Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill.
I would like to begin by making a few brief remarks, if it is possible, about the NDP amendment that was offered in debate this afternoon.
I have two questions to ask the members of the NDP about their amendment. The first clause calls for “the safe withdrawal of Canadian soldiers from the combat mission”. The second clause calls for engaging the UN “in a robust diplomatic process”.
I am curious to know what members of the NDP would actually say to the Afghans. How would they explain the withdrawal of the Canadian Forces who are protecting them? What would they say to the Afghan women who depend on the Canadian Forces for security? How can the NDP go to the UN and pretend that the UN can initiate a diplomatic initiative in the absence of all security?
I make these points simply to point out that there are times when a party makes proposals in the House of Commons which render them unfit to govern. This, in my judgment, was one such occasion.
On Friday, the Chief of the Defence Staff challenged everyone in this House to provide clarity on the purpose of the mission in Afghanistan after 2009. It is a challenge that I am happy to accept.
It is up to parliamentarians to decide the objective of our mission, and it is up to our military to decide how to do it. Our party does not try to tell military commanders how to do their job.
Our party accepts that politicians should not tie the hands of our troops in the field, but we insist that elected leaders define the strategic goal that our country should pursue and seek to attain in Afghanistan.
Our party’s position is very clear. Three principles are set forth in our motion: the mission must change; the mission must end in 2011; and the mission must be accountable to Parliament and Canadians.
As for each of these points in turn, the government has now accepted our position that the mission must end in 2011. I welcome this sign of progress from the other side.
I think the government members agree, as we do, that there is a very clear and important reason for a deadline. Until the Afghan authorities clearly understand that there are fixed limits to Canada's engagement, the Afghans will lack clear incentives to step up their commitment to their own security.
Canada must maintain its solidarity with the Afghan people. Our party believes that profoundly, but solidarity is not a blank cheque. Solidarity is a relationship. That relationship should change over time. We gradually stand back and we help them to stand up. That, it seems to me in a nutshell, is what we want to achieve between 2009 and 2011.
If we concentrate on training the Afghan army and police forces, we will be able to withdraw in 2011. We will be able by then to end the military mission and undertake a new mission to help the Afghans rebuild their country.
Therefore, after 2011, we can envisage continuing engagement with Afghanistan but not in a military role.
The government also agreed to the second point, which was that the management of the mission must become more transparent and accountable. It agreed to create a special parliamentary committee on Afghanistan. It agreed to revise its information policy, especially in regard to the transfer and handling of detainees. We will hold the government to these promises.
I come now to the crux of the matter. There does remain a crucial ambiguity in the government's position on the fundamental question, which is: What is the overall purpose of the mission after 2009?
The government's resolution, which closely mirrors the language of the Liberal amendment, says that the military mission in Kandahar will consist of: (a) training the Afghan national security forces; (b) providing security for reconstruction and development in Kandahar; and (c) continuation of the Kandahar PRT.
Let us drill down here and get a little more clear. Canada is already training Afghan forces. It is already training and providing security for reconstruction and development, and it is already sustaining the PRT.
Our party believes that these three points should be the sole purpose of our efforts in Kandahar over the remaining years of the mission. Other aspects of our current mission should be assigned to another NATO battle contingent, which will rotate in by February 2009.
Our party agrees that there is a military participation component to the training of Afghan forces. However, these joint military operations must be related to a comprehensive strategy for reconstruction and development so that real progress can be made in regard to the security and quality of life of the people of Afghanistan. After all, they are the ones we are there to protect.
We understand that the training of the Afghan forces does require combined military operations in the OMLT formation and other formations but we believe profoundly that must be related to a comprehensive strategy of development and reconstruction. We believe the mission must focus on training.
The point is that we cannot be there forever. It is not our country. It is their country and our job is to help them train and develop the capacity to defend themselves. We must focus our efforts to get them ready for 2011. There is work to do but we can achieve it if we focus on this goal.
I want to emphasize the notion of focus. With the troops at our disposal, we cannot do everything. The Liberal suggestion, at its heart, is to focus on training to get the Afghan army and police ready for the job of defending their own country. That should be the focus of the mission.
On my recent visit to Afghanistan, I visited Afghan security forces who were training side by side with Canadians in forward operating bases in the Zare and Panjwai areas. The Afghan officers with whom I spoke were clear that they were ready to fight and defend their own country but that they needed two more years of training. We should provide this but on a strict timetable that would leave the Afghans in no doubt that the time was coming when they would need to have exclusive responsibility for their own defence.
The question of questions in this debate is whether the government understands its revised motion in the same letter and spirit that we proposed most of the wording for. The question is whether it understands the words in the same sense that we do. If we do not have this understanding, the Canadian consensus that both sides seek will be elusive.
We envisage a changed mission focusing on training and reconstruction. If the government accepts that the mission must take on this new focus, a Canadian consensus on Afghanistan is possible. The clarity, to return to where I began, that our generals are rightly seeking and that our citizens want, will issue forth in the united will of this Parliament.
If the government does not accept a clear focus on training and reconstruction, if it believes it can sneak past Parliament a motion that continues the existing mission and continues the status quo, I am afraid it will have difficulty securing the Canadian consensus that this party is seeking.