Debates of Feb. 25th, 2008

Afghanistan

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to ask the hon. member a question based on the statistics he was giving about the 4,000 schools that have been created with the funding. In my riding, I have a very large Afghan community centre and the Afghan Women's Organization. They are decrying the lack of funds and cannot see results, so my question is whether the member can give me specific locations where the schools are located so I can give the right answers to those people.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it would take too long for me to list all 4,000 locations in less than 30 seconds, and I do not have them at my fingertips, but I can get the information for the hon. member and get back to her.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, it would be a good idea to review the policy positions that the Bloc Québécois has adopted throughout all the discussion on Afghanistan. It is important that those who are listening to us know that, at the start, the Bloc Québécois gave its support to the mission in Afghanistan. We did that on October 8, 2001, just a few weeks after the attacks on New York and Washington.

We also agreed with United Nations resolutions 1368 and 1373, which gave the United States permission to react because they had been attacked and were in a legitimate defence position. There were a number of countries that fell in behind the Americans. At the time, we were in agreement with recognition of the legitimate right of the Americans to defend themselves and we supported intervention by the international community. As I have said, that was in October 2001.

We also have to look back to that period and admit that the Bloc Québécois became more and more demanding in its policy positions. I think back to January 28, 2002. That was the second policy position when we were asked to agree to send troops to Afghanistan. Once again, the Bloc Québécois said “Yes” but with certain conditions. Among other things, we wanted to protect civilians. We were also against antipersonnel mines and cluster bombs. We believed it was important that prisoners be treated in accordance with international law and, in particular, we did not want prisoners to wind up in Guantanamo.

It was at that point that the two governments—Liberal as much as Conservative—began to be secretive. They told us there were no problems. I recall a photo that appeared in the Globe and Mail, showing JTF 2, Joint Task Force Two, leading three prisoners to the Americans. In our opinion, that is where it started—I will not say to come apart. We asked serious questions and we had serious doubts about the mission itself.

On November 15, 2005, we were again in favour of redeployment from Kabul to Kandahar. Once more, we attached many conditions because the way things were proceeding was not satisfactory. We obtained our news from the media, on television and radio, but the Liberal government of the day never told us exactly what was happening on the ground. So we returned to the charge. We supported sending the troops to Kandahar but prisoners' rights were still very important to us. We also called for a peace-building strategy. It was from that point that the Bloc began to ask whether there was a possibility for building peace, perhaps through discussions with the less-militant elements of the Taliban. Back in 2005, we were putting forward that timetable.

We also called for a reconstruction strategy. Reports on television and in the media described aggressive missions: we heard how many Taliban were killed and how many Canadians lost their lives. We never heard about construction of schools, irrigation systems or clinics. That was when we began to have doubts.

On May 16, 2006, the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion before the Standing Committee on National Defence saying that henceforth we wanted much tighter, firmer parameters. Among other things, we were wondering about the length of the mission. We could not go on forever like this, not knowing how long the mission would last.

There was also the matter of the condition of our troops and their equipment. Did they have what they needed out there? As changes occurred in the theatre of operations, various kinds of equipment were purchased. It was Canadian taxpayers who footed the bill for providing our troops with effective equipment suited to the terrain. Our troops simply had to have what was needed. This was done without calls for tenders and completely over our heads in the House of Commons. There is equipment out there about which people have no idea. They would have to go to find out. So we asked how it could be that there was a certain contract we had never heard of.

We had other conditions as well and insisted on reconstruction and diplomacy.

We already had the three Ds at the time. We also wanted evaluation criteria and an exit strategy. How were we going to get out of this? We had to talk about it. That is what we were doing on May 16.

The next day, the Prime Minister introduced the motion in the House to extend the mission. That was when we said he probably wanted to avoid answering these questions. I can talk about the extension of the mission. I was not here. I was in Afghanistan as a matter of fact—I will return to this a little later—with German troops in the north. It was a NATO delegation. Brussels had asked me to accompany five or six other parliamentarians and I went to see for myself what was happening in northern Afghanistan. The cardinal points are very important in Afghanistan. I will return to this later.

On May 17, therefore, we faced a government motion for an extension until February 2009. In view of the fact that the government simply would not answer our questions or respond to what the Bloc had proposed the previous day in committee, we said we did not agree with the mission. We were being asked to sign a blank cheque and the Bloc Québécois did not want to do it. That was the point where the Bloc stayed true to itself and broke with the government. We would not follow it anywhere at all.

And then on April 19, 2007, there was another important political position taken. We talked about the end of the operation, in a motion presented by the Liberal Party. The Bloc joined with the Liberals in saying that the combat mission did have to end in 2009. That is where we are now. We are now facing a second extension.

First, I want to clarify something before continuing my argument. The Parliament of Canada is completely entitled to decide what the mission is, to say that the mission starts on this date and ends on that date. The opposition parties are tired of being told that they do not support the troops on the ground. I have gone to see those troops on two occasions. I will say, loud and clear, that they are doing an excellent job there. In fact, the Prime Minister agrees. He also says that it is up to the generals to decide the parameters for what the troops will do, because we are not on the scene every day. However, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility, and that is to decide when it starts, when it finishes, and often, the terms on which we want it to happen. After that, when it comes to the day to day operations on the ground, we know that it is the military commanders who will decide, over there, how things will be done.

We are a bit tired of being told that the reason we do not agree with the mission is that we are against the troops who are there. That is absolutely false. It is a bad argument and we do not agree with it.

Parliament also makes decisions. It seems to me that the government is letting things slide a lot. When we talk about the prisoners—I will say more about that later—I find it incredible that what is being said is: “Do what you want with the prisoners. We will not tell you how to do things. It is up to you to decide.” We are responsible people. We are the people’s elected representatives. We have to decide the big questions. It seems to me that the government is only too happy to avoid dealing with those big questions.

Another argument is being made, and this is something else I would like to clarify: that the Taliban are listening to us. The Taliban are probably going to put a price on the head of some ministers here because they are against them, and we are going to be told that we are for the Taliban because we are not for continuing the mission. Be serious! There are limits. I understand that they follow the debates, but then to say that they are listening every moment to what I am saying, there is a limit. I find this extreme. We will not be controlled, and we will not be shut down, by telling us that the Taliban are monitoring us as we speak and that we have to be careful what we say. We in the Bloc Québécois will say it loud and clear. We do not agree with extending the mission, and we are going to put forward arguments to support that position.

The three D policy is important here. When I went to Afghanistan the first time I saw the German troops and I said to them, “It is only 8 p.m. Why do you have to go back to the base?” The fact is there were what were called caveats, or exceptions imposed by their parliament, which sometimes goes much further. For our Canadian soldiers in the south, there were no caveats. I then realized that there may be some nations that were not doing as much as we were.

Let me say again that the cardinal points are important in Afghanistan. It is much more dangerous in the south and the east than it is in the north and the west. Traditionally that is not where the problems lie. The Taliban stronghold is in Kandahar. That is an important cardinal point.

The second time I went to Afghanistan with the Standing Committee on National Defence—my colleague was there as well—we were given briefings. I asked whether the mission was balanced. I specifically asked how many people were taking care of defence, the first of the three Ds. I was told roughly 2,500. That is about the size of the Royal 22e Régiment currently in Afghanistan. Then I asked how many CIDA employees were working on development. I was told there were six there to assess the projects in the entire Kandahar province. I noticed there was certainly an imbalance.

I was hoping to get assurance about the other D: diplomacy. I asked how many diplomats were meeting with the governors, holding village meetings, coming into direct contact with Kabul, the capital, and working together to come up with a plan of action that was a little more comprehensive. It was the same number as for development, in other words there were just six diplomats in Afghanistan in the Kandahar area. As you can see this mission is completely unbalanced.

Earlier I asked my colleague a question. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about Canadian foreign policy. It has always been based on mediation. It all started with Lester B. Pearson's peacekeeping forces and peace missions. At present, everyone agrees that this is not a peace mission. Who is pleased with this? George W. Bush. Canada, the former dove that served as mediator between two major powers, has now become an eagle perched on the same branch as the Americans. In my opinion, this has very negative consequences for Canada.

I have some accusations to make. I accused the Conservatives of having hijacked the mission. They stand accused. They have hijacked the current mission in Afghanistan and are focusing only on the military aspect with the result that almost no development work is being carried out.

I can hardly wait to see the 4,000 schools. I went to Kandahar and, when we asked to see the schools, we were told that it was dangerous, that we could not leave the camp and that the helicopters had no fuel because there had been an explosion in a fuel convoy headed to Kandahar. There was no more fuel for the helicopters and it was impossible to leave the camp and to go beyond the barbed wire surrounding it. I asked them where the schools were located and if they had photos of them, where were the clinics, the drinking water wells and the irrigation systems. We did not see any of that.

Earlier there was talk of briefings. We have the Bloc Québécois to thank for these, because the minister at the time did not want to brief the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Since then, there have been briefings, but they are completely meaningless. They show photos of the new C-17s that will be landing in Kandahar. It is all unclassified information. They show us the cargo bay and how the C-17 is unloaded. Where are the schools? If the schools existed, the government would be happy to show them. We are not talking about dozens or hundreds of schools. The parliamentary secretary is talking about thousands of schools. I think that is an exaggeration. There are not thousands of schools, and that is a problem. The Conservatives have hijacked the mission.

The Liberal Party is no better. I asked the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. For a year, the Liberals were saying that the combat missions would end in 2009. The member for Bourassa, critic on this file, went on and on about 2009. I had to laugh last week when I heard him saying that the Liberals were responsible for this wonderful resolution, and that they had moved the debate forward.

The real issue is the end of the mission. The Liberals said that the mission would end in 2009. Now, it is 2011. That is not acceptable. It is a serious contradiction.

I hope that my colleague from Bourassa will ask me that question later on, and I hope that he will be able to respond to what I am saying now.

They have flip-flopped. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition negotiated in the Prime Minister's Office, but they cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Liberal Party has surrendered to the Conservative Party. It has laid down its arms, to use a military expression. They are trying to tell us that this is a great victory for them, but I do not think it is.

Only the Bloc Québécois is holding the line; even the NDP capitulated. When my colleague from Bourassa put forward his motion to end combat operations in 2009, the NDP joined the Conservative Party in voting against it. Everything would have been a done deal by now, and we would not be having this debate. We would have informed our NATO friends and allies that Parliament had decided that combat operations would end in 2009.

Right now, they all stand accused. The Bloc Québécois alone has stood firm. I have seen the polls: the Conservatives and the Liberals are acting against the will of Quebeckers. This is not what Quebeckers want. They do not want this mission to go on. They want it to end in 2009. We are steering a steady course, and we have a clear conscience. I look forward to going up against them in the election campaign.

To use a slogan that has appeared in the papers, they will find us in their path in Quebec telling Quebeckers exactly what makes these parties tick. One party hijacked the mission, and the other went to bed with it after claiming to be a virgin, playing innocent, and insisting that it would never lie down with the Conservative Party on the issue of ending the mission. But that is not what happened, because here they are in the same bed, and Quebeckers will not forget that.

I have been talking about the cardinal points. We do not want to leave and let everything fall apart. For many years, when I attend NATO meetings, I myself have been asking whether there is some way to do a rotation; o have others take our place so that it is not always the same ones in combat, the Canadians, the Americans or the British. I named them all earlier.

At present, the ones who are paying the biggest price are the Canadians. The number of 78 killed in a contingent of about 2,500 soldiers in rotation, is enormous. We are paying the highest cost in terms of loss of life, and that cost is even higher.

I have ridden comfortably in the air-conditioned G-Wagons with the German troops in the north of Afghanistan, but it is not like that in the south because that is a dangerous field of operation. It is now costing Canadian taxpayers $3 million per day to carry out operations in Afghanistan. It does not cost that much in the north or the west, but that is what it costs in the south of Afghanistan.

I could say a great deal more about CIDA, from whom there has been no accounting. For example, if an Afghan person comes to CIDA because he wants to build a well in his village. They ask him how much will it cost. He answers $15,000 and they sign a cheque, No one goes to see if the well is built and we find out later that it costs $2,000 to build a well in Afghanistan. The same thing applies to the stones that are used to pave the roads. They sell the stones at 10 times the cost price because they are paid for with Canadian dollars and there is no accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that my time is nearly up. I will conclude by saying that I am glad to belong to the Bloc Québécois. I am glad we have maintained our position and that we are the only ones who have not contradicted ourselves in this debate. In my opinion, the people of Quebec will recognize that in the next election. They will recognize that we have not betrayed them, we have not let them down and we have been honest with them. That proves once again that the message of the Bloc Québécois is well fixed in the minds of Quebeckers: we defend their interests and their values. Our colleagues in this House will find us in their path in Quebec in the next federal election.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

That was 20 minutes of some of the worst and most misleading bovine psychology I have heard in this place.

The intent of the mission was never ever peacekeeping. That is completely misleading. I have a quote that I would like to read for my colleague and then ask him a short question. The quote is from John Stuart Mill. It says:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

I ask my hon. colleague, is there anything that the Bloc Québécois is willing to fight for?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague listened to what I said earlier. I explained that the Bloc Québécois had supported this mission. We agreed with it. Until 2005, we agreed with sending troops, but then we began to be much more critical. I should also say that we are happy with the work the military are doing. I do not want to fall into the trap where others say that we do not care about our soldiers or that we are against them. That is not the case. Moreover, I consider the soldiers of the Royal 22nd Regiment to be the best in the world, not just the best in Canada.

I think we were right. It is up to us to decide whether we want a change of direction for this mission. It is up to Parliament to decide, and that does not mean we want to slip away. We want others to take our place. It should not always be up to the same countries to pay the monetary and human price. We are not saying we want to leave tomorrow, but we want the mission to end. We have been talking about a 2009 end date for a long time, while many members of this House have changed their minds about the end date.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak in sound bites with an eye to an upcoming election campaign. We need to be above all that. When we are talking about Canada's role in the world, we need to be bigger than that. I therefore do not want to say that we will be on Quebec's side, see what the polls say, and all that.

I do know one thing: the Liberal Party of Canada said that the mission had to change and focus on reconstruction. We even talked about rotation. I was one of those who talked about it.

I have a question for the member for Saint-Jean. I have often heard him say that he would agree to a rotation, but that Canada would have to go into other regions of Afghanistan. Am I to understand now that the Bloc has reversed its position? Does the member want the troops not only to leave Kandahar but to withdraw from Afghanistan completely? Or has he changed his mind, too?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois' position is clear. We want the mission to end in 2009. We want Canada to be replaced in Kandahar by another country or other countries. My hon. colleague from Bourassa has said repeatedly that it should not always be the same people who pay the price and bear the burden.

We agree. We are at the stage where this is happening. We want the mission to end in 2009, not in 2011. So far, 78 soldiers have died and this is costing us $3 million a day. Between now and 2011, we can be sure that it will cost the lives of dozens of more soldiers and will continue to be very costly for the public purse.

Thus, our position is not contradictory. For us, the end of the mission has always been 2009. That is still the case today and will be the case tomorrow.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I am a previous member of the defence committee and we have a grave concern for the soldiers who come back and their families.

Inside today's The Hill Times there is a big headline, “Disposable soldiers”. In a previous edition of The Hill Times, a gentleman by the name of Stephen White from Nova Scotia slammed Veterans Affairs for its care of the troops. Another one from Joyce Carter, a widow of a veteran, slammed the government for its broken promises.

Whether the troops come back today or in 2011, the reality is we have been told by the Auditor General and by the Surgeon General of DND that approximately one-third of the returning troops will have psychological or physical problems. The Auditor General said that there are not enough financial or human resources to care for them and their families.

The reality is we saw the headlines in Petawawa about children of those soldiers who died in Afghanistan who could not get the care they needed. It took headlines in an ombudsman report to get them the care.

We also know about the Dinning family whose son bravely lost his life in Afghanistan. It took an eight hour drive for them to come here to force the government to look after the funeral expenses.

The reality is the government promised so much more for veterans and returning soldiers and it completely let them down.

I would like my hon. colleague from the Bloc to explain why the government says it supports the troops but when the troops come back, that support seems to fall off rather rapidly.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must agree with my hon. colleague. In my opinion, what is even more alarming is that the Bloc Québécois has often asked the Canadian Forces how many injured soldiers there have been in Afghanistan. There have been 78 deaths so far, and we had to wait months to see a list. After questioning the generals before the Standing Committee on National Defence, we finally saw a list of the number of injured soldiers.

A study was undertaken because we were very concerned about whether soldiers were receiving proper care. I had even heard that soldiers were given pills to treat post-traumatic stress and they were then sent back into the field.

We would like to get to the bottom of this. I am pleased that my hon. colleague has raised the issue and I hope that the members of the other parties on the Standing Committee on National Defence will make it their mission to get to the bottom of this matter. These people must be treated humanely. They have left part of themselves, or their physical or psychological integrity, on the battlefield. They must receive the care that is worthy of the sacrifice they have made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's convoluted attempt at explaining the Bloc Québécois about-faces these past six years. I find it deplorable that their position changes according to which way the wind is blowing or what the polls indicate. I have all kinds of examples of contradictory statements made by Bloc members. The leader himself said on several occasions that he supported extending the mission and then he backtracked. He said things that were not true.

We have to consider all that has been accomplished in Afghanistan. For example, the gross domestic product has doubled and micro-financing is taking hold in Afghanistan. Almost 418,000 small loans have been made. All experts in international development, particularly in poor countries, acknowledge the power of micro-financing in rebuilding economies. In addition, these loans are being made to women and 90% of the loans have been repaid. We are talking about 418,000 loans. In 2004, 9% of Afghans were receiving basic health care and now 83% are entitled to such services.

Canada is supporting 4,000 schools.The member only needs to go to the Galeries de la Capitale shopping centre to see a travelling exhibit that has toured the country. He does not have to go to Afghanistan. We did not go to all those places in Afghanistan because of security, but that does not prevent the work from being carried out in the field. Six million children have gone back to school. The infant mortality rate has decreased. Five million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the arrival of UN troops.

There sits a party that wants to break up Canada and that, one day, would like to have a say in this matter as a nation. The leader of that party even said, in January 2007, that a sovereign Quebec would have participated in international intervention in Afghanistan. The member himself said, in February 2006, that he was in favour of extending the Canadian Forces' mission.

My question is simple. After all these about-faces, how can the members of the Bloc Québécois present one coherent position on the Afghanistan mission? More importantly, how can reconstruction take place in Afghanistan without security?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member is being quite convoluted himself. The GDP has increased so quickly because opium production is doubling, even tripling the growth rate. That is what is happening, but no one ever says much about that. Often the government will say that the opium fields have to be destroyed, but if that happens, the peasants will turn against us. We prefer to go down other avenues.

The Senlis Council, among others—it will make people smile to hear me talk about the Senlis Council—has a rather good suggestion that this product be supplied to pharmaceutical companies. The product could even be refined in the villages. That is a good approach.

There is also the idea of alternative crops. There were supposed to be discussions between NATO and the European Union to find new markets in Europe. If cucumbers are planted instead of poppies, then there needs to be a market for cucumbers. There could be discussions about that with the European Union.

I could go on—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Westlock—St. Paul.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents, the people of Crowfoot, Alberta, to the motion on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Last week during the break, members were in their constituencies and attended different events. I was at schools in Drumheller, Strathmore and others to talk about Canada's mission in Afghanistan. It is an issue in which all Canadians, but especially those in my riding, are very engaged. My constituents are 100% in support of the brave Canadian men and women in the Canadian armed forces. Many Canadian veterans live in my riding and they continue to be very proud of our Canadian military.

We are a peaceful nation. Canadians have served as peacekeepers over the last number of decades in many parts of the world. World War II veterans in my riding remain vocal and are always prepared to speak to the younger generation about the strength of our nation's resolve, its strong capabilities when it comes to the military and the legacy of past efforts made on behalf of our country.

The revised motion we are debating today builds on the original motion which our government brought forward and wrote from the recommendations that came out of the Manley report. The revised motion incorporates large elements of the motion that was proposed by the Liberal Party, the official opposition in the House. In this minority Parliament we are focusing our efforts to achieve a bipartisan consensus in the House on the future of the mission. We want to work together.

The revised motion acknowledges what is required in order for Canada's and NATO's mission to succeed. I am certain that today Canadians are encouraged knowing that there is some fundamental common ground between the government and the official opposition when it comes to the very difficult work our country is doing on behalf of the people of Afghanistan.

Our parties agree that the mission should continue until 2011 and that operational decisions should be left to the Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan who are aware of the circumstances they face. While we in this House make big decisions on a political level, we also believe we have to allow our military commanders on the ground the freedom to make those decisions that will lead to the success of this mission.

Our two parties, the two parties with the most seats or votes in the House, believe that with the motion we are debating today we have a reasonable compromise that addresses the important questions Canadians have about the future mission in Afghanistan. This motion does not reflect, as we have already heard today, a Conservative position or a Liberal position. It is a Canadian position that can be supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.

Where I come from, people feel that this is first and foremost a duty that we owe to our troops. Every day our troops are putting their lives on the line. Parliament has asked them to do this. This House should be very clear with our troops about the missions they are tasked to accomplish on behalf of our country. Today's motion provides that clarity.

Our government has decided to set aside stable and predictable funding for the plan laid out in this motion. We are increasing the automatic annual increase in defence spending from 1.5% to 2% beginning in 2011-12. This funding, together with new and upgraded equipment, will improve the general effectiveness and safety of Canadian troops.

In addition, I know the Prime Minister is making a concerted effort to reach out to our allies and to secure another 1,000 troops to help Canadian troops in the field get the job done. I am optimistic that our Prime Minister will get the job done. We have heard from our defence minister today and the parliamentary secretary from Edmonton. I know all of them are involved in meeting with other countries and securing the support that is needed.

I do not believe for one moment that NATO will let us down. I think members of both the government and the official opposition can join together as one voice in asking NATO to live up to its collective obligations and come through. I am confident that this will happen.

As I said, my constituents are glad that our federal government is truly providing our men and women in the Canadian Forces with what they need to get the job done.

We welcome the greater clarity in the Liberal position on the mission in Afghanistan. Canada should remain with the military mission in Afghanistan through to 2011.

Our government established the Manley panel last fall with the expressed intention of bringing a non-partisan consensus to this particular mission, and the motion we are debating here this afternoon shows the progress that we have made here in Parliament.

Why is Canada in Afghanistan? The motion is in line with our commitment to Afghanistan. Canada is part of the international effort requested, not by other major super powers, but by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.

As part of the United Nations mandated and NATO led mission, Canada, alongside its international partners, has committed to help the people of Afghanistan build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient country. Our goal is to create a safer environment where development and reconstruction can take place and to help Afghans build the foundations they will need for that same stability and for that lasting peace.

The work of Canada and the international community is guided by the January 2006 Afghanistan Compact, a framework for coordinating the work and resources of the Afghan government and its international partners in three priority areas, which are not in any specific order: security, development and good governance.

Canada has been upholding a key role in this NATO led, UN sanctioned, International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. We are doing our part along with 37 other nations. We are proudly doing our part and we are a model for other countries, as we are in the Kandahar region.

The goal is to help establish a safe and stable environment so that roads, hospitals and schools can be built, so local government can be strengthened and so other development work can take place. In the Kandahar area, if we were to take the Canadian troops away none of these projects would ever work their way through to fruition.

Various NATO countries are also responsible for 25 provincial reconstruction teams working throughout Afghanistan.

In the 39th Parliament, I have had the privilege of serving as the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Our committee has been studying Canada's mission in Afghanistan. We have held 31 meetings concerning the situation and the mission in Afghanistan. We have heard from over 50 witnesses. We presented a preliminary report to this House and our study is ongoing.

From the chair of our committee, I must say that we have heard overwhelming testimony about the good work Canadians are doing in Afghanistan. We have heard about mistakes, successes, accomplishments and heart-wrenching accounts of how tough life is and has been in that country.

Along with former deputy prime minister, John Manley, I am very disappointed that so many and so much of the testimony by the witnesses before our committee has not reached Canadians. I encourage all Canadians to go to www.parl.gc.ca, find the foreign affairs committee home page and read the testimony.

Our mission has experienced challenges. In any war Canada has fought, the battle was not easy but this nation has never forsaken its responsibilities. I am proud that today will not change that history. Today in Afghanistan, the Taliban has chosen the cowards way by setting traps in the shadows to kill.

Canada remains in Afghanistan and we remain strong.

It has been a pleasure to bring forward some of the information we have from the committee. I look forward to a couple of questions so I can finish some of my comments.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from my good neighbour in Crowfoot. The good constituents who I represent in Wetaskiwin would like to hear the hon. member finish some of the comments he had to make.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, through our committee work, it has become very obvious that in this conflict the people of Afghanistan support us. Not only are they telling the Canadian soldiers to please stay and fight their battles, but they also share our sorrow every time we lose a Canadian in Afghanistan.

Afghans wish Canadians did not have to pay such a high price in terms of personal injury or death. Afghan citizens are thankful for our efforts. They know we are not there to take their country from them. They know we are only trying to help restore security to allow the rebuilding of Afghanistan to continue. Development and reconstruction work, the building of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals can only take place when civilian workers and the projects they are working on are safe from harm.

Today we are debating this motion because we have reached an agreement on how our nation will proceed in terms of helping Afghanistan. This is very difficult work and it is costly. We have had to decide what we will continue to do and for how long we will do it. We have had to decide what to report to other nations on what we feel they should be doing to help get the job done. These issues are spelled out in the motion.

The speeches we are hearing in the House today from all parties are providing the details and working the details of this motion. My constituents are proud our Canadian Forces have performed in Afghanistan. I think my constituents and most Canadians want Canada to continue to influence the world for good in Afghanistan toward democracy, freedom, peace, rule of law, all those things we take for granted. Let us not give up on this country. Let us not say that we will no longer play a role. Let these Canadian values be instilled and imparted to Afghanistan which is begging Canada to continue its work there.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just noticed that the member of Parliament is not satisfied with the answer so I will try again.

I know my colleague is the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and it would be appropriate, since we want to change the mission, to refocus and talk about diplomacy because he has been working hard on that issue.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on Pakistan. We know that if we want to find an Afghanistan solution we will need to take a look regionally. There are some issues at the border and landmines in the south with people passing back and forth easily.

I would like to hear the thoughts of the member for Crowfoot on what we should do now what should have been done a year ago regarding diplomacy. I know there is Jirga and I know that Musharraf is talking with President Karzai, but since the member has been focusing on this at the standing committee, what should we do regarding diplomacy?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, any time we are involved in conflict it is not only the country but the bordering countries that play a major role. We understand that much is coming across the border.

When we think of what Canada is doing, Canada is involved not just bilaterally with Pakistan or with Afghanistan, we are working multilaterally through the UN and others to meet with Pakistan. We have encouraged it to have closer border control.

One thing I was very impressed with at our last committee meeting was when it came out in the statistics how many troops Pakistan has lost. Pakistan has lost thousands of troops in order to secure the border.

Diplomatically, the member has hit the nail on the head. We continue behind the scenes to work diplomatically to speak with governments and whoever the new leader of Pakistan may some day be to help influence more response there, but we are not there simply trying to fight the Taliban. We are there working with other countries.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am humbled to be able to walk these hallways and follow the steps of real heroes and to stand in the House and talk on the predominant foreign policy issue of our time with some of the heroes of our time, such as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, a retired lieutenant colonel with the Canadian Forces.

It is an honour to stand here today to speak to the Afghan mission, a mission that has positively impacted the lives of Afghanis and Canadians alike. It is an honour to represent the people of Westlock—St. Paul and, within that riding, a real privilege to represent the military bases of 4 Wing Cold Lake and Edmonton Garrison.

With two military bases in my riding, it has allowed me a unique opportunity to hear from our brave men and women in uniform about the ways in which they are helping to create a better life for the Afghan people. Our brave soldiers risk their lives each and every day to help bring about peace, hope and change to a people who have all been but forgotten by the world.

This hope has been realized in many tangible and concrete forms. It has been realized in the light of an Afghan woman's eyes when she has been approved for a business loan, an opportunity never before given. It has been realized in the aspirations for a better tomorrow of a farmer who was once forced to grow opium but now has a variety of crops to choose from. Hope is realized in the smile on a little girl's face when she has seen a classroom for the very first time.

Those are the reasons that our brave men and women risk their lives every day. Those are just some of the faces for which they risk their lives. Those are the reasons that I stand fully committed behind our brave men and women in uniform as they bring hope back into the lives of Afghan citizens.

It is not just the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families that I would like to mention today but also our Canadian diplomats and civilians who risk their lives every day as well to create sustainable development and good governance while helping to decrease poverty. Our civilian diplomats and soldiers are working shoulder to shoulder with our NATO partners at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghan government to bring about a better Afghanistan, a better world and a better tomorrow.

This is the Canadian vision. The mission in Afghanistan brings hope, aspirations and dreams to a people who have been neglected and oppressed for far too long.

While in Afghanistan, Canada has played a multifaceted role, bringing positive change to Afghanistan's educational system, economy, health care system, security, good governance and rule of law, to name but a few. To date, there are roughly six million children in school, one-third of those are girls, while in 2001 only 700,000 children were enrolled. We should think about that. Today there are nearly three times as many females enrolled in Afghan public schools as there were before that.

Directly, Canada supports the establishment of 4,000 community based schools and the training of 9,000 teachers, 4,000 of whom are women. Approximately 120,000 children will benefit from these community based schools. That is incredible and something that Canadians should be and are proud of.

Between 2004 and 2007 per capita income doubled in Afghanistan. As the top microfinance program donor, Canada has helped women take out loans and start businesses for the first time ever. More than 418,000 people in 23 different provinces have benefited from microfinancing, two-thirds of those being females, with a repayment rate of over 90% already.

I am proud to say that 83% of Afghanis have access to basic medical care compared to 2004 when only 9% of the population had this access. Thanks to Canada, more than 7 million children have been vaccinated against polio and 400,000 people in Kandahar province have benefited from food aid.

Canadians should also be proud of the contributions we have made to create a safer, better Afghanistan. We have helped with police reform; a global approach that includes mentoring, training, financing, salaries, building police stations and providing supply equipment and uniforms for the Afghan national police. We have also helped train the Afghan national army by working side by side with the ANA, helping them to become a self-sufficient force, while helping them display leadership to be extended in the hopes of providing influence for the central government throughout their country.

Finally, with respect to security, Canada has been working toward a mine free Afghanistan. We have put millions of dollars toward demining initiatives, including mine risk education, victim assistance and capacity building. These are but merely a chip off the iceberg in what we are doing to help create a safer Afghanistan.

Canada is also working toward creating good governance for the people of Afghanistan. Ten million-plus Afghanis were registered to vote in free and fair elections for president in 2004. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, 374 candidates were women.

The rule of law is being brought back to a country that has been without it for far too long. More than 70 prosecutors, 68 public defenders and 200 judges have been trained by Canada. These are but merely a glimpse of the results of the hard work and dedication of brave Canadians.

The hopes and dreams that have been brought to Afghanistan do not come without a price, however. It is one thing to build infrastructure and to train the Afghan National Army, but it is another to ensure the country maintains stability, even after foreign actors have left.

Many challenges still lie ahead, but it is through the successes that we have already seen that remind us why we have worked so hard and must continue to do so. No doubt much of the story that I tell today will be news to many Canadians, yet the history of our role in the world is not. Our forefathers have always stood on the side of justice and peace.

Since World War I and, as Dr. Nathan Greenfield so aptly called it, our baptism of fire through the second world war, the Korean conflict and numerous peacekeeping missions across the world, Canadian soldiers have been acknowledged, especially by our allies, as a perpetual inspiration. Yet our role on the world stage has grown increasingly into that of a country determined to rest upon our laurels.

As a free, prosperous and democratic nation, we have the genuine ability to effect change and inspire hope around the world. Our mission in Afghanistan has continued the reputation of Canada in the eyes of those most in need of hope. The work we are doing is most definitely beginning to bring about the change so desperately needed.

Our job is not complete and will not be complete in Afghanistan until the democratically elected Afghan government, the Afghan National Army and all Afghani people are able to stand together in strong, capable opposition to the forces looking to tear their country asunder.

To withdraw our troops before the job is done would jeopardize the progress we have made and the hope we have offered. We have begun to give the Afghan people the tools they need to rebuild and protect their country. However, we need to ensure they know how to use those tools properly. In this task, our most pressing concern must be the effectiveness of our lessons, not the speed with which they are completed. For surely, as the base of understanding and ability is broadened and defined in this war-torn nation, our role will pass from guardian to partner.

It is our responsibility, as elected members of Parliament, to give our soldiers and Canadian citizens a clear mandate and vision on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. We owe that much to them. That is why I support the Manley report. I support this motion and urge all members, especially those on the other side of the House, to also support it.

Let us not give our enemies any doubt as to where the people of Canada stand. This is about more than red versus blue. This is more than Liberal versus Conservative. This is an opportunity to show a side of politics that many think has been lost on our country. This is an opportunity to transcend partisanship and unite us in the House and unite us as a country.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by my friend's comments. He and I have shared a floor in the Confederation building. I very much appreciate his willingness to stand up for our armed forces, especially those serving in such a high risk mission in Afghanistan.

I had the opportunity to hear some of my NDP and Bloc colleagues earlier today. I was quite disappointed by their willingness to accept an argument that we could somehow remove our armed forces from Afghanistan and yet maintain some semblance of order and of humanitarian aid.

In fact, one of the comments from the Bloc members was that we should get our forces out of the war-torn sections of Afghanistan. Yet my colleague knows very well there are children and women in that part of the war-torn country who need the protection of our forces, of the ISAF.

Could he perhaps comment on what he would expect would happen if the international community withdrew its involvement in Afghanistan and left it to its own devices and to the Taliban?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is far too easy for members on the opposite side, who wish to oppose the mission, to stand up and say that Canada's is but a peacekeeping mission. That is the paradigm we have created in our country.

While it is true that we are the founders of peacekeeping, we are also the founders of another paradigm called the responsibility to protect, which talks about our responsibility as a free and democratic country to have a role in the global world. Afghanistan is clearly a place where we need to demonstrate this role. It is a place where we need to help lift up other people of another nation. To do that, sometimes the responsibility to protect very clearly shows that we have to use security forces to enforce peace.

I do not know of any aid workers from my area who would want to go to Afghanistan if they did not have protection from those security forces, some of the best trained men and women in the world.

I have had the privilege of talking to many of the men from Edmonton Garrison. Just the other week I talked to a sergeant who did an original rotation in Afghanistan and just finished a rotation this summer. He said that the difference he felt that he and his colleague had made in Afghanistan in those seven years was far more and outweighed anything he could have done anywhere else in the world, including at home in Canada. He is proud to be a part of that. Every one of the men and women of our bases, to whom I have talked, is also very proud to be a part of that.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

I am very happy to participate fully in this debate and salute the hundreds of thousands of TV viewers who are watching us.

Last Saturday on Télé-Québec, there was a very interesting film called Osama made by Siddiq Barmak back in 2003. It won some amazing awards. The story unfolded at a time when the Taliban were taking over Afghanistan and showed what that meant for women and the people living there.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always said that it supported the mission in Afghanistan, despite the indiscriminate outbursts from the hon. member for Saint-Jean. We had concerns, of course, that we expressed to the government regarding their interpretation and the lack of transparency and consistency. There were major problems here.

However, in view of the fact we were going to start taking another look at Afghanistan’s future in 2009, we said that we fully supported the Afghanistan compact signed at the London conference in 2006.

Now we have three basic principles. We are quite happy to say that people should not be playing partisan politics here on the backs of the troops and the people of Afghanistan. It is clearly time to do politics differently. It is also clear that we need to look at the mission differently.

Our leader—the leader of the official opposition—the party for which I am the critic and all the members of our caucus are totally in agreement that there should be three basic principles. The first is that the mission must change. It is no use telling us “Everything is fine—no problems here”, when there are realities out there in the field: this is not a conventional war and there are insurgents. If we want to win the hearts of the Afghan people, it cannot be done with military might. The conflict cannot be resolved militarily. I want to talk about security a bit later.

We have to rely much more, therefore, on reconstruction and development. It is very clear that everything needs to be re-balanced. Pursuant to the questions I asked of my colleague from Crowfoot in particular, we certainly want to ensure we have a much better balanced strategy, and that is the 3 D strategy of defence, diplomacy and development.

The mission has to change. If we want to accompany the Afghan people, we will have to provide them the tools with which to work. We believe, and I have said this clearly, we have to stop our counter-insurgency war. Because we need to change, we believe we should have a rotation.

This morning I asked the specific question of the Minister of National Defence. What is rotation? In my book, and in a lot of people's book, rotation means to replace. Rotation means to come and support and do something other than what we have been doing. The Minister of National Defence said that rotation meant reinforcement. This is the situation. The government will have to clarify what it clearly means by rotation.

We believe the mission has to change. We believe we should put an end to the actual mission, and it has nothing to do with business as usual. We believe we should refocus under security. Of course we have been there, and we initiated that mission. We said clearly that we believe in PRTs, the provincial reconstruction teams. We believe we need a military presence. I have always said that. However, we have to put an end to the way we define combat. We need to finalize that offensive strategy and find some other countries to replace us.

I had the privilege to travel to Afghanistan. Some members from the other side tried to stonewall me, but I decided to go anyway. I did not have any Jos. Louis, but I was there. It was very important. I think the credibility is to be there and watch. Napoleon used to say that we have the policies of our geography. When we take a look at what goes on in the field, we understand. We understand we cannot win in the conventional way and we have to refocus on development.

We believe in the military presence. We believe that under chapter 7, which is what the Security Council resolution is all about, we need to have the capacity to protect civilians. We do not want to relive another Rwanda. Clearly, we want to make sure that our troops will be there to protect themselves and protect the civilians.

It is very important to clarify the rotation issue. Unfortunately, we have lost a year. I tabled the motion myself on behalf of my party to go and meet with NATO and find out what has to be done to ensure this rotation, but they do not do it. Unfortunately, we have the feeling again today that something is being done at the last minute.

The government has unfortunately painted too rosy a picture. There is a big problem with opium. Just in the Helmand region, right beside the zone where the Canadian troops are located, opium production has increased by 179%. In 2001-02, when we threw out the Taliban who had been in power, opium production had been reduced to 200 tonnes. In 2007, the forecasts are for 8,100 tonnes of opium, which is about 96% or 97% of world production. That is great cause for concern.

The mission must end. It is not a Canadian, German or American mission. It is a NATO mission. As my colleagues who have military experience, and even those who have only seen how it works in the world, have said: it is normal that there should be rotations in an international mission. To achieve that, we must ensure that NATO can fully assume its leadership role. It is not only up to Canada or some other country to do that. To speak frankly, NATO must assume that leadership and ensure that everyone has the same military operation.

Canadians and Quebeckers are asking questions about the way this mission is being carried out, and with good reason. They do not understand how out of 37 participating countries, only 6 or 7 are in a combat mission. Some 30 countries have what are called “national caveats”, parliamentary or constitutional restrictions or what their troops can do. It is essential that we should be able to ensure that all of the countries are in the same situation. When the mission began, there were 102 parliamentary or constitutional restrictions covering 36 countries. Our former chief of staff, General Ray Hénault, who is now the chairman of the NATO military committee, has said the number has been reduced to 52. If we want to ensure proper operation and a rotation, it is absolutely necessary that those restrictions come to an end.

I am almost inclined to humbly dedicate my remarks to an Afghan journalist, named Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh. He is a 23-year old journalist who is currently condemned to death in Afghanistan. His crime was to promote equality of men and women. It will be essential—and it is our role as Canadians—to send a clear message that this sentence is completely unacceptable. Moreover, if we want to play our full role in the community of nations, we cannot say that everything is just fine. We cannot say there is governance by a duly elected government and everything is going well when we see this type of situation. I believe many others among us feel the same way I do.

No one in this House is against our troops. Our soldiers are doing an exceptional job. I have met them myself. Today, we want to ensure that Canada can play its full role in concert with other nations. To ensure that we make progress, this motion must be adopted. This motion signals clearly that the mission will change—that is the message I am sending to Canadians and to Quebeckers—the mission will end and it will proceed beyond military means. We want to bring security; but we want to completely change this mission by putting much more emphasis on development and reconstruction, and, accordingly, on training Afghan security forces. Certainly, we cannot resolve this situation without diplomatic efforts.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the perception that some people only want to talk about the good things and not the bad things, and that is not what we have been doing.

We readily acknowledge the challenges. We would also like some acknowledgement of the progress. We may be the glass half full guys or maybe the glass half empty guys, I do not know, but it is good that we are coming together as we are.

The member talked a lot about the combat role and should we, should we not, can we or can we not, and that sort of thing. I would like his thoughts on the role of the Taliban in defining the extent of our involvement in combat.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We enjoy crossing swords with one another.

I was somewhat concerned when I unfortunately heard General Hillier say at the Conference of Defence Associations that the Taliban were watching us, that we were extremely vulnerable and that there were suicide bombers because of how the matter is being debated here. I hope it is well understood that debating is healthy in a democracy. This will take the necessary time. We cannot claim to be giving democracy to another county while we put restrictions on ourselves. I find this unacceptable.

No one is pro Taliban. Indeed, we must work to combat this enemy. I encourage my hon. colleague to watch the film Osama. It shows what could really happen when women were prohibited from working and forced to stay at home. They could not even leave the house without the presence of a male. It was absolutely terrible.

If we want to win, we must have security. I have been saying this from the beginning. If we want to win, we must focus much more on development, on a diplomatic position and, above all, on a strategy that involves the Pashtun people. I am not one to believe that we should negotiate with the Taliban. We must have a strategy that involves the Pashtun people. Because of the ethnic situation, we are seeing that the situation could be resolved regionally by working in partnership with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague opposite, the member for Bourassa. I also want to point out how interesting it is that he mentioned the importance of respecting rights and freedoms in countries that Canada helps.

In his speech, the member talked about the problems facing Afghanistan. He emphasized one point, which was that winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people is central to the success of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan. The question is, how do we go about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people? I think we do it by giving them hope and assurance that the countries involved have made a serious, credible commitment and will not take off when the going gets tough.

The concept of rotation has to be clarified because Canada has established a solid foundation in Kandahar. We have laid down the law, and we have made the region peaceful and secure. That much is clear. It is clear that we need more troops to continue our work and enlarge the safety zone around Kandahar, but it is also clear that our soldiers know the lay of the land and the region. They also know the people, and they have contacts there. Thanks to Canada's military tradition of peacekeeping missions, we have the ability to develop relationships with the people we are helping.

My question is this: should we not pursue this diplomatic offensive with renewed international leadership within the context of the Afghanistan compact? Should we not intensify our efforts—in an intervention not unlike the Marshall plan for Europe—to ensure that by 2011, Afghanistan is able to take on the responsibility for its own security, and the country's economic conditions have improved?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Bourassa has one minute to reply.