Debates of Feb. 26th, 2008

Afghanistan

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important historical day. The Afghan ambassador told me yesterday at a function that today is a very important historical day for Canada and the international community, because today we are discussing Afghanistan. Today we are discussing international efforts to bring peace and stability in the world. Today we are talking about providing security.

It is an international effort mandated by the United Nations under NATO command, but the whole community is coming together. Not only is NATO providing security, but it is also important that all the regional countries are in Afghanistan to rebuild it: India, Pakistan, China, all of them.

I have attended the rebuilding conferences on Afghanistan in New Delhi to see how all the regional countries have joined together to provide development assistance. Although NATO and Canada are providing the security aspect, we must not forget that the development effort in Afghanistan is not only done by us, but also by all of the regional countries that surround Afghanistan. They know the importance of stability in Afghanistan because it provides security for them as well.

Today I would like to give the House an update on our mission in Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members why Canada is in Afghanistan and why it is so important that we continue the work we are doing.

What has been achieved in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban is remarkable. Through Afghanistan's determination, Canadian efforts and the support of the international community, Afghans are showing leadership and taking control of their own lives and their country as a whole. Let me list a few achievements in this regard for the benefit of the House.

Close to six million children, one-third of them girls, are enrolled in schools in 2007-08. That compares with the 2001 figure of 700,000 consisting of boys only. Canada is supporting work to establish 4,000 community based schools and train 9,000 teachers, 4,000 of them female. About 120,000 children, 85% of them girls, will benefit.

Afghans' per capita income doubled between 2004 and 2007. Canada is the top donor to Afghanistan's microfinance program. This program is benefiting more than 418,000 savings and small loans service clients in 23 provinces, including Kandahar. More than two-thirds of the program's clients are women.

Some 83% of Afghans now have access to basic medicare. That compares with 9,000 in 2004. The infant mortality rate is down by 22% since 2001. To look at it another way, this means 40,000 more babies survive every year. The under five child mortality rate is down 26%.

Behind these numbers is the undeniable truth that the living conditions of the people of Afghanistan are improving, that this country, which suffered so terribly under the brutal Taliban rule and through years of civil war, is being rebuilt. We are proud that Canada is assisting in this. We are especially proud of the tremendous work being accomplished by the brave Canadian men and women, both military and civilian, who are serving in Afghanistan. Through these collective efforts, the Afghanistan government is developing institutional capacity that will have enduring results. However, rebuilding a country like Afghanistan after decades of war takes time and commitment.

For these reasons, the Canadian government has taken seriously the recommendations made by the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. This group of eminent Canadians was given the difficult task of providing Canadians with the high level of debate, insight and analysis that goes beyond partisan politics. The result of their efforts is a balanced, thoughtful and comprehensive report to Canadians.

The government has accepted the panel's specific recommendation of extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan under the conditions that the right steps are taken to ensure that our young men and women who are in harm's way are given the best chance of success.

Alongside the United Nations and our international partners, Canada has been effectively engaged in efforts to strengthen Afghan governance at the national and subnational levels. Canadian efforts focus on helping the Afghan government strengthen the efficiency, transparency and accountability of its institutions.

Let me comment on the revised motion on Afghanistan that our government has presented to the House. The revised motion represents an effort to achieve a bipartisan consensus on the future of Afghanistan. It acknowledges what is required of Canada's mission to succeed.

It is evident that the commitment to Afghanistan made by successive Canadian governments has not yet been completed. The ultimate objective is to enable the Afghans to govern their own country. By signalling our intent to withdraw now, we would run the risk of losing everything that we have worked for. There is no doubt that the cost of failure and abandonment would be hard.

We can all take heart from the fact that there is some fundamental common ground between the government and the official opposition on Afghanistan. This is visible particularly when it comes to the idea for the mission to continue until 2011. We also see common ground on the notion that operational decisions should be left to Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan. On this side of the House we believe this is a reasonable compromise. We believe this addresses the important questions Canadians have about the future of the mission.

The revised motion states a clear and principled position. This is a Canadian position, rather than just a Conservative position or a Liberal position. As a Canadian position, it is one that can be supported by the majority of the elected representatives of the Canadian people. This is the duty we owe to our troops. Every day they put their lives on the line for us. It was politicians of both parties who asked them to do that. It is now up to the politicians to do their part for the people of Afghanistan and to work together to reach a consensus on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Yesterday I was at a function on the promotion of democracy, something which the foreign affairs committee had presented last year to the House. It talked about how Canada would be involved in the promotion of democracy. This conference was being held at Queen's University.

Sitting next to me was a young German lady from a German institution that does development work in Afghanistan. We talked about the development of Afghanistan. She said she represented an institution with the same left-wing ideology as the NDP. I asked her what she thought about the position of that party. She said she was there to tell them that without security, there will be no development in Afghanistan.

That institution has the same ideology as the NDP, the party with its head in the sand and the attitude of hear no reason, see no reality. That party is the only party around the world with the ideology that says to leave Afghanistan without development. Yet the NDP's own brothers and sisters around the world, including the lady from Germany, are saying that there can be no development without security.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. With regard to the debate on Afghanistan being held by this House, it must be understood that no one is questioning the presence of Canada, of our troops, our soldiers in Afghanistan. That is a given.

My colleague who just spoke is absolutely right: the NDP is a problem. I can assure you that we do not agree with the NDP's insistence on withdrawal. In my opinion, this is a very important point: we cannot withdraw from Afghanistan tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 p.m., saying we are leaving. That is impossible. We have laid out the Bloc Québécois position. It is clear. The Bloc wants to withdraw in 2009. Having said that, the House will make a decision and we will have to live with this decision and respect it.

I have a question and I will be repeating myself. Our colleague who spoke earlier, the Chief Government Whip, told us that we were perhaps not well informed. I am not talking about reading history. I invite my Quebec colleagues and other colleagues in this House to read A History of Modern Afghanistan by Michael Barry. I did not write this book. Therefore, it is not partisan.

This book raises an issue that leads me to ask my colleague opposite a question. The troops may remain in Afghanistan in 2009, 2010, 2011 and perhaps beyond. Can he assure us that the work—and I really like what our Conservative colleagues are saying—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Bloc does not want us to leave tomorrow as the other parties have been saying. If we leave in 2009, the work will not be done.

The member referred to a book. My ancestors came from that region and I know what is going on there. My colleagues and I understand the cultural complexity of that region.

Never before has there been such a brutal regime as the Taliban, even in Afghanistan's history. For the first time the international community has joined together. The international community under the United Nations has joined together under the Afghanistan Compact to rebuild that country, and that will be the success the member is asking for. If we stay until 2011, our work will be a success. The London compact, the Afghanistan Compact by the international community, is working.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion talks about a regular way of informing Canadians about progress in Afghanistan. I listen to radio shows and there is a lot of confusion about what is going on over there. People are saying the aid money is going there but it is not actually getting to the people. There is all kinds of confusion about what is actually going on over there that is making life better for Afghans.

What kind of regular reporting plan does the government have to present to Parliament and to Canadians so that we are better informed about the issues my colleague is concerned about?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion clearly specifies how we would inform Canadians. We have been informing Canadians all the time. The NDP members have their heads in the sand. I said that the NDP has an attitude of hear no reason, and now I say it is one of hear no information. The NDP has already made a decision for Canada to leave. What is the point in telling those members anything because they have already made a decision not to support this resolution. I fail to understand the member's question at all.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you immediately that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I am pleased to participate in this debate on the government motion on extending the mission in Afghanistan. Unlike other debates we have had in recent weeks, I have the real impression that I can express my opinion in this debate and be the voice of Quebeckers.

I would point out that before the parliamentary recess, we were considering bills that were really matters of details. I am thinking, for example, of the bill relating to consultation for appointing senators. At that point, I really had the impression that I was speaking on relatively pointless subjects, while this time, on Afghanistan, I believe it is extremely important for the Bloc Québécois, for the Quebec nation and for the Canadian nation to debate this issue in depth. The Bloc Québécois has in fact been calling for an in-depth debate on this issue for a long time.

Behind the Afghanistan issue there lies a world view, a view of international relations and of the way to build peace. The question is, how we are going to be able to assist countries with economic, social and political problems to get onto the road to prosperity, democracy and the common good. At bottom, what we are debating today is Canada’s current vision of all of those topics.

I admit that I am a little disappointed with the approach the Liberals have taken to this. In the case of the Conservatives, we have known the essence of their thinking for a long time now. In fact, the Speech from the Throne talked about extending the mission to 2011. The repeated announcements by the Prime Minister concerning rising military expenditures, with yet another one last week, clearly demonstrate that this government takes a militaristic view of international relations that is closely modelled on another regime’s. I am not talking about the regime in Afghanistan, although I could talk about that too; rather, I am talking about the American administration, which has itself been disowned by a large proportion of its population, and also by a large proportion of America's Republicans. We can see this clearly at present in the debate about Iraq and the debate that is taking place around the Democratic and Republican primaries.

I am not surprised by the position taken by the Conservative government, but the position taken by the Liberals does surprise me. In a way, their opportunistic approach—I have to call it that—is based on one important issue: Afghanistan. Our vision of Canada’s place in the world—and obviously, for us, of a sovereign Quebec’s place in the world—and the approach that Quebec will take, but that Canada should also take, must reflect all of the issues I have just referred to: development, security, progress toward democracy and prosperity for peoples who are in great need of them.

I would have expected the Liberals to stay within the parameters that should govern this debate, that is, those issues. To avoid an election, by raising totally spurious arguments, they are trying to avoid this debate. The speeches given yesterday are good examples, in particular the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, but also the speeches by some members of the government and the Liberal Party.

For example, the motion itself is riddled with vague words and assumptions. In fact, it is playing fast and loose with the truth, as did the first motion introduced by the Conservative government. They have made it even worse in the second motion, introduced at the end of last week, which we are now debating.

Here is an example:

—the House takes note that in May 2006, Parliament supported the government’s two year extension of Canada’s deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension—

First of all, that statement placed too much emphasis on diplomacy and development assistance because we know that up until now, the nature of the mission has been military.

Worse still, it fails to mention one thing. It suggests that at the time, there was unanimity or near-unanimity in the House and that today, the extension approved in May 2006 should be turned into a new extension from February 2009 to February 2011.

The wording is misleading. It fails to mention that on May 17, 2006, when the House voted on a government motion to extend the mission to February 2009, the motion was adopted by a margin of only four votes. At the time, there were 149 votes in favour and 145 votes against, a difference of four votes.

The vast majority of Quebeckers are in favour of ending the military mission in February 2009. Poll after poll has shown that, and the numbers are going up. When I travel around Quebec, I like to tell Quebeckers that if they had put just five more Bloc Québécois members in the House, or even just three more, the extension would not have been passed. Quebeckers get the message, as we will see in the next election, which we hope will happen very soon.

It is not true that on May 17, 2006, the House voted by a convincing majority to extend the mission. The motion was passed by a margin of just five votes.

That was true in 2006, and it is even truer now in early 2008. We have not been given any more good reasons to support it. On the contrary, we have more reasons than we did in May 2006 to be against extending the mission.

We were told that the vote will be in March. I find it very hard to understand those Liberals who said in 2006 they were opposed to extending the mission until February 2009 but are going to rise now and vote in favour of extending it until 2011. The Prime Minister said the troop withdrawals would begin in June or July but would finish in December 2011. If we were so divided in the House on this issue in 2006, it is very hard to understand how there could be such unanimity now among the Liberals, unless it is just political opportunism.

At least the Conservatives demonstrate a certain consistency in their positions, even though I do not agree with them. When it comes to the Liberals, there is total confusion. This shows Quebeckers that there is really only one choice in Quebec for people who are in favour of a humanistic approach, a cooperative approach that puts the emphasis on diplomacy and development. They want to put the military aspects aside, ensuring security of course but not having a fundamentally military mission. There is only one voice representing these people in the House because the Conservatives and the Liberals are in bed together in this regard. This single voice is the voice of the Bloc Québécois. A good portion of Quebeckers and of the Quebec nation understands this already.

I want to add one final comment. On February 19, 2007, the Liberals tabled a motion asking the government to end the mission in February 2009, which was the date to which we had committed ourselves with the international community. The Bloc Québécois has always wanted Canada to keep its commitments to the international community. When Quebec is a sovereign country and makes commitments to the international community, we will want it to see its commitments through to the end. We are applying the same principle here to a decision that was made democratically, although only by five votes, as I said before.

The Bloc Québécois has always wanted to abide by this decision. At the time, it was the NDP that saved the Conservative mission in Afghanistan. They are the ones who put us in the situation we face today. Back then, the Liberals had their own, consistent view on Afghanistan and had proposed that the House pass definitive legislation requiring a military withdrawal from the Kandahar area in February 2009. The NDP were the ones who helped the Conservatives extend the mission, not just to 2009 but to 2011. That is why their amendment is as irresponsible as their position has been since the beginning. They, too, are being political opportunists. That should be deplored and condemned. If we look a little more closely at the NDP's position, it is not really immediate withdrawal they want, even though they constantly say so. If we push them hard enough, we discover it is immediate withdrawal in complete safety.

What does complete safety mean? It means that one or more NATO partners will have to take our place in the province of Kandahar. That is why we want to have a vote on this motion very soon. We want it defeated and our NATO allies informed that they will have to replace the Canadian troops in February 2009.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my Bloc Québécois colleague. He talked about misleading wording, and the Bloc members would know, given all the stories they can tell. On the radio we heard that a Bloc Québécois candidate claimed that there were as many deaths during the period we have been in Afghanistan as during the second world war. That just goes to show how misleading wording really depends on the point of view.

I would like to know how much of the Manley report my Bloc Québécois colleague has read. Because this report was really done properly. I would also like to ask my Bloc Québécois colleague a question, even though I highly doubt he will be able to respond.

In the past, Canada went to help the Rwandan people. Now, a report shows that 800,000 Rwandans died waiting for help from the UN. Does my colleague think that Rwandans deserved better assistance? How is that different from what we are currently doing in Afghanistan to protect the people there?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many fabrications in the question that was asked that I am going to focus on the Manley report. Obviously, I know my Conservative Party colleague and he is somewhat like the motion. As I said, it is incomplete and riddled with vague words and assumptions.

I would like to tell him about the Manley report. When Mr. Manley was appointed, it was very clear to us that this process was also politically motivated, that is, appointing a former minister, particularly the previous government's Minister of Foreign Affairs, to lead such a commission. Yet, upon reading the Manley report, it is interesting to note that 75% to 80% of the report is a clear criticism of the Conservative militaristic approach in the Afghanistan file, and that, contrary to all expectations—in my opinion, in response to a political directive—manages to come up with a series of flimsy conditions that allow the Prime Minister and the government the possibility of extending the mission from February 2009 to 2011, thereby laying a trap for the Liberals, which they fell into.

If I may, I would like to read part of the Manley report, from page 32:

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, development and governance.

This is what the Bloc Québécois has been calling for from the beginning and what we continue to ask for: a rebalancing of the mission, with a shift from a military focus to development.

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

Mr. Speaker, development and diplomacy are required to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Even a former colleague of the member for Joliette, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, clearly indicated that security is needed for children to be able to go to school and in order to build drinking water treatment systems. We know that the 3 Ds are required in Afghanistan. We also know that the Bloc Québécois has adopted a 3 I approach: inconsistency, irresponsibility and improvisation.

I would like our colleague from Joliette to explain the comments of some of his colleagues who, with their fancy footwork and backtracking, are being political opportunists. Why is the Bloc Québécois dabbling in political opportunism? In June 2004, their leader stated, “Let us be perfectly clear...we must work tirelessly to track down and bring to justice those responsible for these barbaric acts.”Why does this no longer apply in 2008?

In 2006, the member for Saint-Jean stated, “All this suggests to us that they are on the path to success and more needs to be done to get there. We probably have to stay in that country for quite some time.”

I could give you many more quotes along those lines. Even in this House, in 2007, a member said that a sovereign Quebec would participate in international intervention in Afghanistan. Where is the Bloc going with the mission in Afghanistan, if—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Joliette has 30 seconds left.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the member's ignorance of the Bloc's positions. We are the ones who have had a consistent position from the beginning. We support participation in the Afghanistan mission, but not the participation being imposed by the Conservatives, blindly accepted by the Liberals, and warned against by the NDP with its irresponsible position.

We wish to honour our commitment until February 2009. After that, our role in Afghanistan will change. We never considered leaving Afghanistan. Those are lies and false information. That is exactly what I was saying to you, Mr. Speaker: this government puts a spin on information in favour of a wrong-headed military approach.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this motion regarding the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, particularly because several members of the Bagotville 3rd Squadron in my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, are actively involved in the efforts as part of this mission.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support a motion of this kind. This marks no change in the Bloc’s position. We said clearly that we were prepared to go to the polls on this issue if that is what the Conservative government wants. Our position is clear. The Government of Canada must not extend the term of this mission, which will end in February 2009. Canada has done its part and it is the turn of other NATO member countries to take over. Quebeckers want Canada to end this mission in February 2009, as scheduled.

The Conservatives’ and Liberals’ desire to extend the mission to 2011 shows that they are out of touch with the values of Quebec. The people of Canada and Quebec are very divided on the question of the military presence in Afghanistan. The Quebec nation has its own unique values and interests. Every time the Bloc Québécois has to take a position, we try to imagine what the government of a sovereign Quebec would do. That is why the debate today is very important.

The mission in Afghanistan has to be rebalanced. That is why the Bloc Québécois has long called for NATO member countries to be informed that the troops will be withdrawn in February 2009. Between now and then, the fundamental objective of the international coalition and NATO must be to rebuild the economy and democracy and make Afghanistan a viable state. To that end, Canada must play a leadership role in distributing humanitarian aid and in the reconstruction of the country. It is therefore important to say clearly, not only to the NATO coalition members but also to the people of Quebec and Canada, that the Canadian army in Afghanistan will begin rebalancing its role on the ground.

The Bloc Québécois supported sending troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO effort. The operation that involved Canada was similar to a peacekeeping mission, with the goal of stabilizing Kabul and the surrounding region. Why are the people of Canada and Quebec still so divided today on the presence of the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan? The Bloc Québécois believes that Canada must deliver its development aid as soon as possible, through multilateral organizations, and in particular through the United Nations agencies, which would eliminate many overlaps and prevent working at cross purposes.

Quebeckers and Canadians need assurances that the government intends to act in the interests of the Afghan people, work toward sustainable development and ensure that local people's basic human rights are respected and protected.

The successful reconstruction of Afghanistan will take more than just the use of weapons or military might. To date, Canada has made a substantial effort in hot spots in Afghanistan. Now, we need to invest more in diplomacy.

The Bloc suggests that Canada organize an international conference on Afghanistan, as an opportunity to discuss the reconstruction and the development assistance the international community is providing for Afghanistan.

The Bloc Québécois has been talking for a number of months about bringing a new balance to the mission. If we continue what we are doing, many more lives could be lost.

Sadly, too many lives have been lost during this mission.

Not long ago, I witnessed one family's human drama: the death of a soldier on this mission. I attended the funeral of Corporal Renaud, a man from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, in my region. He was 26 years old, and his spouse was pregnant when he was killed. That child will never know his or her father. I saw how much his parents and grandparents suffered as a result of this soldier's death. Canada must end this mission in February 2009 to prevent more communities and families from going through this.

Our combat approach to this mission is costing too many lives. Shifting the mission's focus in three areas is urgent. I would like to repeat the main points I raised in this House last April, during the debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

First, we must increase reconstruction assistance and do a better job of coordinating it.

Second, the nature of our military activities must change.

Third, we must drastically change how we look at the opium problem.

Social development in Afghanistan is appalling. In 2004, this country was ranked 173rd out of 178 countries listed on the human development index.

Canadians and Quebeckers have the right to know the ramifications of the active participation of our armed forces, and to demand that Canadian operations place a greater emphasis on social development and peacekeeping as soon as possible.

The Conservative motion sets the deadline for the Canadian mission in Kandahar at 2011. Canada has been in Kandahar since 2006. We feel that by February 2009, the current mission deadline, Canada will have done its share.

What matters most is that the soldiers' mandate in Afghanistan be redefined before their withdrawal in 2009. Quebeckers and Canadians have sent troops to Afghanistan and have done their part.

The Taliban regime fell a long time ago. However, achieving peace and rebuilding a viable Afghan state is far more difficult. But that is what the fundamental objective of the international coalition and the United Nations should be: reconstructing the economy, paving the way for a democratically viable state in Afghanistan so that Afghans can take control of their own country and their own development.

That is why the government must set precise deadlines to rebalance this mission by February 2009, and ensure that the soldiers have the necessary resources to accomplish the reconstruction and security work in the field.

In closing, even though we want Canada to withdraw from Kandahar at the end of this mission, we do not consider the NATO mission as a whole to be ending in failure. That is why we have always wanted an alternative within NATO, to have another country replace the Canadian contingent in Kandahar. The federal government must immediately inform NATO member countries that our mission is ending in February 2009.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the Bloc member, who said that Canada has done its fair share in Afghanistan. We have done more than our share, but the job is not complete.

The Bloc is attempting to make this a political issue. It is not a political issue. It is humanitarian issue. He talked about wanting to see human rights protected, but he wants to pull out by 2009. I have a question for the member. What will happen to those women who are starting new businesses and to those little girls who are going to school? We heard from the member for Prince George—Peace River that two little girls were killed just recently. What was their crime? Going to school.

If the Bloc plan is to pull out in 2009 and abandon these people, what does he imagine will happen to these women? What does he imagine will happen to these little girls? When President Karzai came to Parliament, he shared what has happened, which was that the Taliban cut off the heads of grandmothers and killed the women and little girls.

As for talking about human rights, what does the member imagine will happen to these people in Afghanistan if we pull out and abandon them? What does he think is going to happen to them? Talk about human rights.

This is not a political issue. It is a humanitarian issue. Canada is doing the right thing. Why is the Bloc abandoning these people?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

I will say again, Canada has done its share. We have been in this combat mission since 2006. Kandahar is the hottest spot. It is where the real fighting is going on. We must inform the international community and NATO countries that our mission is ending in February 2009, in order to have another country replace us. This combat mission is more or less complete. It must end in February 2009, and shift to a more humanitarian presence that focuses more on the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I asked the members in this House who was in favour of the war, I do not think anyone would raise their hand. I do not think anyone is in favour of the war. Earlier, our Bloc Québécois colleague spoke about misleading wording. Our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is the king of that, because this is not a combat mission.

My question for him is simple, but, once again, I do not think he will be able to respond. I let him choose between two questions. How many Canadians died in combat missions in Afghanistan last year? I am not talking about car accidents and hidden bombs. Second, did the 800,000 Rwandans who died deserve more assistance? Yes or no, it is a simple question.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

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

There are a few parts to this question, but I will talk about his first statement. Yes, we are on a combat and war mission when we are in Kandahar. General Hillier is the one who said that as long as we are in Kandahar, the Canadian army will be on a combat mission. So as long as we are in Kandahar, the Canadian army is on a combat mission.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one of the comments my hon. colleague made. He said that Afghanistan rated 173 out of 178 on the human development indicators as of 2004. Has he completely disregarded all of the progress made in the past four years, all of which has been well published?

The Bloc continually ignores that progress, as do members of the NDP. The sky is falling as far as they are concerned. Has the member completely ignored all of the progress that has happened in the past four years?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

We receive information about the mission in Afghanistan periodically. We are hearing two different things. On the one hand, we hear army representatives saying that they are building schools, hospitals and roads, and that there is progress. On the other hand, we hear humanitarian organizations saying that there is no progress and that the Afghan people are truly suffering.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lethbridge.

I will begin by recognizing that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan has been a bipartisan effort across prime ministers and parliaments. In our commitment to the Afghan people we have tried to join with them to make a difference for a country that has had little hope for several generations due to war and oppression.

In the motion before the House we are looking to the future, not to the past. We are asking Parliament to look forward with us and support the Afghan people once again. There is a job in Afghanistan that still needs to be done and I am confident we can meet the challenge.

I congratulate the Prime Minister for his unwavering support of our men and women in uniform and for doubling the developmental aid to Afghanistan. Canada has shown leadership in committing troops, resources, development and political efforts to help the Afghan government secure a better future for its people.

Canada, as a G-8 nation, is strengthening its position on the world stage. Being a major country entails great global responsibility. We cannot afford an isolationist attitude. Our attitude toward Afghanistan should not be that it is a problem in a land far away, especially in the globalized age. We will be endangering our own national security with such shortsightedness.

In our debate we must consider what the people of Afghanistan want. They want exactly what everybody else here wants, Mr. Speaker, you, me and all Canadians. They want a peaceful and democratic society based on the rule of law. They want to rise above the abject poverty which has been their lot for too many generations. They want jobs and education, peace and stability, and they want hope for the future.

I would suggest two things necessary to achieve these goals are security and development, and they go hand in hand. Without the security provided by the international forces, development would be next to impossible. The stated objective of the mission is to provide a safe and stable environment so that this improvement, important development work, can take place.

We are in Afghanistan to establish a secure space, areas where civilian agencies and development workers can function free from harm. As General MacKenzie pointed out in a recent foreign affairs committee meeting:

The ISAF mission is to expand the secure areas until they overlap and to maintain the security for the local population until they trust you. They, the local population, will defeat the insurgency, not us. They defeat it by not supporting it and by trusting that we aren't going to turn tail and leave ahead of schedule.

The goal of insurgents is not to take over territory and defeat NATO forces. Their goal is to outlast the international forces and to make sure we leave sooner rather than later. Insurgency wins by not losing. Their goal is to outlast us. Our goal is to provide the Afghan people with their own resources so that they can outlast the Taliban.

I think it is important to point out that our Canadian Forces are carrying out their mandated duties in an exemplary fashion. We are humbled by the dedication to the mission and by the extreme sacrifices that they are making.

Our military is among the best trained, most professional in the world. They have developed new capabilities in dealing with insurgency. They have developed relationships with the local people establishing lines of communication and building their trust. Their experience is invaluable to the mission.

Security must be established and maintained before we can proceed with aid, reconstruction and development. As I said, security and development go hand in hand. The Afghan people need the international community to help them rebuild their lives and their country after decades of war, oppression and insurgency.

Our long term goal is to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society. We are helping the Afghans to help themselves and we are seeing encouraging results.

We have provided food aid to nine million people and to over 400,000 in Kandahar. We have opened 1,200 wells for clean drinking water. We have provided jobs, education and opportunities for employment. We are helping to establish democratic governance and the rule of law. We are supporting human rights and gender equality. There are many success stories and I have seen them firsthand.

One area where Canada is making a significant contribution is in the efforts to clear the country of mines and unexploded ordnances. Canada is the biggest donor for demining operations. Afghanistan has more landmines and more UXOs than any place else in the world. Thousands of Afghans have been killed and thousands more have been injured.

When I was in Afghanistan last year, I saw firsthand the devastation caused by landmines. While little children play outside, if they see a metal object lying there they will pick it up, and not to play with it but to take it to a pawn shop to sell it as metal to feed themselves because of abject poverty. Sometimes the UXOs blowup in their hands and we see not only one but a number of children that die or are a disabled. This is an important effort that Canada is making. We ought to be proud of it and continue with it. When I was in Afghanistan last year, I saw firsthand the devastation caused and it moved me tremendously.

Demining also opens up more land for agriculture, more housing and clears areas where people can live and children can play safe from harm. Our efforts are showing results, with over half a million mines being destroyed by the end of 2007. There has been a 55% decrease in victims compared to five years ago. All this reconstruction and development can take place because of the security being provided by the NATO mission.

This discussion today, now taking place here in Canada and in other NATO countries is a necessary part of a democratic process. At some point we have to articulate a position. The confusion over the mission, the why, the how and how long, is playing into the hands of insurgents. They interpret this as a lack of solidarity and a wavering of commitment, and this builds their confidence. This must not be allowed to continue.

That is why we have come out and clearly stated that Canada will stay and fulfill its responsibilities. We cannot abandon Afghanistan and its citizens. Our commitment is important because, as John Manley wrote, “--it concerns global and Canadian security, Canada’s international reputation, and the well-being of some of the world’s most impoverished and vulnerable people”.

Mr. Manley recommended in this report that our role should focus on development and shift increasingly toward the training of the Afghan national army, so that as its capability increases our combat role can be significantly reduced.

The motion put forward by this government makes Canada's position clear to our NATO allies, our partners in Afghanistan, and to our troops on the ground. We have committed to 2011 and I am confident that much will be done in the next three years that will bring even better results for the people of Afghanistan.

I would ask all parliamentarians from all parties to support this motion. Put personal feelings and politics aside as this represents a unique opportunity for all Canadians to rally around our troops, our allies, our purpose and the Afghan people. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. We need to stand together, we need to support our troops, we need to support our mission, and we need to support this motion.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague, but I see a problem here. Indeed, most if not all members of this House agree that the mission should continue in Afghanistan, except the NDP members, who believe that our troops should withdraw immediately. All other members think the mission should continue, with the slight difference that the Bloc Québécois feels that, beginning in February 2009, the mission should shift to one of aid and reconstruction.

Michael Barry wrote a very interesting book called A History of Modern Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been in conflict for the past 500 years. It is a region, a country, made up of tribes that have been fighting each other for hundreds of years.

How can the member assure this House that in 2011, the job will be done, to borrow a much loved Conservative expression, that the mission will be complete, that the work will be done? How can he give us such an assurance?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed. I do not really know whether the member was even listening to me. I said let us look forward, not to 1504. I said that I have physically and personally seen with my own eyes the development.

I also want to ask all the members of this House when they ever expected a United States company, a Canadian company and Indians would build a copper mine to the tune of $1.8 billion? That is called progress.

What I would like to suggest is that we learn more about the cross-nationals, the jihadists and the Taliban. I am disappointed sometimes that we base our judgments on a superficial knowledge, or lack thereof, as to the efforts that are being made in Afghanistan vis-à-vis development. We are there. We are developing that country.

I am from there. I would say stop if all things were equal, but I am saying no, do not stop, because all things are not equal. I am from there. I know it. I know every nook and cranny of that country and that area. I ask members to please educate themselves and support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate in the House today with a lot of interest.

It is also somewhat alarming to hear members of other political parties attempt to define the New Democratic Party's position. They are incorrect. The Bloc members are incorrect when they say that we would abandon Afghanistan. That has never been the position that we have taken.

However, regarding the remarks from the member from Streetsville, I heard a very interesting interview with Sarah Chayes just this week. She has been in Kandahar since the fall of the Taliban and actually came to visit us when we were in Afghanistan with the defence committee, and gave us her views on what has been happening the last five or six years in Kandahar province.

What she said in that interview is that sadly, the people of southern Afghanistan and Kandahar are shaken down by their own government during the day, because the corruption is so high, and then shaken down by the Taliban at night.

I would like to ask the member this question. Why did he vote in opposition to extending the mission when that was raised by the political party he was with before? Why did he vote against extending the mission in the first place?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I voted against it at that time, not because I was against the mission. I wanted an educated debate where people are well informed. This government, over the period of time, has been more open and transparent, and has informed Canadians and informed this House, and that is why we are having this educated debate, which did not happen for four years.

This government came into power four years after the Afghan commitment, so we must realize the benefits of what this government has done. I support the mission wholeheartedly. We are discussing it, but I would also urge my colleagues to stop and to give up the urban myths that they hear from certain quarters and look at the reality on the ground. Nobody is saying it is a perfect place. Nobody is saying that 100% development will satisfy us, but the fact of the matter is that development is making progress.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House today to take part in this debate on Canada's mission in Afghanistan. I do so without hesitation, in support of our role in this multilateral, UN sanctioned and NATO led endeavour.

I also speak with the deepest appreciation and respect in support of our fellow Canadians who work and fight on our behalf in Afghanistan. As chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I have had the honour of travelling to Afghanistan to witness their work and meet the sons and daughters of Canada who, far from family and home, toil for us and for Canada. They are so much more than ranks in uniforms. They are fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. They are our neighbours. They are our friends. They are our fellow Canadians.

Today our duty in this chamber is one of solemn importance as we are debating a commitment that Canada has made and will make both to the people of Afghanistan and to our allies. This commitment is enshrined in the Afghanistan Compact, an international agreement that provides a framework for cooperation between the Afghan government and the international community. Agreed to at the beginning of 2006 by more than 60 nations and organizations, the compact sets out benchmarks in the priority areas of security, governance and socio-economic development.

Canada's mission is multi-faceted and we continue to respond to evolving challenges by assessing and rebalancing our efforts, promoting security to secure development and governance. Our soldiers continue to provide security for the Afghan people. Our development workers provide means of survival, progress and prosperity. Our diplomats nurture a fledgling democracy in its infancy. As a whole, as Canadians, they are building a better Afghanistan for tomorrow.

As our fellow Canadians continue their work in Afghanistan, we too now undertake our part of the mission as we consider future direction. As Canada's elected leaders, it is our solemn duty to decide the matter of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Our soldiers, diplomats and development workers are following this debate. The government and people of Afghanistan wait with hopeful anticipation. The 37 nations with which we are allied in Afghanistan look on, and we can rest assured that our enemies are mindful of this debate as well.

All are watching with keen interest because Canada's active role in building peace and prosperity in Afghanistan is critical and is making a difference. While the challenges we face are complex and diverse, real progress throughout the country in the last few years is providing hope for a better future. Our efforts, combined with those of other donors and our growing network of dedicated partners on the ground, are paying dividends.

Our commitment has helped introduce democracy to Afghanistan. Presidential and parliamentary elections have been held, a new constitution has been adopted, and women represent more than one-quarter of parliamentarians. Canadians can be proud that we stood firmly by the Afghan people as these transformations took place.

Today, this government is also helping Afghans participate in grassroots democracy through the election of more than 19,000 community development councils across Afghanistan. These councils are elected at the local level, much like we elect municipal governments in Canada, to make decisions on community priorities.

Once development projects are identified, the work is carried out by locals. This approach ensures that Afghans have ownership over projects, which range from improving drinking water and transportation systems to providing irrigation and electrical power while strengthening education and health care.

In Kandahar province alone, more than 530 community development councils have been elected and more than 630 projects have been completed to date. These projects are providing lasting benefits to households and communities. This is due in large part to the fact that Afghans themselves are leading their own development.

Canada is also providing a safer world for the Afghan people. Canadians have assisted in the confiscation of 16,000 heavy weapons and the disarming of 63,000 former combatants. We are now focusing on training an Afghan national army and an Afghan national police force.

I have met with members of Afghan national army and the national police and have seen their commitment to peace. These are brave people working under extremely harsh conditions. We are working with these brave Afghan men and women, providing them with the tools and training to one day be the keepers of their own safety and security.

Canada is also addressing the terrible threat of landmines. Our contribution to demining programs has assisted in the prevention of countless deaths and crippling injuries. As stated earlier, many of the victims are children. The number of landmine victims has decreased by 55% over the levels from five years ago.

When my colleagues and I were in Afghanistan just over a year ago and went through the military hospital at Kandahar airfield, the doctors and nurses had just finished patching up a local Afghan person who had stepped on a landmine. They had put him back together. He was in tough shape but it looked to me as though his legs had been saved. This is the kind of work that goes on every day, which Canadians do not know about and need to know about.

We are helping to improve the Afghan economy. The country's per capita annual income doubled between 2002 and 2007. Through our support for Afghan national programs, we are contributing to the growth by helping to create the jobs that are key to reducing poverty.

We are also helping to grow the economy through our world-leading support for Afghan microfinance programs. The parliamentary secretary talked about this earlier. Microfinancing programs make financial services available to Afghans for the people who are unable to access financing through any other source. There is no banking system in that country.

This microfinance program has helped more than 418,000 Afghans undertake income generating activities for the creation of small businesses and for the assistance of farming operations.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, one female witness who appeared was from Afghanistan. She said that the repayment rate on these microfinance loans is 95%. Most of them go to women and the 5% of them that do not get paid back are loans to men. She said that tongue in cheek, but it was interesting that she would say that.