Debates of Feb. 25th, 2008

Afghanistan

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I will not get into the Marshall Plan and we will not be trying to implement it in Afghanistan. It would not be right or useful to do so.

I just want to say that, unfortunately, his government has staked too much on the security issue to the serious detriment of development and diplomacy. We need only look at the work to be done. If we want a chance at winning, we can stay in Afghanistan but there has to be an end in sight. It is not a Canadian mission and we will have done our job.

However, if we do not focus on development and diplomacy while acknowledging the importance of security and if other countries do not come on board, the future of NATO will be closely tied to the future of Afghanistan. Canada is contributing and operating there but it must go in another direction. For that reason the mission must change.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan, as we all know, is an issue that has divided Canadians mostly because of the government's lack of transparency and accountability about the mission.

In 2006, the six hour debate on whether or not to extend the mission was simply not enough time and not enough information was given by the government. It was actually a bit of a joke, I thought, at the time since the Prime Minister said that he would extend the mission regardless of what the House said.

It was for that reason that I voted against it, although I am happy to see today that the government has changed its tune and is willing to have an open debate about Canada's future role in Afghanistan. It is not a secret any more that the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan has to change. I think most Canadians want that.

The Prime Minister was told by the Leader of the Opposition to inform NATO at least a year ago that Canada would rotate out of the combat mission, that is, the counter-insurgency part, by 2009.

The Prime Minister, who obviously disagreed with that, continued to persist on his position, knowing full well that he did not have the support of the House. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs would say abroad that they would like to leave in 2009 and were looking for replacements, but that they would rather stay and finish the job, as the Prime Minister has said a number of times, which to me meant that they were prepared to stay indefinitely.

There were no replacements. Of course, we should not be surprised that they could not find any replacements. Why should any other country go against the popular vote of its own population when it knows in fact that Canada was prepared to stay? Why would it offer anything?

In essence, we have wasted a year by not letting NATO do its job. It is not Canada's role to look for replacements. That is a NATO responsibility and if the Prime Minister had in fact informed NATO with proper time, it may have happened long before now.

Finally, after pushing and shoving by the official opposition leader for some time, the Prime Minister has adopted the Liberal motion, except for some areas which I am still not too sure of and need to evaluate, as I believe they still need some changes.

Clearly, Canada must change the mission. There is no question about that. That has been said for some time now.

The mission should move out of a combat role, that is, the counter-insurgency part, and let other NATO countries move into that role. The Canadian mission then will focus on reconstruction and diplomacy.

The reconstruction part consists of things such as training the troops on the ground, which would be helpful, but there are also areas of reconstruction which are absolutely important and necessary. Canada has a tremendous amount of experience in the area of reconstruction and development, and can provide extreme support.

I will provide one example. We are trying to change the growing of poppies to growing produce instead, vegetables and other crops. Afghanistan used to have a very good system of aquifers, underground pipes, to irrigate their land. These canals were destroyed when the Russians were in Afghanistan.

These canals were used by the Afghani people in fact to attack at different times, so they were destroyed. We need to rebuild the irrigation system, not to mention the larger water supply problem in Afghanistan. This is just one example of reconstruction that is needed in the country very desperately.

We also need a Canadian envoy. We have had envoys before in dealing with countries like Burundi, Sierra Leone and other places. This is very much needed in order to start discussing and looking at a national reconciliation process. There is not going to be a military solution in Afghanistan alone. That is just not possible.

It was not possible in many other countries and I could list a number of them where that happened. A national reconciliation has to take place so that all other parties in Afghanistan are part of the solution. A political and diplomatic solution has to be found.

In addition, I would like the government to set up a House committee to allow for transparency and accountability, and to report back to the House. We had this in fact under the previous government, when Canadian troops were in Kosovo, and it worked very well. Accountability is very important.

Leaving Kandahar by 2009 is a must and NATO needs to be informed now. Canada needs to get into the reconstruction, development and diplomacy mode.

There is a general consensus that we must not abandon the people of Afghanistan for strategic and humanitarian reasons. We cannot allow Afghanistan to be another failed state.

The job our soldiers have done is tremendous and second to none. I saw them when they worked in Kosovo and in Haiti. Indeed they are the best, but they also deserve a break. They also deserve to do some of the other excellent things they do.

Let me focus on the humanitarian aspect of why we need to be there. As a former minister for international cooperation, I saw firsthand the conditions in which Afghan women lived under the Taliban rule, conditions that no living creature should ever be forced to endure. Women and girls experienced gender apartheid in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule and lost all basic human rights. Afghan society as a whole has much to gain by women re-entering into the dialogue with the various sectors of Afghan society. They must be involved in the solution from the bottom up. They must be involved in civil society, governance, political, cultural and social decisions.

Outside Kabul there is a perception that the minister of women's affairs is not even a legal entity. In some regions of the country Human Rights Watch reports that women continue to be assaulted or abused for not adhering to edicts that strictly control women's behaviour, dress, expression and movement.

Under the old regime, women were not permitted to see doctors as the doctors were males. There were not many women doctors as women were not allowed to be trained as doctors or to study. Women were denied health care for any reason. Women were also malnourished and there were frequent deaths because food would first be supplied to the men in the armed forces, then to the boys and then to the girls and women. Their bones were weak and feeble and they would not develop properly. Women were not permitted to get an education. That was only allowed for men. The life expectancy of a woman in Afghanistan was 42 years. Imagine.

Only 12.6% of women age 15 and up were literate, compared with 43.1% of males. The youth literacy rate for females age 15 to 25 was 18.4% versus 50.8% for males of the same age.

Child malnutrition prevalence, weight for age, was 39% in 2004.

These statistics indicate that much more is needed in terms of development and reconstruction. Also, NATO must not fail in providing more troops and appropriate forces so that development can in fact take place. All of these things cannot take place if there is not some secure and more aggressive attention to reconstruction and development. It is very important.

Contrary to what the government wants us to believe, international intervention in Afghanistan did not present women with an immediate change in status, rights and opportunity. The deteriorating security environment has actually made it harder for women to enjoy the rights promised to them by the international community. For instance, 85% of Afghan women in rural areas have seen little or no benefit from the strategies or interventions by the international community.

Again, women continue to remain oppressed, particularly in education and health care. Maternal mortality still sits at 1,600 per 100,000 births and the child mortality rate is the highest in the world.

Violence against women is widely believed to have reached epidemic proportions and consists of marital rape, sexual assault and other forms of violence in the household, the physical and psychological violence associated with child and forced marriages, neglect through malnutrition and inadequate health care. Forced and childhood marriages constitute 60% to 80% of all marriages.

One area in which Afghanistan seems to have surpassed Canada is that women are guaranteed a particular proportion of the seats in the lower and upper houses of the national assembly. However, it is widely believed that these women are marginalized even within the assembly and that their level of influence is highly questionable, as is reflected with only one woman having been appointed to cabinet. The women's affairs program is considered to be a dumping ground for women's issues.

Development without women is no development at all. I saw it in many other countries while I was minister, that when women are not part of the development process, development is almost non-existent. It does not happen. Development, reconstruction and reconciliation are extremely important if we are going to see a stable country, a successful state and some success in Afghanistan.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member. I would say to her that a lot of progress has been made in Afghanistan, especially with regard to women and children. In Afghanistan six million students, including many girls, are now attending school. Not many girls were attending school when the mission started.

Another important point is the giving of financial tools to women so that they can build their own economy with micro-financing. More than 400,000 women in Afghanistan at this point are taking advantage of this program. Their repayment rate is 90%. This is no surprise because we know how well women take care of money.

We asked for a debate in the defence committee. We wanted an open debate on the Manley report because we think this mission is important. It involves not only our reserves, but our Canadian men and women in uniform. They are taking tremendous risks. We think it is very important to have an open and frank debate on the mission and its future.

Development and diplomacy are very important in that mission but they can only occur if there is security. I think our role as members of Parliament is to provide security to the Afghan people. In that way we can build for their future.

Should we put greater emphasis on diplomacy, reconstruction and governance? Then the military mission could increasingly shift to the training of the Afghan national security forces. In that way we would not be saying that we just want to leave, but it would be because the Afghan people would be living in a safe country.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for me personally it is good to hear that many women are being helped in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, as the hon. member knows from what I have said, there are still far too many who are truly out of reach and we are not reaching them.

The member has made an artificial separation in terms of diplomatic reconstruction and training and that the military then would not be needed. The hon. member knows full well that when we do reconstruction in a country that is as unstable as Afghanistan is we need to secure the areas where new construction is taking place. Of course, as has happened in other countries, if the individuals who are working are attacked, then the military is there to maintain peace. We want the military to be there to help with reconstruction and to allow for the governance structure to take root.

Quite frankly, none of this is going to happen unless we start right now and there is a Canadian envoy who will talk about reconciliation. There are different factions in every country as there are in Afghanistan. We must start bringing those factions together and have reconciliation. In many other countries reconciliation discussions have taken a couple of years. We must start immediately.

It will take a number of years, but if we want to eventually leave behind a stable self-governing country with a stable governance, we need to start that process now. Perhaps this is why the government in its motion is not going with a Canadian diplomat. I believe that is wrong. I hope that the motion is amended because I believe very strongly that without a Canadian diplomat we will not succeed. Military action in itself is not the answer.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

I have said it many times and I will say it again this evening: Canada is the best country in the world. It is that simple. We live in a nation that is the envy of the world. It is a nation of enduring rights and a nation of enduring freedoms. It is a free and democratic nation. It is a peaceful nation and a nation of opportunity.

Canada did not become a great country by accident or by luck. Our country was built by generations of ordinary men and women seeking a better life, daring to dream and refusing to be defeated. That is Canada. That is our national character. That is our country.

What is more, our nation has remained great because of ordinary men and women doing extraordinary things, ordinary men and women who have always been willing to risk their own lives to defend Canada during a time of greatest need. That is our history. That is our tradition. We have always known what Edmund Burke meant when he said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Canada is not a bystander. We have never been a bystander in our relatively short time as a nation. That is why, as Canadians, we have accomplished so much. We did at Vimy Ridge what our allies thought was impossible. That is why Canadians were on the shores of Normandy, why Canadians were in Korea and why Canadians have been keeping the peace. In fact, Canada invented the term “peacekeepers”. It is a Canadian word. It is why Canadians are in Afghanistan today doing the hard work asked of us by the United Nations, by NATO and by the Afghan people themselves.

When the world calls, Canada answers, because that is the Canadian way. We do not pick and choose between the easy missions. We do not run away from our international obligations just because the missions are difficult. Edward R. Murrow once said, “Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts”. Difficult is an excuse our government will never accept, nor an excuse we need to accept.

We have the Manley report to guide us, to shape our actions and our future in Afghanistan. I urge every Canadian to get a copy of that report and to read it.

The Manley report is not simply the work of five eminent Canadians. It is not just the opinions of John Manley, Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, Jake Epp and Paul Tellier. It is the result of their extensive consultations. It is a product of their fact finding trip to Afghanistan and their discussions with government officials and non-government organizations worldwide. It is a result of their listening to individual Canadians. It is a thoughtful, practical report and its conclusions are sobering, compelling and honest.

The terrorist threats we face are real. This is not an academic argument; it is real. We witnessed it in the horror we saw when the twin towers were destroyed and Canadian lives were lost. We have seen it continued in London, Madrid and Bali. We have discovered it on our own soil with homegrown terrorist plots. Our security is more than an abstract debate.

The Manley report weighs all of this. Allow me to read one paragraph from the Manley report.

Canadians have carried a heavy burden in Afghanistan. The toll in Canadian lives has been grievous, and it is painfully felt. The financial cost has been significant. The course of the conflict has caused us all to question whether Canada's involvement has been right or effective, and whether it will succeed.

Those are the facts. Those are the issues. Those are the questions we are trying to answer today. However, the Manley report goes beyond that. It also offers us direction. The report provides recommendations that are sound and reasonable and it outlines a path for success.

We all know this path will not be easy, but let me repeat: difficulty is not an excuse that history will accept. I am confident that difficulty is not an excuse that an overwhelming majority of Canadians will accept. Difficulty is not an excuse our servicemen and servicewomen will accept, because our soldiers are the best in the world. They are the best trained and the most professional and, as we have seen in Afghanistan, the most disciplined.

Throughout our history, the men and women serving our nation have stood tall no matter what the challenge and no matter what the sacrifice, because they know that freedom is never free. It has never been free in the history of this country and the history of the world. These men and women have been willing to pay a terribly high price for our way of life, for our shared values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

That is the proud heritage that we have inherited, the heritage that has been handed down to us from what we call our greatest generations, and it is a heritage that comes with responsibilities. We have a sacred duty to honour our servicemen and servicewomen and to pledge our steadiest and most steadfast support for those who wear the uniform and those who have worn Canada's uniform.

We must stand by them in times of peace. We must stand by them in times of war. That is our mission and our responsibility: to serve those who have served us so well. As we debate the motion before us, it is important that we remember the great debt we have always owed our veterans and our servicemen and servicewomen and that we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

I know there are members of this House who believe that it is time to cut and run from Afghanistan, but even they readily acknowledge their pride in what our servicemen and servicewomen do every day, the sacrifices and the accomplishments, and Canadians join us in that pride. That is not wishful thinking or empty rhetoric.

A survey last month found that nine out of every 10 Canadians believe our veterans deserve to be honoured for their sacrifices, that they played a major role in building this great nation, and that we as a people are proud of our country's military role not just in the two great wars, not just in Korea or our many other peacekeeping missions, but today in Afghanistan as well. Our government shares that pride. We share that conviction. We share that commitment.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George explained it best, very simply, in a speech he gave just days after the first world war had ended. He asked, “What is our task?” He answered by saying, “To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in”.

That remains our task today: to make our country a fit country for our heroes to live in. Because when we send our men and women on difficult and dangerous missions, they have to know, and know instinctively, that we will be there with them and we will be there with their families.

And we are. We are giving them the resources and equipment they need to take into combat. We are with them through the support we provide for them when they take off their uniforms one last time. We are with them today as they wear that one single proud word on their shoulders: Canada.

We are with them on their deployments. We are with them in our hearts, in our prayers and in our actions. That is what this motion is all about. We will not abandon our soldiers. We will not let their efforts or the ultimate sacrifices of their comrades be in vain. We will not walk away from them. We will not walk away from our duty to the world or our pledge to the people of Afghanistan.

In Rwanda we saw what happens when the world turns a blind eye, when the world fails to act, and when we walk the other way. We will not concede an inch to the terrorists or allow hatred and violence to change who we are or what we stand for.

This House has always stood tallest when our enemies have wanted most to weaken our resolve. Generations of parliamentarians have distinguished themselves here by rising to the great challenges of their times in making the difficult decisions. I know we will do the same.

We are adding to this chamber's history of important debates and important decisions. I know we will prove ourselves worthy to stand in this House to represent Canadians from our largest cities and our smallest villages and uphold the values that have made Canada the best country in the world.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister, my colleague from New Brunswick. It very much pertains to veterans. New veterans are coming back from Afghanistan now and we all recognize the challenges as they come back to our shores. A number of comments made by the NDP today were more or less bashing the government for not doing enough.

Just last year I was involved in an announcement with the minister at the Chalmers hospital in connection with a stress clinic. Could the minister tell us what action the government is taking to look after our veterans and make sure they are well cared for when they return to our shores?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did in fact get a question from the NDP in the House today on that very issue. Actually, I simply said in this House that the NDP members are the masters of hypocrisy. As a government, we have funded and are actually doubling the number of occupational stress injury clinics in this country for our returning men and women. We are doubling that number, and what really galls me, and I think upsets me, is that the NDP members stood in this House and actually voted against that.

I have here the supplementary estimates, Mr. Speaker, and you know, as you were in the chair that night, that on December 6, 2007, the NDP members stood in their places and voted against the moneys to do that. They simply do not support our men and women in uniform. When they stand in the House to suggest that they do, the record is pretty clear that they do not support our men and women in uniform. They are absolutely the world's greatest hypocrites when it comes to defending our veterans.

How can they actually stand in their places and demand that the government do something? We are doing it. It is what we voted for. We voted to put resources into our veterans, into those stress clinics, into more front line workers for veterans, and they stood in their places and voted against it. It is just absolutely wrong.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Missing in action.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Missing in action, Mr. Speaker, hiding under the furniture. The member from Sackville is always on his hind legs in here ranting about what he would do, I guess, but his record speaks for itself. Those members have done absolutely nothing. For them to suggest that we are doing nothing is just fundamentally wrong, because we were asking for their support on the floor of the House of Commons in a minority Parliament. We were asking for their support to make this happen and they denied us that support. They voted against our veterans.

[An hon. member]

They scurried out.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

They did scurry out, Mr. Speaker, and they will continue to do that because they do not believe in the mission, they do not support our veterans, and they do not support our men and women in uniform. That is the sorry state of the NDP: all talk and no action. I guess that is why they are the fourth party in the House of Commons. I just wonder where their support is.

It is no secret that in military circles the leader of the NDP--and I have a base in my riding as members well know, Camp Gagetown, and I have met many of the military types across the country--is referred to as “Taliban Jack”. That tells it all. The NDP does not support our men and women in uniform and they know it. The NDP record is deplorable. Those members should be ashamed of themselves.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my main theme tonight will be how the international community, including Canada, is helping Afghanistan get back on its feet after three decades of civil war.

Before I get to that, I would like to say a few words regarding the revised motion that our government has submitted to the House. First of all, this revised motion stakes out a clear and principled position. This is a Canadian position rather than just a Conservative or a Liberal position. As a Canadian position, it is one that can be supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the Canadian people here in this House.

I think we can all take heart from the fact that there is some fundamental common ground between the government and the official opposition on Afghanistan: that the mission should continue until 2011. There is common ground between the government and the official opposition on this point.

As well, the operational decisions should be left to Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan. Once again there is common ground between the government and the official opposition on this point.

The government believes this revised motion addresses the important questions Canadians have about the future of this mission. This is a duty that we owe our troops. Every day they are putting their lives on the line for us. Politicians of both parties asked them to do this.

Over 80% of Afghans have access to basic medical care, compared to only 9% in 2004. This is an important improvement in the lives of ordinary Afghans. There are now close to six million children enrolled in school, about one-third of them girls. In 2001, only 700,000 children were enrolled in school and none of them were girls. It is these children who are the future of Afghanistan and to whom the future of Afghanistan will be entrusted.

These are impressive achievements. While we recognize that challenges persist, the evidence of progress vindicates the efforts that have been undertaken by the international community. I need not remind members of this House that Canadians have played a key role in those efforts. Now it falls on us to determine what kind of role Canada is to play in Afghanistan past February 2009.

Our government has stated this many times before: providing genuine security is a fundamental underpinning to the achievement of reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. We are all aware that this is not an easy task. It is a mission that requires courage and commitment on the part of all Canadians.

We must look to a future with a strong Afghanistan that is able to live in peace with itself and its neighbours. Thanks to the strength and determination of the Afghan people as well as Canada's efforts and the support of the international community, real change is being made in Afghanistan.

Over 10 million Afghans registered and voted in free and fair elections for a president in 2004 and a parliament in 2005. Some 347 women were candidates for the lower house, which is remarkable considering the position of women under the Taliban regime. This can only give hope for the future as more and more women become involved in their own future.

We have done this in keeping with the spirit of the Prime Minister's decision to establish the Manley panel last fall. Achieving a bipartisan consensus on our mission in Afghanistan was the goal. We have solemn commitments to keep in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is emerging from 30 years of conflict and civil strife, three terrible decades that saw the country suffer through appalling conditions, ending with the brutal regime of the Taliban.

During this difficult period, the Afghan economy suffered and the Afghan people lived in a society where medical care, education and freedom of speech or religion were restricted and at times non-existent. Over six years ago, the brutal and extremist regime of the Taliban was overthrown. Canada is part of an international mission that is in Afghanistan at the invitation of its democratically elected government.

As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister asked a group of eminent Canadians, headed by John Manley, to advise Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends. The panel members presented the government with their findings and recommendations on January 22 of this year. As the Prime Minister has stated, the results of their efforts is a balanced, thoughtful and comprehensive report to Canadians.

The government broadly accepts the recommendations put forward by the panel on Canada's future in Afghanistan. As such, we introduced a motion to extend Canada's commitment to the United Nations' mandated mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011 on condition that Canada secured a partner that would provide a battle group of approximately 1,000 personnel, as well as medium-lift helicopter capacity and high performance unmanned aerial vehicles. The government has been working hard to ensure these requirements are met.

In short, the government is ensuring that the brave Canadians serving in Afghanistan, diplomats, aid workers, soldiers, as well as police and correctional advisers, receive the support they need to see our commitment through.

The decision we have before us must not be taken lightly. We must be cognizant of the risk of a return to turmoil in Afghanistan and of the potential regional and international implications. We must also bear in mind our obligations to the United Nations and our NATO allies. Whatever direction we choose, it must consider the implication for Canada's international reputation.

The government has carefully considered these questions and has reviewed the recommendations laid out by the independent panel. This is a crucial moment for Canada and we have a duty to get it right. At the end of the day, a decision on the future of the military mission in Afghanistan is a question of leadership. It is about Canada's role and influence in the world. Most important, it is about doing the right thing for Canada, for the people of Afghanistan and for the world.

Why should Afghan women not continue on their path to equality and freedom? Why should Afghan children, both girls and boys, not continue to be allowed to go to school? Why should the people of Afghanistan not continue to enjoy the fruits of democracy and freedom that we as Canadians so often take for granted?

These are values that we as Canadians consider important. Our continued presence in Afghanistan is bringing about real change. This is done through our support for development projects and for the presence of Canadian experts in the field to mentor and train Afghans.

Afghans want good governance. They want to see their government provide basic services. They want their children to go to school. They want jobs. However, there can be no hope for education, health care, economic prosperity, equality and respect for the rule of law if the people of Afghanistan are left to live in fear.

Canada's presence in Afghanistan provides an important part of the security that is vital for that country. We continue to train Afghans so they will one day be able to assume responsibility for their own security and weave together the elements of their own future.

That day is not here and if we lack the courage to stay, the new Afghanistan will face a dark and uncertain future. The Taliban continues to terrorize the population in an effort to subjugate Afghanistan once again under the extremist and brutal regime. We must stay in Afghanistan so the people of Afghanistan have a better future.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to rebut the previous speaker, but I will not do that. As a son of a veteran who required help from the VIP and was turned down, sadly, I will not go there.

What does the member think about the fact that right now $1 billion in aid goes to the government of Pakistan and people have noted that the government of Pakistan has done very little? I want to quote very quickly a recently interview with Sarah Chayes. She said:

—we're paying a billion dollars a year to Pakistan, which is orchestrating the Taliban insurgency. So, it's actually US-taxpayer money that is paying for the insurgents, who are then killing, at the moment, Canadian troops. Now if I were the government of Germany or France, I'd have a hard time putting my troops in that kind of equation. I would demand from Washington, that Washington require a lot different behavior from Pakistan.

What would my colleague say about those comments?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole international community is working toward peace and development in Afghanistan and Canada contributes to that, as well as our international partners. It is something of which we as a government are very proud.

Indeed, the Minister of National Defence met with the president of Pakistan with the desire to engage more fully Pakistan in the border issues that continue to be of concern to this country.

I am terribly proud to represent Northumberland—Quinte West in which is located 8 Wing, CFB Trenton. It is from the hub of Canada's military command that we send our men and women equipment and supplies to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we welcome home for the last time those brave men and women who have laid down their lives in a just cause, in a cause in which they all believed.

We will not abandon Pakistan either. We will continue to work with the new government that will be soon take over there to ensure more stability in the region and a successful outcome to the efforts we put forth in that corner of the world.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan. I stand here as the member of Parliament for my riding of Ottawa Centre and my party's foreign affairs critic.

The war in Afghanistan has touched the lives of many Canadians. It has been omnipresent in communities across the country. It is without question the most important issue by which this Parliament and our country has been challenged.

Canadians have been seized by this issue and have participated in many ways. Some have contributed by donating to help the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces. Some contribute to grassroots aid organizations that are engaged in projects in Afghanistan. On my street, a neighbour of mine solemnly lights a candle every night in a candle lantern he has on his lawn to remember our fellow citizens who serve in Afghanistan. I see that candle burn every night and I think of Afghanistan and of Canada.

In May 2006, when the House voted on the extension of Canada's participation in the war in southern Afghanistan, I asked the following questions. What is the military objective? What are the goals? How long will it take to achieve these objectives? It has been almost two years since those questions were posed. Canadians are still waiting for answers.

It is interesting, when we consider the billions of dollars that have been spent on the military mission and Canadians are still left with those questions and others still unanswered.

Too often our government has been more concerned with winning the hearts and minds of Canadians instead of those of Afghans. It is also troubling that after this period of time, our government could not choose another path. Everyone knows that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily, that peace can only come through a political solution. To quote Seddiq Weera, an Afghan who is a senior adviser to the Karzai government:

—the war in Afghanistan cannot be won without a peace track, a political track. Why?...The political component has at least two dimensions: one is the unresolved civil war; the other is the regional factor in the conflict.

Mr. Weera went on to say that at its root it was a civil war that they would continue to watch. He said that the war in Afghanistan was ongoing:

—not...because we have 1,000 fewer troops. It's not going on because we have less coordination among allied forces. It's not going on because we have too few helicopters. It's going on because of a mixture of determinants, one of which has not been addressed. To fight poverty is quite a reasonable effort. Lots of investment and meeting the basic needs of the people is good. Improving development is very good. Improve governance, yes. But unless you create a political track, you're not going to win the war.

I should let you know in advance, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

“Unless you create a political track, you're not going to win the war”, is what Mr. Weera said. This void has grown and will grow wider if we extend the combat mission to 2011. In fact, Mr. Weera points to the need for the UN to achieve peace and reconciliation. That is what Canada should be fighting for, a mandate that includes all regional actors, including Pakistan, India, Iran and Russia.

Accordingly, we need to change our direction now, from a focus on military gains to a primary focus on reconciliation and peace negotiations. As was put forward by one of our former diplomats, Gerry Ohlsen, only the UN can mandate a political framework to legitimize international action and bring about peace in Afghanistan. That is what Canada had done before. That is what the world looks for Canada to do, to seek the path to peace and reconciliation. To miss this opportunity would be tragic.

The vacuum that is present right now in Afghanistan should be filled with Canadian will and knowhow. There is no question that everyone in the House, in the country, wants to help Afghans achieve peace. In fact, this motion has Canada leaving in 2011.

I believe this is a problem. Yes, we must stay to achieve stability, but the only way to get there is to change the path we have been on. We have been on the road of counter-insurgency. It is time to choose the road toward reconciliation, to provide the Afghan people with that wonderful experience of peace, order and good government.

Peacekeeping and peacekeepers have evolved. They are still relevant. We cannot achieve peace through the purchase of more helicopters and troops alone. It is time for a change in direction with a Canadian emphasis. We can make a difference if we act now. We must never give up on the people of Afghanistan. We must listen to them, right now. They need us to change what we are doing. Now is that time.

I want to quote a friend of mine who said that Canadians have a profound interest, one we purchased at great cost in the future of Afghanistan in its peace and stability. Let us work together. Let us work with the Afghans, our allies, the global community as a whole to bring peace and not a continued war to Afghanistan.

I believe that through the amendment that we have put forward we can do that. But with the government's plan for more of the same, three more years of this direction, I do not believe we can achieve those goals.

I want to finish my comments by stating that if Canada chooses to follow the path that is put forward by the government without choosing this amendment, Canada will have missed an opportunity. I believe all Canadians do not want us to miss this opportunity. I hope that Canadians will talk to their members of Parliament and let them know what they think.

In summation, the path to peace is not an easy road, but it is a road that we must follow.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague's comments. Certainly, there is a need for political reconciliation. In fact, one of the big mistakes that I think NATO and the UN have made throughout this entire episode is the absence of bringing in those tribes that were not included in the Bonn agreement, those that were not adequately represented in the Afghan Compact. They should be brought into the political decision making of the country, especially the Pashtun tribes which represent 42% of the population.

Many of the sub-tribes, that have been the traditional rulers of the country of Afghanistan in most of its 300-year history, have been largely excluded from the decision making within the country.

I want to ask my colleague a question. We all know and he would agree, I am sure, that there is an absolute need for development on the ground to enable the Afghan people to provide for themselves. But what do we do in a situation where there is an insurgency coming into a country that is going to hospitals and clinics, going to the schools that have been created, and chopping the heads off the teachers, and assaults and terrorizes the population? How can there possibly be development if we do not have security?

We can wish and plead and negotiate all we want. In certain circumstances there is an absolute requirement for force to protect in the long term the sustainable development that is required on the ground. The absence of that security ensures that development will never take hold.

I ask my colleague, how does he propose, with his party's amendment, to ensure that the development work that is taking place will have the sustainability that is required unless there is going to be security on the ground?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what we have to do is change what we have been doing because it has not been working. Every report that has come forward says that security is down and corruption is up.

I want to point to the corruption right now. We hear about the schools that are being filled with children and that is true, but one of the problems, however, is that there are not many teachers in them. I have a report from Afghanistan for just last week. The fact is that teachers get paid $50 a month. How much does someone make in the opium fields? It is $20 a day.

What is happening right now is that the security problem is directly connected to the corruption problem. We have to learn in this place that not all the Taliban are the same. What is happening, because of the corruption in the government, was quoted by Sarah Chaise recently. She said that during the day they are shaken down by government officials and at night it is the Taliban.

We have to understand that we are not going to win this war through military means. We are not going to provide security by just providing more helicopters, troops and drones. We have to understand that the path to peace and to the Afghan people is to deal with corruption, poverty, and the horrible situation that most people are living in right now. That means a different form of security.

People might have different views of what security means. Security often is through protection. It does not always come through the barrel of a gun. The point was made about people being taken out to be shot or hung. It is important to note that between 1992 and 1996, tens of thousands of people died in the civil war in Afghanistan. People have not forgotten that. Scores are still being settled.

The fact of the matter is that until the wide gap that was not filled after the Bonn agreement is dealt with and the reconciliation process is not dealt with, this matter will get worse. That is why our party has put forward an amendment for a new UN mandate which would provide the possibility of peace and reconciliation.

I was in Iraq this past summer. The Iraqi people are just starting to get to that point now and many believe it is a point that should have been dealt with long before. Perhaps the government still agrees with the war in Iraq. For those of us who opposed it, we also believe that the mistakes that were made after the invasion continued the misery for the people in Iraq.

No one wants to see that happen in Afghanistan and I am sad to say that if we choose more troops, drones and helicopters, we are going to find ourselves in three years in a similar situation as to the one that is happening right now in Iraq.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening, despite my mild laryngitis, to debate the motion that is now before us.

I am pleased to follow my colleague who very ably represents Ottawa Centre. I am also pleased to say he has succeeded me as the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party and doing an excellent job.

When I entered the chamber this evening, I was listening attentively and respectfully to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who was commenting, and I thought quite appropriately, that we all share a duty.

Those of us in this House who are privileged to serve the people of our communities, and Canadians generally, have an obligation to honour our military men and women, both in times of peace and in times of war. I was nodding in assent and was actually going to compliment him on being inclusive in representing all of us in those comments.

Then he turned and engaged in the most viscous, most vile, and most virulent attack on the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who is not here in the House in any way, shape, or form to defend himself and who, I have to say, has probably done more for veterans and for the military in my 10 years in Ottawa than any other member in this chamber.

Let Canadians be the judge, but I thought it was unfortunate and ironic. For a few brief moments the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I thought, was going to rise to the occasion, however, he actually descended into the depths and conducted a viscous attack on a man who has championed the veterans independence program and the widows that have been left behind. He has championed the children who are not getting the kind of treatment needed to deal with their wounds resulting from the death or injury of absent family members and returned family members.

He is also the man who has championed the victims of agent orange. I could go on and on, but I think we will just let those Canadians who know better come to their own conclusions based on the evidence and not based on this astounding rant that we just heard and is now on the public record.

I listened earlier this afternoon when the Minister of Veterans Affairs actually made some very sweeping statements that were dead wrong and utterly disrespectful. How those members elevate the debate, how they act to contribute to a respectful debate, I do not know, but I have to say he hit a raw never. He made a sweeping reference that New Democrats do not care about our troops. They never cared about the military. I do not know if he said never will, but I am sure that was in his mind too.

What it caused me to do was go back to my office briefly this afternoon and pull off my shelf something that I had been thinking about reviewing for some time and that is the publication Marching Home to What?. It is a document produced by the predecessor of the New Democratic Party, the CCF, outlining the post-war program for Canada's fighting men and women.

The reason it hit a raw nerve is not just because I am unduly partisan, but my father was one of the two authors of that report. He was working on Parliament Hill as a researcher with the CCF caucus when Canada entered the war and he went into the air force. He never stopped working on the issue of support for our military through the war, and after the war went right back to working on the post-war program for the military.

It seems to me it does not serve our troops very well and it does not do a thing to honour this place to engage in those kinds of mindless rants.

Having said that, it threw me right back to one of the worst moments, really the worst few hours, I have ever spent in the 10 years that I have been privileged to be a member of Parliament and that was two days after I returned from a trip to Afghanistan in May 2006, which I was very privileged to have taken and was grateful for the opportunity.

To my utter dismay, the Minister of National Defence, who we accompanied to Afghanistan, did not say a word about the fact that the government would be bringing in a last minute motion to extend the then mission, which was already raising a lot of concerns, for another two years. This really blindsided and short-circuited any meaningful debate.

What we saw was the beginning of what has never stopped with the government and that is name calling and all kinds of insults being hurled about cut and run and other allegations, instead of a respectful debate that would honour our military, both departed, currently serving and our vets who watch all of this with great care and concern.

It does not surprise me a great deal that the Conservatives and Liberals have struck a bipartisan understanding around the motion, which they are entitled to do. We must be respectful in this House if that is the way they see it. However, what is regretful is that there is not a lot of evidence that in the striking of this bipartisan deal on which we will be voting, the views of Canadians, to a large extent, seem not to have been taken into account.

At the end of the day, a great deal of evidence shows that Canadians have a growing concern about the fact that the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar is making a lot of serious problems even worse. We heard the statistics earlier. My leader spoke very capably on this earlier this afternoon, as did the NDP defence critic, and outlined the evidence, the facts and the figures on our contribution. It is not because our military men and women are failing us, not at all. I agree with those who have said in debate all day long that we are privileged to have the best military men and women in the world serving us with honour, distinction and great competence. However, they have been assigned to a mission that is flawed and is failing.

I cannot for the life of me understand how it is the Conservatives and Liberals alike constantly rant and rail about the countries that will not deliver more troops through NATO to take up the Kandahar counter-insurgency mission when they know perfectly well why there are not more countries coming forth to assign their military men and women to the Kandahar mission. It is not because they are wimps or cowards. It is because they believe the mission is flawed. Many of those countries are serving in other parts of Afghanistan and some very positive results are happening as a result of that.

I want to say respectfully that I had an opportunity this afternoon for a detailed briefing, which I very much appreciated, with CIDA officials. I have not a doubt that much of the positive results they were presenting and sharing in other parts of Afghanistan are very well-documented and substantiated. It is happening because it is based on a fundamentally different approach.

My colleague who just spoke expressed the importance of that comprehensive peace building process that is needed. It has not happened and it needs to be regional in nature. I cannot believe the veterans affairs minister started in on my leader calling him “Taliban Jack” this afternoon. How pathetic is that when we know that when President Karzai was here in this chamber talking with members, after his presentation he said that we needed that kind of comprehensive peace building process to get under way. That was almost two years ago.

With respect to development, the amendment we have put forward recognizes that the way to build a path to peace in Afghanistan is through genuine development and through understanding that it is the people of Afghanistan whose interests we need to be concerned about, not the voters of Canada when it comes to saying that we need more flags being waved over projects sponsored by Canada. Will that make the Afghan people feel better? No. Is it to win votes? It is beneath the dignity of Parliament to be caught up in those kinds of arguments.

Even though there does not seem to be any indication that other colleagues are prepared to support our amendments, I am asking Canadians to carefully consider the amendments and understand that they are much more promising in terms of paving a path to peace for the future of the people of Afghanistan, and that is why we are supposed to be there.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I am always puzzled when that member and members of the NDP cloak some of their questions and comments in this rhetoric of casting aspersions on everyone else in the House but then somehow draping this sanctimonious cloak over themselves to say that anybody else who makes a comment that might be the least bit offensive or rubs somebody the wrong way is terrible but they can do the same thing and not have that standard apply to them.

What I find even more troubling and contradictory is the suggestion that peace is just going to arrive, that it is just going to fall out of the air somehow in Afghanistan, that development will expand, that we will be able to build more schools and roads and that more programs will simply appear without any security. That is where there is such an absolute disconnect, bordering on disillusionment, when we hear this coming from the NDP.

As for her umbrage taken at the comments made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, she should check the record. The truth hurts. When we check the record and see the actual voting pattern over the last 10 years by that member and other members of the NDP when it comes to support for the military and veterans, the record speaks for itself.

When budgetary requests were made by this government and the previous one, the NDP refused to support those budgetary implementations that would have given greater aid and support and the necessary equipment, in some cases, for the military and veterans.

I am puzzled when I constantly hear that member express such outrage at anyone who might take a contrary position. However, at the same time, if anybody criticizes the NDP when it puts its position forward or if anybody points out some of the obvious contradictions, some of the absolutely unalienable problems and inability to reconcile the reality with what it is calling for, it is personal. It is a terrible outrageous attack and somehow shocking and appalling that anybody would ever raise such questions about the position of the NDP.

The cold, hard truth is that in Afghanistan today we need that security for the type of ideal panacea that the NDP thinks is just going to arrive somehow on its own. That is the reality.

The member has been there. To her credit, she has seen with her own eyes what is taking place in that country, which is what makes it even more perhaps appalling that she has come back and contradicted what she has seen with her own two eyes: that the security that the Canadian Forces are providing in Afghanistan is absolutely integral, inextricable from the development and the type of work that she herself wants to see happen.

I do not know how she can reconcile that. I do not know how she can logically suggest that these things can happen without the presence of the Canadian Forces and the military of other countries.

Then she has the audacity to stand and suggest somehow that she can speak for the entire international community and the reason that it is not going to Kandahar is that it has come to the same conclusion, as disconnected from reality as it may be, that it does not think that the mission is successful.

She sure does not speak for me nor for this government and I do not think others in the international community would want the NDP speaking for them either.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I waited and waited in case there was a question at the end of that lecture.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It is called comments and questions.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

After I heard all of the insults hurled, I still kept waiting for a question.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It is questions and comments.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

He knows everything.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I am sorry, I am not prepared to enter into that kind of an exchange, but I would say--