schools and women are allowed to start their own businesses. Where once the government spawned hatred, intolerance and terrorism, it can now spread security, development and hope. In sum, because of Canadian efforts, Afghanistan's determination and the support of the international community, life continues to improve for ordinary Afghans.

By signalling our intent to withdraw, we would run the risk of losing everything we have worked for to the Taliban. We know well what life was like under the Taliban. Preventing the reconsolidation of this regime is essential to Afghanistan's future. Abandoning Afghanistan prematurely would represent an unprecedented departure from Canada's legacy of actively promoting sustainable peace.

Only if there is security in Afghanistan can development and humanitarian workers get on with their task of helping Afghans. Only if there is security can the fledgling steps in democratic governance and the rule of law be consolidated and extended. Only if there is security can human rights in Afghanistan be grounded and protected in law and enforced in public.

That is why our government has continued to support the deployment of Canadian Forces in the volatile southern region. Thanks to the skills and professionalism and courage of our soldiers, the peace stretching over most of the country has now been extended to large parts of the Kandahar province.

We are now consolidating those security gains and using this opportunity to increase our focus on bettering the lives of civilians, pushing ahead with reconstruction projects, building schools, encouraging small businesses and implementing governance programs.

However, the cost of failure and abandonment would be very high. Afghanistan's poverty, the narcotics trade, the violent anti-government forces in the south all pose a huge challenge for the Afghan people. It also poses a grave and continuing risk to peace and stability, not only in the region but also, as we saw five years ago, spilling out into the world and onto our own continent.

Two days ago a British cabinet minister stated that putting a time limit on our mission, or in this case withdrawing immediately, would send the wrong message to those that would oppose Afghan progress by violent means. I agree, but I also add that it sends the wrong message about Canada to a much wider audience.

If we abandon Afghanistan, we abandon Canadian values that we proudly wear around the world. We abandon our friends and allies and all those who have dedicated themselves to helping the Afghan people realize a better future.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 6:30 p.m. on Monday, April 30, 2007.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I know he supports the government's position very strongly, but I do have to say that when I listen to my constituents and I hear the concerns that people have, there is a growing concern about Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

It has now gone on for almost six years. That is actually hard to believe, but it is almost six years and there is no end in sight. It began under the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom. The former government led Canada into the conflict. It is now being escalated by the current government.

I heard the hon. member today quoting other sources saying that it would be a mistake to say when it might end and what the exit strategy is, but I really do think that Canadians have a right to know where the government is going on this mission. Right now we are spending about 10 times as much money on combat and the counter-insurgency as we are on aid and development. That concerns Canadians as well.

I would like to ask the member if he could provide some clarity about what the end game is. What will happen in this mission? We have heard varying responses from the government, whether it is the defence minister or the defence department. It has become very chaotic. It has become very confusing.

If this is a mission in which the member and the government believe, I think they have to disclose to the Canadian public where it is going, what the costs will be, and what the exit strategy is. We have never heard that in the House. Maybe he could respond.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a very important one. During this debate everybody keeps asking what the exit strategy is and what we are going to achieve.

In my speech, I said that the Afghanistan Compact's goals are Canada's goals. This compact was carefully developed jointly by the Afghan government and 60 other nations and international organizations.

The compact sets out details. It sets out benchmarks, timelines for delivery and mutual obligations between now and 2011 that aim to ensure a greater coherence in efforts between the Afghanistan government and the international community.

Therefore, there is a road map as to where they are all heading. There is a concentrated effort by the international community and it is called the Afghanistan Compact.

Last November I attended the regional economic cooperation conference on Afghanistan in New Delhi. This year, this conference on regional economic development will take place in Pakistan. This is about all the regional players coming out to meet the development objectives of Afghanistan.

So there is a road map, but the question in regard to this motion is this: who will provide the security to achieve these goals? There has to be security. That is what we are doing there.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point. The NDP members continually say that we should withdraw the troops and not worry about security. Let us deliver our foreign aid, they say, and let us deliver our medical services, et cetera.

What I would like to bring to the attention of the NDP is the Taliban brutality.

For example, in March 2007, authorities found the bullet-riddled body of a kidnapped doctor in Helmand province. Taliban members are suspected of having committed the crime.

On aid workers, the Taliban kidnapped two French aid workers along with two Afghan colleagues in Nimros.

On construction, a civilian vehicle carrying four construction workers in western Farah province was hit by a roadside bomb. As well, six employees of a road-building company were abducted. Four of them were executed.

I have nine pages with me that outline all sorts of Taliban atrocities. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can set our NDP colleagues straight on the need for security in order to effectively deliver aid and services to the Afghan people.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a very important one.

Not only that, but Amnesty International and human rights organizations have recently stated that what the Taliban is doing, because it is killing civilians, is committing war crimes. This is what international human rights NGOs have stated: that members of the Taliban are committing war crimes.

How can we then sit down with these people who are committing war crimes against civilians and talk to them? It is beyond my understanding. It is even beyond my understanding how we are going to provide security when these people do not play by the rules.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about the Afghanistan Compact. I am holding it in my hand. I am looking over its objectives very carefully. I am looking at the security aspects. It talks about having security provided and the Afghan national army, the Afghan national border police, et cetera. It also looks at the other goals such as social goals, development goals, educational goals and agricultural goals. Nowhere do I see in this document, in this compact agreement, the words that we have criticized, the mission of counter-insurgency as the way to achieve security.

I would really like to know from the hon. member how he can use the Afghanistan Compact as a defence for the counter-insurgency attack mission. That is what we are criticizing. I do not see his logic in criticizing us by using the compact.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. It is not counter-insurgency over there. These are the words those members are using. What is over there is providing security so that the development efforts can carry forward.

Yes, under the compact, Canada's responsibility is to work for the judicial system. Germany is to train police officers. The U.S. is to train the military so they can take over. However, let me repeat that the issue is not counter-insurgency. It is to provide security so that development efforts can continue in Afghanistan.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. I appreciate the opportunity, but I will certainly not be supporting the motion put forward by the NDP today.

To abandon our commitment and withdraw the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan today would be irresponsible, premature and devastating to the overall mission.

As my colleagues are all aware, our men and women in uniform are part of a dedicated team of 37 nations in the International Security Assistance Force. We are operating with a UN mandate and under the command of NATO.

We are making solid progress through an integrated approach, civilian and military, that relies on the skills and training of Canadians from across government. This is a moral duty. For generations Canadians have unselfishly stepped up to help those in need. This is a profound legacy that, in partnership with our friends and allies, we are continuing today.

Canada is in Afghanistan for reasons that have been explained many times. We are in Afghanistan because our national interest is threatened. We are in Afghanistan because our allies need our help. We are in Afghanistan because Afghans, people who have suffered from too many years of conflict and neglect, have asked for and need our assistance.

Before we contemplate breaking our international commitments, we need to understand what we would be leaving behind. Afghanistan has not seen real stability for more than a generation. Basic infrastructure and public services such as safe water, access to medical care and schools simply do not exist in much of Afghanistan, but the Afghan people remain resilient and committed to building a better future.

Sadly, as Canadians we are all too aware that a minority of Afghans do not want our help, fanatic insurgents working to undo the good that Canada, the international community and hard-working Afghans have struggled so hard to achieve.

The Taliban extremists, who repressively controlled the country before, have not stopped scheming and working to do so again. They are waiting for us to abandon our commitment. They are dedicated to terrorizing innocent Afghans. They do not hesitate to brutally and publicly execute those who stand against them.

They are willing to adopt any means, be it improvised explosive devices or suicide bombers, to endanger our troops and erase the good progress that Afghans have seen. They focus on undermining the efforts and credibility of the Afghan government and the international community.

This is our enemy.

This why the Canadian Forces remain a vital part of the Afghan mission. Canadians are helping Afghans and their elected government make headway against a deceitful adversary.

We are joined in our efforts by our friends and allies. Our allies and partners have come to count on the Canadian Forces. Their considerable expertise, skills and training, along with some of the best equipment available, rank the Canadian Forces among the most capable in the world.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan at the end of January and we were told repeatedly by our friends, allies and Afghans themselves how the contribution of our Canadian Forces is making a tremendous difference in that country. The optimism that exists over there now is in large part due to our Canadian Forces.

Our troops are sharing their training and knowledge with their Afghan counterparts, building independent Afghan capacity. Afghans are eager to take responsibility for their own security and they are dedicated to building a safe and stable future.

The Canadian Forces, their international partners and the Afghan national security forces are working jointly to bring security to southern Afghanistan. No matter how much some try to deny it, it is only through security that progress and development can continue.

The positive outlook among Afghans, the focus on a more promising future, is impossible to dismiss. When I was in Afghanistan, I heard it from the Afghan people and I saw it in their eyes.

This mission is truly guided by Afghan hands. Afghans are creating development according to Afghan culture and needs. That is why Canadians and local Afghan elders come together in regular shuras or meetings. It is during these shuras that the Afghans share their priorities.

We received a briefing while we were in Afghanistan from Warrant Officer Henley, who takes part in the shura meetings. It was a great briefing on what he is doing. He is doing a tremendous job.

These priorities stem from the Afghanistan Compact. This five year pact between Afghanistan and its 60 international partners was signed in January 2006. The compact lays out very specific benchmarks that address Afghan security, governance and development needs and set specific timelines for their completion. By signing it, the international community, including Canada, has pledged to provide the Afghanistan government the necessary resources and support.

As the Minister of National Defence stated yesterday before the foreign affairs committee, progress in achieving the compact's benchmarks is being made on many fronts. Some of the progress he cited are the following.

The Afghan national army, which Canada is helping to train and professionalize, is making great strides and reaching the strength of 70,000 troops required by the compact. Villages in Kandahar province are now serviced by some 150 kilometres of new roads, including four bridges, and 50 kilometres of power lines, with 10 power transformers and 42 power generators all built with Canadian help. More than 1,000 new wells, 8,000 hand pumps, four large water reservoirs and kilometres of new water supply have been built in Kandahar province with Canadian support.

The continuation of this progress is reliant upon our ability to maintain the support we promised, and of course, is contingent upon establishing security and stability in southern Afghanistan. Development and reconstruction cannot happen without security. That is why Canada's approach to the Afghanistan mission involves diplomats, military and police forces, and development and correctional officers. All are playing essential roles in the Afghanistan transition.

The Canadian Forces, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Correctional Service Canada and others have formed what the Minister of National Defence rightly calls a true team Canada. They are addressing the challenges they face with an integrated approach and are bringing their respective strengths to bear.

Our embassy officials are providing advice on regular issues to the Afghanistan government and international representatives. In addition to this, Canada supports the Afghan government by providing a 50 member strategic advisory team in Kabul. This team, comprised of military and civilian officials from DND and CIDA, provides planning support to Afghan government ministries in an effort to meet the goals of the Afghan national development strategy.

Canada, having pledged approximately $1 billion to Afghan development reconstruction projects, also remains among the top aid donors to Afghanistan. In February our government announced a further $200 million in funding to be used this year and next.

It is understandable that Canadians, in a hurry to see progress, want concrete, easily evaluated proof of progress, new hospitals, clinics, full classrooms and clean water gushing from wells, but we must be patient. Real progress, the underlying proof of development, is difficult to quantify in a country decimated by decades of conflict.

My colleagues in the House have been told about the thousands of kilometres of road that now exist in Afghanistan. They have heard the news reports about the Canadian Forces' determination since last fall to complete the construction of Route Summit, a two lane paved road that connects the Panjwayi district with Highway One.

Route Summit is only about four kilometres long, but it will make an enormous difference in the lives of Afghans. This short stretch of road will allow people to get to market to buy and sell produce. It will improve security by providing quicker access to problem areas for the Afghan national security force. This road will begin to reunite a nation by allowing people to visit friends and family across Afghanistan. Most important, Route Summit exemplifies the Afghan government's capacity to provide for its population.

Canadians can be very proud of all that has been accomplished because of Route Summit. Local construction crews worked with Canadian combat engineers to build the road while our soldiers protected it. This is just one example of many where the Canadian Forces have made a difference in Afghanistan. One soldier told us that this stretch of road was captured with Canadian blood and it is now being paid for with Canadian dollars.

It is because of our security efforts that we are seeing life blossom in places that had previously seemed deserted. Activity is returning to villages, and communities are buzzing, moving toward prosperity. Prosperity means that children can survive past their fifth birthday. They can go to school and they can help contribute to a better future for Afghanistan.

We need a patient eye in examining Afghan progress. I turn to our critics, those who believe that Canada should abandon Afghanistan, and I ask them to look at the progress that has been achieved. Yes, I know it is different from what we expect here in Canada, but this is Afghan progress. After years of war and poverty, Afghans are defying all opposition and choosing to move in a new direction, choosing freedom and democracy.

Canada has had a significant role in changing Afghan expectations for the future. We have worked to create hope where there had been only despair. Canada has taken up its rightful place in the world. We are making a difference, but I cannot support the motion before the House today.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member agrees with me or not, but in looking at today's motion put forward by the NDP, I found it slightly misleading in the sense that the motion in three locations refers to counter-insurgency as the mission. That is not my understanding of the mission. Would the member care to comment? I am suggesting that perhaps Canada's mission might be much more than just counter-insurgency.

Also, it is my sense that if the House were to adopt this motion put forward by the NDP, we would essentially be reneging on or breaching a commitment made by the Government of Canada to our NATO allies and to Afghanistan, which commitment had subsequently been reaffirmed, I suppose informally ratified by this House. Would the member not agree?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. We are part of an international security force. Thirty-seven countries have come together to bring security to that part of the world so that we can rebuild it and re-establish democracy and the rule of law. That is what we are doing. It is not counter-insurgency. It is establishing security within a country.

A lot has been said about the amount of money that has been spent on security in comparison to reconstruction. In my mind we have to spend what we need to spend to create the security. Then we will be able to spend the kind of dollars that are needed on reconstruction.

Canada's commitment to Afghanistan over the next number of years is among the highest in the world, $1 billion to help the country re-establish itself, plus $200 million more to be spent over the next couple of years.

I want to mention one other thing. Last Friday in my hometown of Lethbridge there was a special event to raise funds for the Wounded Warriors Fund. Canadian entertainer Julian Austin was there. There were 500 to 600 people who showed up. Some $15,000 was raised in a very short order to help soldiers who are coming home. There is support across this country for what our soldiers are doing. To me that exemplifies that kind of support.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and his contributions to the committee that he chairs.

I want to ask him a question which really goes back to when his party was in opposition. I recall over a year ago that the NDP asked the same questions that his party asked while in opposition. One of those questions is really critical to where we are right now in the mission. The question is, what does success look like?

I say that because people are confused. I say that sincerely because we hear time and time again that Canadians are in Afghanistan on something that seems to be evolving and sometimes revolving. I want to know from the member, what does success look like? If we are not able to establish an exit strategy and date, we would need to know what success looks like.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my mind, success is millions of children going to school, Afghan women by the thousands starting their own businesses and taking advantage of micro-financing.

There was an interesting comment that 99% of the funds that are loaned out through micro-financing are repaid. When the women were asked why it is only 99%, they said that the other 1% was the money the men borrowed. The women consider themselves to be very successful entrepreneurs. That is interesting.

Success is democracy. Success is the rule of law. Success is bringing hope to villages that had no hope. Success is looking into the eyes of Afghans and seeing optimism. Success is seeing girls out on the street. Success is being able to laugh without it being against the law, to be able to go out and play in the streets with a simple toy, which was not allowed under the Taliban. These are all measures of success. The success that our troops are creating on the ground is converting to this success when we can reconstruct that country.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I was kind of disgusted the other day when I heard the Liberals insist that we cut and run from Afghanistan, but today I have been even more disturbed by the fantasy the NDP members seem to have that there can be safety in Afghanistan without security.

I want to mention a few incidents that have taken place in Afghanistan and I would like the member's thoughts on them. I am going to try to put a human face on what is going on in Afghanistan.

On March 1 a roadside bomb targeted a passing police van in Farah province in western Afghanistan and reportedly left three civilians dead and 48 wounded. Of those 48, 10 were children. That same day, authorities found the bullet riddled body of a kidnapped doctor in Helmand province. The Taliban are suspected of having killed the doctor. Two weeks later a suicide bomber struck near a police convoy in the city of Khost, killing four and wounding 35, most of them shopkeepers and pedestrians.

NDP members tell us that we can have success without security in Afghanistan. I would be interested in the member's response to that.