Mr. Speaker, it is always an onerous task to rise and speak in Parliament on a matter of such importance and broad application for both the Taliban—who are not our first concern of course—and Afghans: the Taliban because of the defeat we want to inflict on them and Afghans because of the impact the mission has on them.
My speech will reflect the views of the Bloc Québécois, of course, but also and most importantly of the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas. Like other Quebeckers, most of them are asking some very pointed questions, first, about the reason for the mission and, second, about its success. They want answers. We expected to get some in 2006 but are still waiting. The answers we have been given lack credibility, as I will show a little later.
I am also very concerned about the fact that our opinions are divided. There are some retired generals in my riding. I am thinking of two in particular, one of whom, Mr. Rémi Landry, is very well known and highly respected and often comments in the media. Like other military personnel, they are very loyal to the democratic decisions taken by our parliaments. They will always defend these positions in the field, not only the kinds of missions they were assigned but also the argument for them—which they also do very well.
These people cannot be blamed, therefore, for having very specific views and biases about the duties they were assigned in the past and still defend today. With all due respect for both these people, who still serve the country very well, and also democratic debate, I believe we have a responsibility in regard to two things. First, we need to look at what the purpose was of our presence in Afghanistan, and second, we need to ask whether or not we have been successful and whether there are still good reasons for our military involvement.
This question was asked by the parliamentary secretary a little while ago. He said Canadians want to know why we are in Afghanistan. He was quite right to say they still want to know because no answers have been forthcoming. The answers we have been given do not hold water.
I would like to remind the House that it was in response to the events of September 11 that Canada became involved in Afghanistan under the aegis of the United Nations and that it was originally the United States which called upon the other nations to show a united front to the people probably responsible for the offensive of September 11, 2001. The purpose of the operation—as I said before—was to help the Northern Alliance advance on Kabul and replace the Afghan government. The objective was literally to rebuild the economy and form a viable democratic state in Afghanistan so that Afghans could run their own country and determine their development.
This was based not on the 3 Ds but the 4 Ds because in addition to defence, there was development, democracy and diplomacy.
Have we kept that balance? That is always the basis of the debates here in the House of Commons. To achieve these objectives, Canada made a commitment to keep the majority of our troops in the field until February 2007. It is appropriate to recall each stage because there was nothing to allay our concerns about the relevance of our presence.
This is the third or fourth time that this has been debated. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they had the same concerns as the three opposition parties do now. It is troubling now to see the lack of credible answers from the Conservatives. It is even less credible because on their own they have changed the nature of the mission in mid-course. It must be a balanced mission to establish democracy, diplomacy and development. The remarks this afternoon have brought to light the fact that, only a few months ago, of the 2,500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, six military personnel were assigned to deal with development and another six were working on diplomacy.
I will come back to that because some extraordinary things have been said here. Regardless of their ingenuity, how can six people assigned to development for a period of about six years build 4,000 schools when we have not seen any? How can they claim to have built thousands of kilometres of new roads when only these resources have been assigned to all the engineering of roads? Those are questions that arise today; the same questions that were asked previously and that were never answered. They try to answer today but those answers do not hold water.
On May 17, 2006, in great haste, the government introduced a motion to extend the mission that was supposed to end in February 2007. We remember that. The vote in this House on extending the mission to February 2009 was very divided, to such a degree that the difference was only four votes: 149 members voted in favour of extending the mission from February 2007 to February 2009, and 145 voted against the motion.
In Quebec, people are asking questions. Indeed, 70% of the population of Quebec is against our presence in Afghanistan and they feel it is a shame that they did not elect another five Bloc Québécois members, because then we would have won the vote and the matter would be settled. We lost by four votes. The Liberal Party also voted against extending the mission at that point. In fact, the Liberals were divided among themselves with the result that the Conservatives won by four votes. It all happened May 17, 2006.
On April 19, 2007, the Liberals presented a motion to the House to have the mission end in February 2009. Since the government had a minority and the opposition had a majority, we immediately wanted to make our position clear, failing any credible responses to help us understand the evolution of the mission in Afghanistan in relation to the initial objectives. Unfortunately, the responses were not forthcoming. Then, beyond all expectations, the NDP voted with the Conservatives. The vote on the motion that was presented on April 19, 2007, was held on April 24. We could have decided that day to stop everything in February 2009, but no, the NDP voted with the Conservatives to make sure that did not happen.
Today, here we are having this debate again. As odd as it may seem, the NDP is now saying we have to vote immediately and as soon as the vote is won, the troops have to be pulled out of Afghanistan and brought home.
Demobilizing combat troops is not as easy as packing up a camp site. This does not happen in a day. It takes at least six months. Such is the result of the NDP's vote. It is not a simple matter.
Earlier I was mentioning that there are 2,500 soldiers there. The three Ds are democracy, diplomacy and development. There are 12 people in total to take care of all that. This produces little in the way of results and does not support the Conservatives' argument.
They say that 4,000 schools have been built. That is a lot. In Canada, that would be a major construction project. How did they do that? Maybe they were small schools, I do not know, but there needs to be infrastructure in any event. We are told there were clinics, wells and an irrigation system. We have not seen anything of the sort. We want to believe it, but everything we have been told has turned out to be false. In wartime, it is said that the primary victim is the truth. And the truth, as a victim, is under attack by the statements being made here. It is quite worrisome.
This is why the Bloc Québécois cannot give a blank cheque to keep this going, given the negative effects it has on Canada.
The parliamentary secretary says that we are there for two reasons: for Afghans, but especially for Canadians. I am not convinced that this benefits Canada. I would rather that he stick to telling us what positive things we are doing over there.
Earlier I mentioned poppy production, which has grown threefold since we have been in Afghanistan. But one of our tasks there is to eradicate poppies. How are we managing to do the opposite? As I mentioned earlier, it is because truth is the first victim. This is yet more proof.
I also said earlier that the Conservatives have hijacked the actual mission. It is very negative, as we all know. It has turned into an offensive mission instead of a reconstruction mission.
It is difficult to follow the logic and reasoning of each of the parties here in this House. Members will remember that in April 2007, the Liberals were the ones who introduced the motion to end the mission in February 2009. For several months, the Liberals have been repeating that they did not want to go past February 2009. What happened in the past few days to make them do an about-face and jump on board with the Conservatives? They say that there are differences they are trying to make clear, but we do not see them. The end result is that the Liberals agree with the Conservatives that the mission should go to 2011. And earlier I spoke about the NDP's position.
We are maintaining our position for all the reasons I have mentioned. They are trying to drag us in and make us accept that there will be effects or collateral damage, for example. But 78 soldiers have died over there. That is not nothing. We support these people. They are over there because we, as parliamentarians, sent them there.
They do their jobs well, with dedication and loyalty. The Bloc has tremendous respect and admiration for all members of the military. Not only are people who risk their lives for others especially generous, but they also have exceptional, exemplary courage. It must be said. All the same, we must not continue to expose them to danger once we realize that the mission objectives have not been achieved. That would be irresponsible. That, too, must be said.
No soldier over there who goes into the field and risks his or her life would come back here and say it was all for nothing. They believe they are doing something important, and they are. However, in the final analysis, we are the ones putting them in harm's way. It is up to us to figure out if we are putting them in danger for no good reason. That comes first.
To date, we have put lives at risk on the basis of guesses and falsehoods, many of which have been made and told right here. We should not have the mindset that because we are over there, we have to keep going until the Taliban are all extinct. We could end up being there a very long time.
We have to remember that this is costing us $3 million per day, which is not peanuts. Are we investing that money appropriately? We do not think that $3 million should be spent on offensive action, on combat, because that is not our strength. We should invest the money in reconstruction and in adjusting the balance of the mission, as recommended in the Manley report.
The Manley commission was very critical of the Conservatives' militaristic approach. We have not talked about that enough here. Let us take another look at the report. It came to the same conclusion we did, and it confirmed that we need to restore balance to the mission. According to the report:
It is essential to adjust funding and staffing imbalances between the heavy Canadian military commitment in Afghanistan and the comparatively lighter civilian commitment to reconstruction—
That is what it says. We have not been talking about that here. These people went to Afghanistan to study this issue. They came to the same conclusion we did. They said that we have to do more in terms of reconstruction, development and governance. The report makes it clear that the insurrection will not be quelled by force alone. Furthermore, the report repeatedly recommended that diplomatic measures be pursued with neighbouring countries to include them in Afghanistan's development.
It is a thinly veiled criticism of Canada's leadership in that regard. No one will say so. That is the cornerstone. All that is overlooked. We pretend that this does not exist, as though this work had not been done. The Conservatives will pick and choose whatever suits them to try to convince us that we must continue on the same path. Yet the report clearly says that we must rebalance the mission in all areas.
I will close by reminding hon. members that, in Afghanistan, one in four children will not live past the age of five. The life expectancy in Afghanistan is 45 years. It is one of the lowest in the world. Malnutrition affects 70% of the population and more than 70% of the population does not have access to clean drinking water. The majority of the population has inadequate access to health care and education. Among the women surveyed, 40% have been physically abused by a member of their immediate or extended family. There is one doctor for every 770 Afghans, although there is one soldier for every 742 Afghans.
Has anything changed? Has any progress been made in this file? No, not a word. I would like to hear the Conservatives address this.
What will this change if we continue? The responsible position would be to withdraw the combat troops and rebalance the mission to make it a development mission. I would remind the House that the 1,000 soldiers that some people would like to add to the forces would not be assigned to reconstruction, but to combat. Thus, it does not change a thing.
And this is what the Liberals rallied around. It is incomprehensible. It is an unbelievable flip-flop. Only a few days ago, they said that the mission must end in 2009, yet here they are supporting the Conservatives to extend the mission until 2011.