Debates of Feb. 26th, 2008

Afghanistan

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

It's probably true.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

My colleague says it is probably true.

This additional income is literally transforming lives as families can now afford to send their children to school, access health care and provide basic necessities.

Canada is promoting health and education in Afghanistan. Education has been one of the great success stories in the ongoing development and reconstruction of that country.

Our investment has made a real and measurable difference in rebuilding schools, supplying learning materials, paying teachers' wages and providing teacher education. Close to 6 million children are now attending school, one-third of them girls. This is a major achievement considering that only 700,000 children were in school in 2001 and not one of them was a girl.

As a result of improved access to medical care for women, the infant mortality rate in Afghanistan has dropped by almost 25% since 2001.

We are promoting the rule of law in Afghanistan. Reconstruction efforts will fail unless democratic institutions are established that can ensure security, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Canada's governance programs help ensure that laws are both just and arrived at democratically. They support independent, effective institutions that enforce those laws so that everyone will feel safe in their communities and homes.

As we can see, there is much that we are accomplishing in Afghanistan. With the continued support of Canada and the international community, much more can still be accomplished. In fact, much more must be accomplished.

Throughout the history of this House, there have been no decisions more difficult than the decision to send our brave men and women into harm's way. Likewise, this House has rarely undertaken decisions more important than the decision to fight for freedom, to fight for what is right.

These decisions are of tremendous gravity for many reasons. They are important because of the necessity for those who are free to assist those who are not free. As Canadians, inhabitants of the true north strong and free, we have undertaken to assist in the establishment of an Afghanistan that will also be strong and free.

From the beaches of Normandy to the shores of Hong Kong, the fields of Vimy and the hills of Korea, Canadians have gone when they were needed for the pursuit of freedom. Just as Canadians fought and died for the freedom of our friends in Holland, France, Korea and many other places, Canadians have fought and died for the freedom that we are building with our friends in Afghanistan.

As we debate this motion here in the House of Commons, it is my sincere hope that we will all undertake our duty as members of Parliament with the same fidelity to duty and conviction that I have witnessed in our men and women in uniform.

Our fight in Afghanistan continues. We do not fight for empire or profit. We fight for freedom: the freedom of self-determination, the freedom from fear, and the freedom to prosper. In short, we are fighting so that one day the Afghan people may enjoy the same freedoms and peace that we possess here in Canada.

This government fully acknowledges that there is a long way to go. That is why we are one of the world's leading nations in the fight to restore peace and freedom in Afghanistan. It is also why we are continuously exploring ways to improve how we conduct our mission. The recent report by John Manley also offers some good suggestions in this regard and our government is committed to responding to them.

A lot of work lies ahead. Rebuilding a country ravaged by decades of civil unrest, violence and abject poverty requires time. Addressing the various challenges that continue to obstruct Afghans in their daily lives requires unwavering commitment, but we are on the right track and we must continue. The free world and the Afghan people are counting on our support.

I hope that all members of the House will do what is right and send the strongest possible message to all of those watching that Canada's resolve is strong and we support without reservation our brave men and women in this most difficult of tasks.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech, which carried the government's message. He talked about the difficulty in the decision making on Afghanistan and I appreciate his point of view. Coming from a party that has had a consistent position on the Afghanistan issue over the two years that I have been in Parliament, I too feel the incredible strain that comes with making decisions like this.

I would say for my hon. colleague that we have witnessed in some cases the demonization of people in our caucus who are standing up and speaking for about 50% of Canadians, who wish to see the mission end. Does my hon. colleague not agree that if he wants to bring some civility and clarity to this issue he must respect and his party must acknowledge the consistency and the importance of what our party says as well?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we are doing here today and what we did here yesterday in bringing this motion to the House of Commons and having this debate certainly does allow everyone in the House, no matter what position they take, to express their opinions.

You bet, Mr. Speaker, that there is disagreement. I totally disagree with the member's position.

I certainly disagree with the separatist party's position on this as well. We just had the Van Doos in Afghanistan doing a tremendous job in fighting for freedom, while here in the House there is a bunch of people who are here to tear apart this country and are not supporting this mission. Their own neighbours are over there fighting and they still do not support the mission.

This goes far beyond the House and the politics of this place. This is something that is Canadian. In my mind, it has nothing to do with what party we are from. This has to be a decision that is made in our hearts. If we cannot find it in our hearts to support this motion, to support what is happening, to support the people of Afghanistan and free them from the terror that they have lived under for so many years, I do not understand that. I think we all have it in our hearts to do that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with most of what the hon. member said in his contribution to the debate.

I think Canadians have heard quite a bit about the motion and about some of our intent, but there are some ancillary questions that do not seem to get addressed. One of them has to do with the poppy trade in Afghanistan, which, as members know, is one of the principal sources of funding terrorist activities. I wonder if the member is aware of some scenarios that can be considered to address this one element of the conflict related to Afghanistan.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the poppy issue in Afghanistan is a tough one. The poppy trade is how a lot of people in that country make their living. It is how they feed their families. I think it is something that we need to address. It is in the Manley report and will be part of our deliberations as we move forward on Afghanistan. We have to find an alternative to that means of making a living.

When we were in Afghanistan we heard from witnesses. We were told that farmers can make more money raising pomegranates, grapes, nuts, or whatever it is that they traditionally did, than they can by raising poppies, but the fact of the matter is that there is no financing. Cashflow is an issue. They have to feed their families during the year. The drug lords and the warlords have them under their thumbs when they bring them money in the spring and tell them they will come back in the fall for the crop.

We have to put in a great deal of effort there and our government has. One of the first commitments the government made was for irrigation projects in that country. We have to expand the agricultural base. We have to give people the ability to improve their lot in life by supplying irrigation, a stable source of water, and by reconstruction of some of the systems that were there.

When we were in Afghanistan, we were fortunate enough to fly over part of the country in a couple of helicopters. I was impressed by how much development there was and how much green area there is along the rivers. I think we have to concentrate on giving the people who make a living off poppies an alternative. If we work really hard and put our minds to it, we can come up with a strong economy there, based on agriculture.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

I am pleased to participate in the debate today on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. I fully support our leader's approach, which means that the mission must change, the mission must have a stop date and the mission must be more than a military mission.

However, I hope to broaden the conversation to put in proper context the ongoing relationship between Canada and the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women of Afghanistan.

During the nineties, when Sally Armstrong began writing about the women of Afghanistan in Homemakers magazine, Canadian women became aware of the situation in that country and wanted the Government of Canada to help.

Thousands of letters were received at the magazine, newspapers and MPs' offices. We came to know of the courageous work of Dr. Sima Samar, setting up the schools and clinics for young girls in defiance of the Taliban government. Dr. Samar was awarded the John Humphrey Freedom Award in the summer of 2001, before 9/11. She met with women members of Parliament here.

We participated in the Afghan Women's Association with Adeena Niazi, together with Marilou McPhedran and Sally Armstrong, in February 2002 at the Afghan women's leadership in governance training at York University.

We, as Canadian women, were in solidarity with these courageous women. We were in awe of them. Most of us born in Canada have never known what the absence of security feels like. We have taken peace for granted, peace in its fullest sense, not just the absence of war but the presence of justice.

When the fatwah was placed on Dr. Samar while she was still in Canada, Minister Graham responded immediately.

The debate today will reflect the friendship and the commitment of Canada to the people of Afghanistan. This is not just about a military mission. It must be about our commitment to do everything we can to work with the Afghan people to build peace and security for the long term.

My remarks are influenced by the friendships and ongoing dialogue with Afghan Canadians, like Adeena Niazi, Sheenkai Tahiri, and her wonderful family, by my trip to Afghanistan in 2007 with the defence committee and a town hall meeting we held last spring in my riding of St. Paul's, but also by my respect for a history of multilateralism and the commitment Canada made in the Afghan compact in 2006.

To change the 2006 commitment, for our support of multilateral approaches, for the framework of cooperation principles for the next five years, we have the Afghanistan Compact. The Afghan government articulated its overarching goals for the well-being of the Afghan people: security; governance, rule of law and human rights; and economic and social development.

A further vital and cross-cutting area of work is eliminating the narcotics industry, which remains a formidable threat to the people and state of Afghanistan, the region and beyond.

Furthermore, genuine security remains a fundamental prerequisite for achieving stability and development in Afghanistan. Security cannot be provided by military means alone.

When we signed this, it was clear that we were going to help. The debate today is that we need to help in a different way but, nonetheless, committed.

It is true that before I went to Kandahar I probably thought, like so many Canadians, that it would be possible to just pick up and move to a less dangerous area. We all knew that the work Canada was doing with the PRT in Kandahar was based on relationships, on principles, such as every soldier a teacher, and on a commitment to help the Afghan national army achieve a contingent of 70,000 people by 2009 that would be effective.

We were surprised in Afghanistan to learn how the military was actually helping within the bureaucracy of the government of Kabul, helping in ministers' offices and teaching organizations how to pick great chiefs of staff and develop work plans. We know that our military has been very good at this but we think there needs to be more of a role for the diplomatic core, as well as CIDA.

I, too, like the previous speaker, was impressed when we went to the hospital at Kandahar airfield. I could not believe the severity of cases that were taken on by the team, such as the huge piece of shrapnel that was successfully removed from an Afghani's face at the base because of the CT scanner. Colonel Boddam, the psychiatrist, explained the real progress that had been made in post-traumatic stress prevention, screening and treatment because of the interventions of the previous Liberal government and people like Senator Dallaire.

It seems the incidences, because of the preventive measures, are much less than they would have predicted. However, they were hugely grateful for the American medevac helicopters but the fact is that we still need to rely so much on others. It was interesting that even there we were desperate to know more about the 3D approach. We wanted to know if it was working. We also wanted to know why we saw mostly defence and not so much diplomacy or development.

The briefing was clear on the ground at the PRT by Simon Hetherington that the 3D was supposed to be his board of directors. We did not see, while we were in Afghanistan, that was being reflected in the cabinet room or here in Ottawa. It seemed to be very disorganized.

We were impressed to learn that less than 1% of the projects built via the national solidarity plan had been damaged because of the Canadian way. Canadians want to know how they want things done. It is done in a totally collaborative way, bottom up, with local ownership in the planning and execution, even though 70% of that population was illiterate, including the bureaucracy and the director of education.

There have been real achievements, the Summit Road clearly the greatest. As soldiers said to us, they were built with Canadian blood and paved with Canadian dollars. Some of the achievements have been medical clinic repairs, security infrastructure, the confidence of the Afghan police, schools reopening, irrigation and soccer, but it was very clear that the goal was capacity building, not capacity replacement. Setting the conditions for sustainable success, they realized that this needed an Afghan face and an Afghan pace.

It is an old adage that it is better to teach people to fish than to give them a fish and it has been renewed by the explanation that the Canadian bottom up approach is now to be a pipeline instead of a water tanker.

We were totally impressed by the cash for work program run by Warrant Officer Healey. An article in Legion Magazine said that an amazing school teacher from Barrie, Ontario, who happens to be a reservist, now has been named the prince of Panjwai. The cash for work program was very much part of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan youth with the idea that they could work for us instead of the Taliban.

In the briefing at the national military college, it was heartening to hear that they felt they were getting to their optimal 70,000 soldiers without compromising equality, but that they still might need specialty teams that would need mentoring and help, though the goal of self-sufficiency was close at hand. Every soldier we talked to at lunch had the mantra, “every soldier a teacher”.

When we met with Sarah Chayes, the American journalist who chose to take a break from her career as a journalist in public radio to stay in Afghanistan, she was very worried that the discourse from Canada was far too simplistic.

We cannot reduce the discussion to stay or go, to less military or to more construction. Sarah wanted everybody to understand that this was not about an insurgency as much as it was about protecting Afghans from invaders who were using Afghans as fodder. She believed that security was essential to any humanitarian assistance and that economic development and good governance must go hand in hand.

As we go forward, it is important that we listen to the voices of the Afghan women here in Canada who are in daily touch with their people and their colleagues in their home country.

There is no question that when speaking to Adeena Niazi she believes that although the military component is important, there should be much greater emphasis on development assistance, more emphasis not only on the Taliban but on the warlords and more emphasis on what to do about the poppies and the drug problem which contributes to the insecurity.

There is much discussion on strengthening the civil society. There was great disappointment that the Manley report did not reference the need for promoting civil society, particularly the enhancement of women's organizations.

I would like to quote from Adeena Niazi who said, “Finally, the debate in Parliament should be firmly rooted in a commitment to the universality of human rights. It's going to have to include a lot more Afghan voices, particularly women's voices”.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's remarks with great interest today because we travelled together to Afghanistan. I recall a lot of the information that she shared from that trip.

The member for St. Paul's mentioned Sarah Cheyes. I listened to a very interesting interview with Sarah on Sunday or Monday of this week where she gave out quite a bit of information. As the member opposite said, Sarah has been in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. She stays in Kandahar and operates a soap making factory with Afghan people. She is very committed to the people of Kandahar.

Two of the remarks that Sarah made in that interview really gave me pause for thought. When we were in Afghanistan, Sarah talked to us about the dreadfully high level of corruption and the people's distrust of their own government. In this recent interview, she said that the people of Kandahar were shaken down by their own government during the day and then shaken down by the Taliban in the evening. She said that they had no recourse and that they were trapped by two opposing factions, one, the government that we are supporting, and the other one, the insurgents.

After the fall of the Taliban, Sarah said that she used to drive from Kandahar City to Kabul in safety. It was not an easy drive along a dirt road but she said that she could make that drive in relative safety. She said that it was no longer safe to travel on that road even though it was paved. I think Canadians had the expertise and took part in paving that road but it is no longer safe to travel. This indicates what the UN has been saying about the rise in insecurity, the rise in IEDs and the lack of progress.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the two comments that Sarah Cheyes made and the lack of improvement and security in Kandahar.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the concerns of Canadians is the issue of ground casualties. A lot of the casualties, whether one was a development worker or a member of the military, have resulted from just driving down the road. This speaks to the fact that until we can get the road secure, the call for helicopters is important because they are the safer way to travel.

As Sarah clearly said, she was concerned that the regular people were disaffected by a government that does not seem to be helping them. This speaks to the fact that the Manley report around signature projects is wrong. We not only want to help the Afghan government gain the confidence of its own people, but we also want to help it deal with the obvious corruption.

When we were there, Sarah Cheyes clearly said that she wanted Canada to be tougher. She wants us to follow the development dollars and ensure they get where they belong in terms of helping with education, which is the immunization against corruption and against people not knowing.

As both Sally Armstrong and Adeena Niazi said to me at my town hall meeting, illiterate Afghan women feel they are blind because they cannot see what is going on.

We need more presence on the ground to ensure security for the development to take place and to work side by side with civil society. Out of that education and out of that security will come peace.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to participate in this debate. I have written a couple of pieces on this. Those who are interested can read them on my website.

I noted yesterday that the government launched this debate by putting forward the Minister of National Defence. Clearly the debate is really about a military mission; it is not about anything else. Otherwise the government would have led off with the Prime Minister or with the Minister of Foreign Affairs because this would have been a truly Canadian mission.

Let me underscore the fact we are debating a motion that has become a Canadian motion in view of the fact that the government has borrowed so heavily on the Liberal amendment to present for debate. However, this is not a Canadian mission. It is a NATO mission in which Canada participates. Our focus should be addressing the questions that Canadians everywhere are asking about the way we are approaching the Canadian role in this NATO mission. We should be asking the questions that would truly address the concerns of Canadians such as, why are we there? We need to justify that. However, we cannot discuss, as my colleague has done so eloquently, issues that are not related to the military component of that mission.

The government clearly has one objective, and that is to debate the status quo, period. It has said that it wants to extend the status quo, nothing else. To confuse the issue for everyone, it put together a panel of experts, who have a variety of experience, although I am not sure if Afghanistan was one of them. They have acquired a lot of expertise and presented a report upon which the government has based all of its arguments to stay the course and to expend more energy, resources and personnel from Canada.

After 477 interviews, submissions and presentations, the panel could not come up with one reason for having Canada in Afghanistan, one reason that we had not heard from all types of spins in the previous couple of years, one reason that would justify, for all Canadians, expending $6.1 billion to date in a military mission and $1.2 billion in aid. I do not suggest that the reasons were not there. I suggest that the basis for discussion is not there. Why is it not there? If we are really discussing what Canada should do in Afghanistan, perhaps we would examining what the panel report told us.

The panel has said that for every dollar in development aid, $12 are spent on military expenditures. For every dollar on development aid, only 15¢ is spent on signature Canadian aid programs. Therefore, it is important for everyone to understand that if we are to have a serious debate on Afghanistan, we should take a look at who sets the objectives, who has established the goals, who has established the performance criteria upon which continuing presence by all NATO partners will be validated and by what measures we will then judge the success of that mission.

I do not think this is about supporting the troops. We cannot allow ourselves to be blindfolded by this kind of rhetoric. Of course we all support the troops. We ask them to go there and give their lives.

What is it really about? Is it about transforming a society, as I hear from some of the debates? What society are we trying to transform? Is it the tribal society that has existed for millennia? Is it maybe the ideologically driven society of the day which happens to be Islamist or jihadist? Is that who we are fighting? Is it the rural society that is established in an elevation on this part of the world that begins at 4,000 metres and goes up? Is it a society that is already geographically and politically isolated from virtually everybody else, including its immediate adjacent countries, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan and even China?

I do not think the basis for the debate, the expert panel's report, demonstrated an understanding of all the dynamics. If it could not, I do not know how we could expect the government to understand it. For example, one of the issues raised by the panel was we needed to depend much more on the diplomacy that had to emerge and developed in that area, especially given the circumstances in Pakistan, and I agree. However, that is all it said.

It does not say, for example, that 70% of all the material and resources, human and physical, that we bring into Afghanistan has to go through Pakistan and that we have to build a partnership with the country, the like of which we have not yet done. It does not say, for example, that 40,000 Talibans, and I call them guerillas, or they can be called terrorists or insurgents, are in the border states adjacent to Pakistan. Only about 20,000 Talibans are on the Afghan side of the border.

It does not explore, for example, the contributions made to disrupt the order and stability of the area by Iran, Saudi Arabia and by the north African countries that are interested in expelling many of their militants and sending them off to another part of the world eliminating the immediacy of the problem for themselves. They are all players in that part of the world. The panel says that 40,000 Pakistan Talibans are refurbishing, renewing and re-energizing the Afghan Talibans, and we know nothing about them. There is no discussion.

Billions of dollars are going in from donor nations to compete with our hundreds of millions of dollars. I would have liked to have seen a discussion about alternatives. Of course we want to be there to ensure we protect our interests. We want to know what those interests are. Is it, for example, the issue of ensuring that every child in Afghanistan gets a proper education? Who can say, no? Tell me how we do that when we spend $12 on guns and soldiers for every $1 we spend on development aid. That is just the Canadian contribution.

If someone wants to speak to me about the safety of our troops, please look at the report. See if the report can find an explanation for why the incidence of casualties is more than double among Canadians than it is among any other participant that has more than 2,000 troops in the area. Please tell us why the number 1,000 appeared magically out of the air. If 1,000 more troops could solve the problems of the world, I would be first guy to volunteer. The fact is General Hillier has said on two separate occasions, that he cannot get soldiers and that we should reform our immigration system so we can bring people in to fight for us so they could then accelerate their application for immigration. Just the other day he said that we needed at least 2,500 more troops.

I think we have a moving target. That is okay. I just want to know what the performance criteria are for judgment when the question comes up again in the House. I want to know whether we have explored the alternatives to long term solutions such as to revert back to a robust peacekeeping role that will then transfer itself into a greater role for the United Nations to bring in all the people who play in that area.

My colleague said that we should give it an Afghan face, as we did not many years ago in Cambodia when we brought in the Khmer Rouge, an especially murderous regime. We need a solution that is long term and lasting. I hope this debate will cause that to surface.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had some good points and some good questions. I have a couple of comments and questions.

First, if we do not know why we are there, then why in 2004 did the Liberals send us there in the first place, with no discussion in the House? It seems like a reasonable question.

I point out a fact that he has used very disingenuously, and it has been used very disingenuously by other people in the House. He said that we spent $1 in development aid for every $12 in military. A unit, however we want to measure that, of aid cost is an awful lot less than a unit of military assistance.

The other point he misses, and people continually miss it, is the fact that within the $12 of military expenditures are Canadian soldiers who actually do the development. They are out there digging wells, operating clinics, having councils, doing the construction work and doing the job. There is a lot more in that $12 than just military. I think the hon. member knows that and he should admit it. Some people down the road will never admit that, but it is for other reasons.

We have talked about doing more than military. We have talked about developing. The previous speaker talked about getting rid of corruption. All of those things are very important. Could the hon. member comment on the work of the Strategic Advisory Team specifically in that area? What does he think of the work that has been done and how we might expand it?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can be very specific about the reasons why we went there in the first place. I happened to be in cabinet when the request came in to go into the kind of mission, which the parliamentary secretary is now defending and that we are debating.

The answer then was, no, that we wanted to be in a development cycle. We wanted to ensure we would put funds to use that would be in the main part of the reconstruction of Afghanistan, or the development of that part of Afghanistan. We did not recognize we had the military capacity to make an impact that would justify making a decision. In other words, we did not want to set ourselves up to fail. Rather we wanted to set ourselves up to succeed, where we could succeed.

When that side of the House came to government, the very first thing it did was change the mission, but call it an extension, and it has become a much more military mission. It is the government's right to make those kinds of decisions. I do not disagree. I did not vote for going in, but this is where we make those decisions and that is fine.

When the member asks me what I think about the development of some of the other areas and issues that are important, I agree with it. Yes, I would like to make an impact on Afghanistan as in every other part of the world.

I will finish off with this. Last night I was at a function where people talked about the clash of ideologies. I would like to have our ideology accepted by everybody. I am not sure one would do it at the point of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague's presentation was quite rational. He did speak about the Manley report and the fact that it did not seem to go where he wanted it to go. Quite clearly, that is the case for many of us.

Evidence has been presented that the Manley report was a compilation of ideas that Manley himself expressed before the panel was set up. At the same time, we know the writing of the document was carried out by the defence team wrote, which has given us most of the public direction on the government's policy in Afghanistan to start with.

The process of coming to an understanding of Afghanistan through the Manley report is very flawed. Would he not agree?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize sort of a very faint compliment there and I will accept it for what it is.

If the member wants to score a point, let me underscore the point. If the chairman of that panel responded to a question relative to his suggestion that he had already had these views before he wrote the report, his answer would be that if one asks the same question then one gets the same answer.

What I propose today is this. Why do we not ask all the other questions that have not been asked? If we can get an answer from the government on all of those, then we can support the government. It is as simple as that.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I have been following the debate with a lot of interest today, as I did last night as well. I cannot go on with my speech without first making reference to our troops who are serving on the front lines in Afghanistan representing their country, and to our development forces, the people who are working hard on provincial development and construction teams.

I am sure most members receive Veritas Magazine. The current issue features one of our fallen soldiers, Captain Matthew Dawe, representing one of the 79 soldiers who have fallen, a fine Canadian young man. A fine family gave up a son who was over in Afghanistan serving our nation and doing tremendous work as part of a NATO led coalition, a UN sponsored mission, trying to bring that country into the modern era. It is a tremendous undertaking in this decade.

The purpose of this debate is to discuss why we are there, and some interesting information is coming forward in that regard.

Being from Nanaimo—Alberni, I am probably as far away from Ottawa as one could get in Canada, perhaps with the exception of the member from the Arctic. We do not have a large military presence in my riding, other than a very large contingent of retired military, but we do have a reservist unit in our area, the 5th (B.C.) Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, based in Victoria and up in Nanaimo. At least one of my constituents, Eric McNealy, is serving in Afghanistan right now. Certainly our thoughts and prayers are with him and with all of our forces over in Afghanistan.

There has been some discussion about the Manley panel report. It was not that long ago that the Canadian government commissioned five distinguished Canadians to go to Afghanistan to interview people. They spent three months conducting more than 470 interviews. They interviewed people on the ground in Afghanistan. They interviewed aid workers and other of our NATO allies over there. They thoroughly examined the issues.

It was disappointing to me, as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, that when it came time to bring the Manley panel before the committee to hear their observations and to ask them questions, that did not happen. Whether we agree with their conclusions or not, it seems to me it is the responsibility of committee members to listen to their observations. For years I served on the health committee, and whether it was the Romanow report or the Kirby report from the Senate, if it had to do with health, we wanted to interview the people because we wanted to contribute to the debate.

It was rather disturbing that the members of the opposition in both the national defence committee and the foreign affairs committee turned down the opportunity to have the Manley panel appear. Members could have asked questions in order to have a more fulsome debate on that very well-informed document about the future role of Canada in Afghanistan. It is about why we are there, what we are doing, what we are accomplishing, what the facts on the ground are. The members of the panel had the privilege of spending three months reviewing this issues. Most members of Parliament have not had the opportunity to examine the issues in-depth that these distinguished panellists had.

That was a very large opportunity for the members serving on those committees to inform themselves and better enter into this debate today and it was missed. I think the tone of some of the questions reflects a lack of information and members would have been well served by reading the report, if not taking that opportunity to actually have the panel members at committee and get the answers to their questions.

We heard the minister of state a short time ago talk about her experience in Afghanistan with the women and the impact of the microfinance programs. We have to understand that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and we are trying to help out. A microfinance loan for as little as $100 can help a woman who has lost her husband. Many thousands of women are widowed because their husbands were killed by the Taliban. They are raising their children. A simple microfinance loan could help them establish a small business, feed their family and help them get their children an education in order to move ahead and create a local economy. It was mentioned that 90% of those very small loans are being repaid, which is probably a good lesson for some government programs we have seen around here, where large loans are made and not repaid, but that is another story.

The microfinance loans are being repaid. We heard a comment that perhaps the 5% of loans that are not paid are those that are given to men. It is a great thing that we are over there helping to create a local economy, especially with the women, and allowing them to establish a business, whether it is baking bread for their family and neighbours, or whether it is a small business of another nature.

Why are we in Afghanistan? We hear this question being asked. It puzzles me because there are many reasons that we are there. We are accomplishing things. The first and most important thing to say is that we are part of a NATO led, UN sanctioned international security assistance force, commonly called ISAF.

The role of ISAF is to restore security to allow the rebuilding of Afghanistan to continue. There is development and reconstruction work, the building of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals for example, which can only take place when civilian workers and the projects they are working on are themselves safe from harm. This is the secure space that Canada's military and our international partners are there to provide.

We are there as part of a coalition of some 37 nations. Most of them are NATO nations, but there are other allies as well. The member opposite asked why it is that for every $1 that is spent on aid another $12 are spent on the military? We heard the parliamentary secretary address that a moment ago. Our soldiers are not only over there doing military work, but they are actually part of the reconstruction team. They are building the roads and bridges. We hope to outline some of the great projects they have done in a very difficult area.

It is true what the member suggests. There are other members who have suggested that we should pull out of a very difficult assignment in Kandahar province. The previous Liberal government sent us to that area. It deliberately chose that province knowing it would be a tough assignment. We might have had an easier assignment building in Kabul where there is much more security, or in the north of Afghanistan where security is not as big an issue. Frankly, our troops are on the front line making it possible for all the great successes in other areas.

If our troops were not holding the line in the south and countering the insurgency coming in from the south, which is the volatile and unruly area, then reconstruction efforts throughout the entire country would be in peril. We would be foolish to think that if insurgents were capable of overrunning Kandahar province that they would stop there, that they would not turn their attention to Helmand province on the other side and other provinces and roll right back into Kabul and continue their tyranny throughout the entire country.

We are on the front lines in a very difficult spot. Our troops have paid the price. They are doing their duty in an admirable way. As Canadians, we should be very proud of that.

I visited our military base in Trenton over the summer. Our transport squadrons are based there. I was very impressed with the morale in the military and with the focus, discipline and camaraderie on that very large base. There are some 3,500 military and civilian personnel there. They have the tough assignment of receiving their fallen comrades back on behalf of the entire country because the planes land in Trenton.

It is commendable that Canadians have taken it upon themselves without prompting, without being encouraged or told to do it, to line up on that highway which we now refer to as the Highway of Heroes whenever a fallen countryman returns home.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Let me talk about education. More than six million children, one-third of them girls, are now enrolled in school in 2007-08. Under the Taliban back in 2001 there were only 700,000 children, boys only, in school. The economy has doubled. Community development is moving ahead. There are more than 19,000 community development councils, more than 10 vocational training initiatives in Kandahar. The number of tuberculosis cases has declined. Childbirth statistics are improving. The number of deaths of women during childbirth is down and the infant mortality rate is down. Those are all good reasons for being in Kandahar and in Afghanistan.

I could go on for some time, but I will conclude with this point, that more than five million refugees have returned since 2002 and more than 365,000 in 2007. Ninety per cent of those returnees are finding jobs within six months of their return.

We are making a difference in a very difficult part of the world. Our Canadian Forces are admired. They have taken on a tough assignment. We are doing the rebuilding that is necessary and we are making progress. I hope all members will stand together to show our forces that we are standing with them at this time.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no question that we and all Canadians have stood behind our men and women in the military and will continue to stand behind our men and women in the military.

The member talked about the Manley report not being brought to committee. Does he think it is fair that the report of the defence committee, which he now sits on and which laboured for months and months, was not even looked at by his leader, the Prime Minister? He talked about not being fair. Even the recommendations in that report are part of what put it together.

The member talked about a NATO coalition. Does he think it is fair that only Canada and maybe another nation are in the difficult zone? Why does the rest of the NATO family not participate equally?

With respect to children going to school, when President Karzai was here, he said there were 200,000 fewer students going to school than there were the year before. We do not have the actual numbers, but let us call spade a spade.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are kids in Canada who are not in school when they are supposed to be, but whatever the exact numbers are, I am sure they change from day to day. It is a difficult task for kids going to school in this area. It is a difficult task for families trying to rebuild. There is still instability in some areas, but it is getting better all the time. Since our forces have made a concerted effort to root out those insurgents by going out and chasing them down, security has been improved.

We know what was happening when the Taliban was allowed free rule there. They came in and burned down the schools and killed the teachers.

There has been a great improvement in security, with all due respect to my colleague opposite. Our Canadian Forces recently helped to rebuild and pave the key Kandahar-Spin Boldak highway. It is crucial to have paved roads there, because IEDs cannot be planted effectively in paved roads.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with some of the objectives of my colleague, and I want to be very specific.

He mentioned some of the successes. Those successes are the rationale that he says put us there and why we should continue to be there. Since we are focusing on schools, on hospitals and on roads, I am wondering whether he could tell us, at least in Kandahar province, how many schools we are going to build, how many teachers we are going to train, how many roads we are going to build, how many bridges we are going to construct, how many farms we are going to initiate, what the drainage system is like and what we are going to do.

Does he envisage the government coming forward and giving us a plan of all of these things which are not military secrets?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some of that discussion related to his question already today.

We have not just decided that Ottawa will draw up a plan for rebuilding in Kandahar province, but like the other successful provincial reconstruction teams, Canada's model has been to ask the local officials and the local councils, and to consult on what projects would best help their communities prosper, such as building another bridge, which we recently did. There is the Arghandab River causeway joining highways 1 and 4, a tremendous project. We just built a well at Kandahar University, with a civil military cooperation team. These are great examples of responding to local needs and getting the job done so that the local economies can improve and life can be better in each of those communities.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for clarification.

In listening to the debate, I have heard some members, mostly from the opposition, suggest that this is a military mission which this new government decided upon. That is absolutely incorrect. I would like some clarification.

My understanding is that the previous government sent our troops to Afghanistan without a vote. Then it sent them down to Kandahar, the most dangerous place in Afghanistan, also without a vote.

When I hear those members stand up and say what they have said, I want some clarification. Is it not true that not only did the previous Liberal government send our troops to Afghanistan without a vote, but it then decided to send them to Kandahar, the most dangerous place, without a vote? I want to know if there was ever an exit strategy on any of those decisions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It is becoming a little bit difficult to hear members from the farther end of the chamber, so I would ask all hon. members to allow the member for Nanaimo—Alberni to answer the question, even though he has only a few seconds left.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. It is obvious that the government opposite chose the Kandahar assignment. It was a tough--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

We are the government?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Excuse me, that party opposite when it was in government. Thank you. It chose a very tough assignment for our forces. Everybody acknowledges that we cannot build without security. We have to get the security right in order to build.