Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favour of the motion. It is very much a testament to the government's global commitment to help people in need to build better lives for themselves. Moreover, it is a testament to the government's willingness to adapt to new challenges.
One of the points of the Manley report said that what needed improvement was the government's communication to Canadians about the mission in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister has said, it will never be easy to communicate an issue which involves the sacrifice of our brave soldiers. Nonetheless, openness and improved communication is important. Canadians deserve to understand why we make the sacrifices that being a good global citizen requires and in some ways this is simply a matter of respect for our citizens.
It is also a matter of respect for our soldiers, especially the brave men and women in uniform who did not return home from Afghanistan. In particular, I would like to mention two of those soldiers.
Private Richard Green was killed in Afghanistan on April 17, 2002. He was 21 years old and with the 3rd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. He was raised in Hubbards in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's.
The other soldier I would like to recognize today is Corporal Paul Davis, who was 28 years old. He was from Bridgewater, Nova Scotia and died on March 2, 2006, in Kandahar.
I do not think we can use the names of soldiers who have not returned home from Afghanistan lightly. I said that we had to use them with respect, and I meant that. I mention them with respect. Part of the government's message, what we are doing in Afghanistan and the way we are using our men and women in uniform, has to use the word “respect”. Part of our debate tonight has to use the word “respect”, respect for this institution, respect for the rule of law, respect for your office, Mr. Speaker, respect for other members in the chamber, respect for the other people in this debate and respect, most important, for a different point of view.
However, it is also extremely important that by respecting one another and the rules of debate, we also respect the truth. We are members of Parliament. Sometimes we blur the line. Sometimes we get crowded right up against it. Sometimes we step across it. However, there is really no excuse for rational, intelligent, respectful members of Parliament to tell an untruth in this place. That is exactly what happened with the member for Outremont this evening in his discussion about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization not being a defensive organization.
I will take a moment in this debate to explain for the general public, which may been listening and may have believed the hon. member's comments as being truthful. The North Atlantic Treaty states:
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
This is a defensive organization with peaceful designs that uses the threat of force in the last possible instance. Article 1 states:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
That is pretty clear. I do not think there is too much debate over that. I do not know how someone could take that charter and somehow say it is something different from what it is.
I am not going to belabour this too much further, but article 2 states:
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
I think that puts the issue to rest, I really do. I do not think there is any room for a lot more debate on NATO somehow being an aggressive force that is running hell-bent around the country trying to cause havoc and to wreak havoc in the countries of the world.
Before I continue my speech, there is another comment that I would like to make about this debate, which one of my colleagues mentioned earlier tonight, and it is about some of the rallies for the troops that have been occurring.
As you would know, Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada we certainly have in many ways a disproportionate number of the soldiers serving. They are Atlantic Canadians and we are quite proud of that fact. These young men and women, and sometimes older men and women, have found good careers in the military and have given their all to those careers.
Along with the Minister of National Defence, I was in Shelburne for a rally with the troops. It was a cold November day. It was raining and snowing. A good group of us walked a few blocks in some inclement weather. We were not nearly as cold as the RCMP pipes and drums band, whose members were there in their kilts, and we did make it to the fire hall.
There were over 600 people crowded into that fire hall. There were nine veterans from Shelburne County who had served in Afghanistan on the stage with us. There were more men and women who were in Afghanistan at the time or who were in transit one way or another from that area. It was a true testament to Atlantic Canada and to our Canadian men and women in uniform.
This motion that we are debating today will help better communicate to Canadians the successes we are having in Afghanistan and how to move forward on the challenges. In fact, the government has taken the bold step of engaging an independent and non-partisan panel on Canada's future in Afghanistan.
Who would ever have thunk it? Who would ever have thought that? We say that a bit tongue in cheek, but in all honesty, for a sitting government to form an independent panel on an issue as critical to the country as this issue, and then be prepared to listen to that independent panel, who would have thought it?
It totally befuddles me as to how every party in the House cannot be in agreement with what that independent panel found. The Manley panel is to be commended in particular for laying out an excellent strategic and moral case for why we are in Afghanistan. More than that, Mr. Manley and his colleagues have laid a path to success that the government has fully accepted.
I am personally grateful for their work and I look forward to the fruits that it will bear. We mandated the panel to release a public report. This is not some secret report shown to the Minister of National Defence, a few of his close personal allies and the Prime Minister. It is a public report that every member in the House has had an opportunity to read to prepare themselves for the debate this evening and the one tomorrow evening. It was extensively reported in the media and discussed by experts across the country.
I have one minute left and I do not know what to do with the minute. A minute is not a whole lot of time in this place. However, I will finish up by saying that I believe this debate was good for our country and Canadians responded favourably to the conclusions. That is why we are here discussing this motion. It is to implement many of the report's recommendations.
This is a difficult issue for many people. No member of Parliament takes his or her job more seriously than when voting to extend the mission in Afghanistan, as we will be doing again.
Our government was the first government to allow full and open debate on this issue, and it was a victory for democracy to do that.