House of Commons Hansard #63 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was afghan.

Topics

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have become accustomed to the heckling. I just do not listen to it any more.

Despite the fact that we do not agree, we in the NDP at least have a clear position and Canadians can judge.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, it was a very interesting comment about the heckling and the response to it. It was very interesting, quite enlightening I think for those of us who were in the House the other day.

I agree with the hon. member that the NDP members do have a clear position. They do not support the mission. They do not support the Canadian military. They do not support our men and women in uniform. In my short time in the House, the 10 years that I have been here, they never have. I am glad that he clarified that statement.

I listened to the hon. member describe the difference between the Bloc's position and the NDP's position, but in many ways it is one cat's kittens. There are really a lot of similarities in the two positions.

I will pick up on the question that my colleague asked. We are a partisan group here and we have different opinions. We come from different parts of the spectrum, but surely the hon. member would agree that there is a time and place when there is no choice but to respond to force with force. I see no way around that. The world has not changed significantly in any way, shape or form since mankind's early combats between countries.

I have a comment about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland cannot be compared in any way shape or form to Afghanistan. Ireland is two countries divided on one island with a common language, with both sides of the struggle being educated, having access to outside media, having knowledge of what is going on in the rest of the world.

There is no comparison in the two struggles.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, where do I begin after an intervention of that kind. I actually do understand a few things from last week better myself.

When I hear the member say that we do not support our men and women in uniform, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact we all support, respect and admire each and every member of the Canadian armed forces.

Where we differ with the Conservative government is with the mission. We have no quarrel with the individuals serving. We have nothing but admiration and respect for them. We have a profound and great difference of opinion with the government on how they should be performing their jobs and where.

So do not try to put words in our mouth about respecting people in uniform. It is just not true. It also shows the paucity of the arguments of the Conservatives. They have nothing to say. I just listened to the comments and it is amazing. It is true sometimes when there is bullying that we do have to push back.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, we have seen from the hon. member a fairly impressive degree of pomposity in his commentary. There is one thing that I find a paradox and a perverse argument that the member made here and we have heard it from other members of his party. It is their adherence to the belief that somehow the rights, the protections, the ability to provide humanitarian relief, the ability to continue to rebuild that wartorn country is somehow going to mysteriously happen without the assistance of the international security force, without the ability to provide the security, that this will somehow fall from the heavens as if twice blessed upon the people below, as if somehow this could happen mysteriously.

We hear from the NDP members repeatedly their genuine belief, and I do believe it is genuine, that they want to promote women's rights, that they do embrace the diversity that exists within Afghanistan, the religious diversity, the cultural diversity, that they do support the women who were here last week. No one doubts their sincerity in that regard.

What is absolutely irreconcilable is to suggest that those same women who will return to their country could enjoy those protections and those rights and that ability to participate in the democratic society that has been created in Afghanistan. I was reading today about a young woman from Afghanistan who is going to compete in the Beijing Olympics. I heard from the ambassador of Afghanistan today who told a horrific story about a grandmother and her grandchild who were nailed to a tree by the Taliban as a form of assassination, public extermination of human life. We heard about people being thrown down wells, children being barred from education, absolutely atrocious human rights abuses that should be before war tribunals.

How can the member seriously suggest that to go back to that type of life which is what would happen without the presence of the international security force, how can he reconcile those two positions when he stands here today and lectures us in such a haughty and pompous way? How can he suggest that could happen?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, of all the things I have heard since the beginning of what was until a few minutes ago a rather interesting debate, that is the most pathetic nonsense that I have heard in this House on Afghanistan since the start of the debate. It is embarrassing to know that this man is actually a minister of the Crown. That type of demonization of the adversary is a classic when trying to defend an otherwise indefensible war.

What we are saying, and we are very proud to say it, is that Canada has played over its history and especially in the past 50 years an honourable role in the world for creating conditions for peace. It was only thanks to French television, TF1, that we saw Canadian troops involved in search and destroy missions. That is what the Conservatives have us involved in. We want us out and we do want to protect the civilian population.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I want to urge all hon. members to stay away from personal comments about other members. There were a few exchanges while the member for Outremont was responding to the question that I thought were pushing the limits of parliamentary language. If we could finish off the debate with a bit more civility, it would be appreciated.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see everyone here at this hour.

I would like to start with some questions for the government. I asked them before dinner, but I kind of rushed them at the end of my speech. I would be delighted if the foreign affairs minister could provide some of the answers by the end of my 20 minute speech or perhaps in questions and comments.

It is quite clear on the record that the Conservatives are in favour of the mission, of course, and the motion. Almost everyone is trying to work together to reach a positive deal out of this Parliament, but of course, as everyone knows, that requires answers to a few more questions. It would make it simple and easier.

I will outline those questions again so the government is quite clear on what they are. Maybe the answers are already being prepared. If so, perhaps the minister could make that clear to us and I would not be so worried.

First, when will the government notify NATO of the end date in 2011? That is what we have agreed to, but when is NATO going to be told so that it can get on with its planning, which is one of the very big strengths of this proposition that we are putting forward?

Second, why was there a change in the end date from February 2011 to July 2011? It is not a huge difference in time, but we are talking about millions of dollars that could be spent by Canada or another NATO ally that goes in. What was the purpose of that change in those months, which would change so much for the Canadian taxpayer? It may not change the mission, but it obviously has a rationale. We just would like to know what the rationale is.

Third, I hope there is also a rationale for why the government chose 1,000 as the number of additional troops needed in the area. Once again, we are not just picking numbers from a hat. This is very serious and important. It needs a very detailed analysis. We would like the government to give us an answer on why the number of 1,000 was chosen. If there is a reason but we cannot be given the particular answers, that would be fine, but there are not even reasons at the moment. I am sure the answers are being prepared so that we can get on with finalizing what we are working on together.

Fourth, what was the timeframe for meeting the conditions with respect to new troops and equipment, i.e., when will we be able to say that the condition has not been met? There is a condition in the motion. We would like the new troops and equipment, of course, but when is the deadline? When do they have to be there? Once again, when are we going to inform NATO so that a rational plan can be developed?

Fifth and last, regarding detainees, what is Canada doing to ensure that we are in compliance with our international obligations? We have asked this before. It is not a difficult question. Hopefully there is a good plan in place. I know that the government has had significant problems in this area, but I am sure it is working on a plan.

Just to be clear, I will repeat the questions once again. First, when will the government notify NATO of the end date in 2011? Second, why did the government change the end date from February 2011 to July 2011? Third, why has it chosen 1,000 as the number of additional troops? Fourth, what is the timeframe for meeting the conditions with respect to new troops and equipment and when will we be able to say the condition has not been met? Last, what is Canada doing to ensure that we are in compliance with our international obligations related to the detainees?

As I have mentioned before, I visited our troops in Afghanistan. I wanted to make sure they had everything they needed. We were all very proud of the work they were doing, of course, and those I spoke with were very proud of the mission they were undertaking at the time and what they were doing to help people who could not help themselves. I am a member of the Legion, of course, and show my support often.

I also am proud of the aid that Canada is providing there and in many other countries. We visited a provincial reconstruction team. People should not let anyone fool them: in dangerous areas, we need some protection for aid at times.

The area we visited looked like an old western fort protected by the military, but in that community, children were once again going to school. Girls were going to school. Aid was being provided. However, it could not have been provided if there had not been protection there. In fact, at the very spot where we landed, a few months later there was an assassination attempt on the president when he landed there. It is indeed dangerous and there are times when security is required.

Before I go on, I have to make a correction to the speech I was making before dinner. I said that the Taliban had attacked the World Trade Center. It was not actually the Taliban. It was al-Qaeda, but of course it was being allowed to develop its terrorist camps in the Taliban-run government.

In recent years, as members know, we were very proud that we got another mandate under the United Nations, which is the responsibility to protect. All Canadians and all parliamentarians here should be very proud of that, because basically it says that the United Nations can intervene if a country is not defending its own citizens.

This will certainly improve the mandate of the United Nations in a very important way, because we have situations in the world today where totalitarian governments and dictatorships are basically slaughtering, raping, displacing or putting into forced labour their own citizens, with no efforts to protect them. Their allies, their friends, can say to the world that the United Nations cannot intervene because the only way the United Nations can intervene is if there is not regional but international upheaval or instability, and of course then it is just a domestic matter. There are countries that say that today.

However, under the responsibility to protect, those countries are not protecting their own citizens. In the examples the minister gave a few minutes ago, where the Taliban are killing or raping people, or agents of their government are, or people who are allowed to operate in their area are, or where teachers are being murdered for teaching girls, or members of parliament are being murdered, as was talked about this afternoon, then obviously no one would agree that the government was protecting its own citizens. It would be agreed that international intervention is obviously now warranted, is now possible legally and is obviously an objective to which very few in the civilized world would object.

As we know from the wife of the Afghanistan ambassador to Canada, women were not allowed to work under the Taliban. They were not allowed to attend school or pursue an education. They were not allowed to receive medical care from a male doctor. They were basically non-citizens without rights or representation.

All these things I have just described, and that others have described, of course are totally foreign to Canadian values. That is why NATO and the United Nations are in support of actions to help the Afghan people.

I found it very unbelievable when a speaker just stated that we were not there in Canada's strategic interest. In my opinion, of course, that could not possibly be true. Is not defending human rights in Canada's strategic interest?

Is not allowing girls to go back to school in Canada's strategic interest? Is not protecting the people who are feeding poor children in Canada's strategic interest? Is not trying to give women equality of rights not in Canada's strategic interest? Is not trying to provide democracy and the opportunity to choose to people under the thumb of a horrible, religious zealot dictatorship not in Canada's strategic interest? I think it is.

I want to devote the rest of my comments to trying to lobby for a balancing of Canadian resources under the three Ds, defence, development and diplomacy, as the Canadian Centre for International Studies and Cooperation has said, in giving some areas where Canadian diplomacy could be increased and could be very helpful.

As members will recall, before dinner I was talking about how poor the people are in Afghanistan. I was talking about the shack with the dirt floor. It was cold like our winter is, with snow, and there was barely a piece of wood to light the fire. It is a desert. There are no trees in a lot of areas, so where would people even get wood?

People like that would not be choosing who governs them based on some political or philosophical discussion. They are looking at survival. It is not the Taliban's or the democrat's political position they will be voting for. They will be voting for who can put food on the table, help keep them warm in winter, help feed their children, help them survive and help them make an awful life a little better.

It is not an easy task. It is very expensive. As we know, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eradicate poverty in Canada. We have not been totally successful. It is not an inexpensive task.

If we try to change the workforce, once again, it is a very expensive task. In Canada, of course, some people have hoped for years that we could provide equally lucrative employment for tobacco growers and asbestos workers. These are very tiny portions of Canada's workforce, but we have not been successful to date. It could be a somewhat expensive proportion.

However, let us imagine trying to change a whole huge chunk of the Canadian workforce. It would be almost inconceivable for us. Yet in Afghanistan, so many people are not working at productive jobs. Once again, this is a very admirable goal, but let us not underestimate the economic requirements.

The problem is that we cannot make sufficient progress in those other areas if our resources are dedicated 10 times more to defence than development. If we are to make more progress in those other areas, we have to provide more in the development area for this huge task that I have just outlined.

Force alone, as much as I have outlined its important purposes, will never be the total answer. As I am sure all parliamentarians here know, we cannot beat someone into voting for us or convince them by force of what is right to have the final, long term, peaceful solution we need.

As many here know, I am very upset, as we all are, about the situation in Burma. One just wants to go in immediately with force. However, if we read the book by Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader of Burma and Nobel Peace Prize winner who is under house arrest, which is absolutely absurd, she is lobbying not for the force that we are itching to put in, but for a peaceful solution. Her argument is that if we use force it shows that the winning way, the way to solve a problem, is just who has the biggest army. If it were to be replaced, the opposition would just get a bigger military force, and that is not the answer she wants there.

I want to talk for a minute about rotation. When Canadian geese make their long migration, it is obviously a strenuous, difficult and trying situation under very hard conditions over thousands of miles. Injuries are involved. The hardest role is that of the leader in front of the V, in finding the way and starting the motion. In a flock of geese, that position is exchanged. The goose in front is replaced by one from the back. They take turns leading and sharing that role in which they are under attack by the elements all the time. They share the leading role.

That is the same philosophy that NATO goes under, that different countries will assume the role in the front lines and rotate through the difficult positions as they all work in a team to solve a common objective.

Huge numbers of Canadians, as I am sure all members of Parliament know, think it is time because Canadians have done their spot in the lead of the V, at the front of the attack. It is time for our numerous other NATO allies to fill in for a while, so our people can have a rest and do the important development that will win the hearts and minds of those people who will have to build a democracy for themselves.

Our Canadian troops have to train the Afghan people because their future is in their hands. The training of their police and military by our forces is where the solution has to lie. Canada is a great example of self-government. The success that has for people is reflected when they finally take over their own future.

It is not that Canada does not have other challenges in the world. When the war in Afghanistan is taken care of and the Afghan people are in control of their lives, defending themselves and providing for their people, there are all sorts of challenges around the world where we can be generous with our armed forces, our economic aid, our food aid and our humanitarian aid. There are places such as Burma, Darfur and the Congo. There are a multitude of problems in Africa that are crying for this type of intervention. There will always be work to be done.

Finally, I would close by saying why I think the solution that the Liberals have lobbied so hard for is being accepted by many people. First of all, the government originally appeared to be in a never ending war with no deadline. The Conservatives decided to look at 2011 and what could be done at that time. That was one way of operating, but I do not think it was acceptable to Canadians.

I think Canadians have to be very clear that what the Liberals pushed for and have achieved is an end date in 2011. In fact, the military commitment and the fighting that people are objecting to will end in 2009 and that is not changing. It will not occur after that in spite of what we heard earlier tonight.

I think what we have is a very positive solution. Canadians will be doing to a large extent the training and development that is needed to succeed in an overall balanced effort that I think we are all in support of.

When President Kennedy set a goal of having a person on the moon by the end of the decade, I think that is what led to the American success, having an actual end date and a specific time. People did a lot more work because they had that objective.

It will inspire our NATO allies to come up with a plan so that the innocent are not left unprotected in their time of need, when they are on the cusp of taking care of themselves. In that way I think the objective that we all want, which is a free, autonomous, self-protecting and self-nurturing democracy for the people of Afghanistan, will be available to all of us.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, I found myself agreeing with much of what my colleague had to say.

He referenced the previous speaker and the fact that he felt that it was very much in Canada's strategic interest to be there. He went on to discuss some of the very real contributions that are being made, not the least of which is in keeping with the values and principles Canada is projecting in Afghanistan.

The previous speaker, of course, spoke of pathetic. What is pathetic are some of these pedantic, professorial, preaching or pseudo-intellectual remarks and then slinking out of the chamber, but I digress.

I want to come back to the hon. member's questions that he posed to the government, questions that we have heard and I believe we have answered throughout this debate and at various times in the chamber in question period.

With respect to public notification, NATO follows very closely the goings on in all NATO member countries. I have had numerous occasions to speak to Secretary General “Jaap” De Hoop Scheffer about the debate that has transpired here. Clearly, we want to wait until this motion has been dealt with by way of a vote. At that time Canada's intentions will be very public.

With respect to the end date of December 2011 versus July 2011, this is also in keeping with the issue of notification and allowing for the troop replacement that might be necessary in such an instance. That is the difference of the six months in the July versus December determination.

With respect to the 1,000 troops, that number was arrived at in keeping with the recommendations of the Manley report. The Manley panel consultations involved speaking with military and civilian experts to determine that in Kandahar province the equivalent of a manoeuvre battalion or battle group, which is roughly 700 to 1,000 troops, would be required to stabilize the military effort. In this instance we are seeing an additional 2,000 American marines coming to Kandahar province beginning this month.

Looking at the issues of equipment and troop contributions as to when that will take affect, the original commitment and the wording in the motion references February 2009. That would be the time in which we would have to achieve those levels of additional support in both equipment and troops.

Finally, with respect to compliance, we are talking about meeting these elements to achieve what we feel will be further security around this mission to provide for greater humanitarian aid work, greater reconstruction on the ground, and greater development. All of this being the total government approach that is being taken with respect to Afghanistan.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answers. We are in an environment in the House where we often do not get answers to questions. The minister answered directly and I am very positive about what he said.

I just want to confirm some of his answers to my questions because they were the most important part of my speech and I think the only major stumbling block left.

I asked the minister when the government was going to notify NATO? The minister said it will be public knowledge when we have the vote. I assume the government, for official purposes, would then transfer that public knowledge to NATO in an official format right after the decision.

I asked the minister why we changed the end date from February 2011 to July 2011. The minister gave a very rational answer about the need for replacement troops and the timetable of troop movement, which he would know better than I.

I asked why 1,000 troops were chosen. Once again the minister gave a very positive and reflective answer. The number came from the Manley report, and I hope an analysis was done.

My fourth question dealt with the timeframe for meeting conditions. If NATO had not come up with the troops or the equipment, when would we say that conditions were not met? The minister answered directly by saying February 2009.

I did not catch the total answer to the very last question. What is Canada doing to ensure we are in compliance with our international obligations? The minister might have answered it, but I just did not hear it. If he could repeat it, it would be wonderful.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I will allow the hon. Minister of National Defence a short reply.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, complying with international obligations is of course always a focal point of a mission such as this.

When it comes to the issue of detainees, Taliban prisoners, we have actually increased our visits. We have ensured that in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the enhanced agreement that was signed between Canada and the government of Afghanistan, we communicate as clearly and as often as necessary, and as is humanly possible, to the Afghans their obligations under that arrangement.

These increased visits include such things as embarking upon more intense training around interrogation methods. These efforts are being made within the penal system to raise their capacity and this is happening at a much more rigorous pace.

Just like all of the other levels within the mission, we are putting a great deal of emphasis on seeing that both Afghanistan, and of course Canada, are meeting those international obligations.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member for Yukon and his support for the motion in front of us. I would like him to comment on the position of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party. Sometimes it is useful to look at the opposite position, to try to substantiate and support our own position on this motion.

The NDP and the Bloc are both calling for the immediate and unilateral withdrawal of all of our military from Afghanistan. It follows from that position that one of two things will happen.

We either withdraw all of our military from Afghanistan immediately, along with all of our diplomats and our development aid workers, and return to this policy of isolationism that many nation states in the 19th century held, which I posit is a false security and a false sense of security, or the NDP and the Bloc are calling for the unilateral and immediate withdrawal of all of our military from Afghanistan, but would allow our diplomats and our development aid workers to remain in Afghanistan.

In my view, that would naively lead to the complete slaughter of many innocent people, both Afghan and Canadian, in that theatre.

Could the member for Yukon comment on the position that some of the parties have in this House with respect to this motion, namely the position that we should unilaterally and immediately withdraw all of our military from the Afghanistan theatre?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am only going to comment on moving toward a positive solution. I would say, however, that there are a number of countries where Canada is involved that are very dangerous, where we do have aid people and diplomats, so it is not impossible to have people working in aid and to have diplomats, especially if there is other protection for them.

However, what I have not had a chance to say in either of my speeches is that I do have a number of constituents who are questioning Canada's role in Afghanistan. They are questioning why we are there. They are questioning what type of results we are getting, and they are questioning whether we could be more successful doing other activities.

Hopefully this speech and the examples that members are giving as to what is being accomplished, along with the outline I have given of the Liberal position, which I know some people who have written to me did not fully understand, will make it clearer that this is a positive solution.

Let us try to leave it at that because I think all parties in the House have to come together, behind our troops, and have a positive position. It will help the people of Afghanistan. We will not leave our Canadian Forces there for an unlimited time. Canadians do not feel that being in Afghanistan forever is the best use of our resources.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

I will begin my remarks by commending the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and his parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his parliamentary secretary, as well as the House for the tremendous progress that has been made by our government since it established the independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan.

The independent pane, in its report of January 22, outlined the need for Canada to continue with its responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009 with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan national security forces. Since these recommendations were made, our government has achieved a bipartisan consensus and has taken action to secure to the 1,000 additional troops required. I expect Canada will argue its case strongly before the upcoming NATO conference.

I am proud to stand before the House tonight to speak in support of a motion that responds directly to the recommendations outlined by the Manley panel and that will ensure the future success of Canada's mission to Afghanistan.

I am proud that the House recognizes that we must fulfill our obligations, our international obligations, yes, but also our obligations toward the Afghan people and toward our men and women in uniform.

Our government realizes the importance of the Afghan mission in terms of Canada's international reputation and obligations. The mission has put Canada at the forefront of international diplomacy and capacity building like no mission in recent memory, and it has done so in a truly international context.

Canada is in Afghanistan as part of the United Nations mandated and NATO led International Security Assistance Force, a force of some 43,250 troops from 38 countries, countries like Jordan, Switzerland, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and Romania. While we are ready to fulfill our international obligations, we recognize the necessity to share the burden with our allies.

The Manley report noted that our commitment to stay past 2009 should be contingent on the assignment of an additional battle group of about 1,000 soldiers to Kandahar by our allies. We fully endorse this recommendation and believe this increase is necessary if we want to improve effectiveness on the ground.

The Prime Minister and other key members of the government have been actively working on securing additional troops as reinforcements in Kandahar. I believe that our allies understand that for NATO to be successful, some of our partners will need to make those additional commitments in Kandahar and elsewhere.

The foreign ministers meeting in Brussels last week was a crucial stage toward a partnership in Kandahar and we are looking forward to next month's Bucharest summit where further advances will be consolidated.

Our commitment to the international community is central but it is more than a commitment toward our allies. We must not forget why we are in Afghanistan in the first place. Afghanistan has suffered decades of conflict, destruction and poverty. The international alliance is establishing the conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy self-sustaining peace and security.

Last week we had the honour of hosting six Afghan women parliamentarians on an official visit to Canada. The House receives many distinguished visitors but what set last week's dignitaries apart is that their visit would not have been possible only a few years ago. Now Afghan women are part of representative, democratic government. They have access to health care and education in numbers never seen before.

The International Security Assistance Force is helping establish a safer and more stable environment that is allowing roads, hospitals and schools to be built and other development work to take place. These gains are encouraging but Afghan people must receive the additional support needed to consolidate these advances and bring them to an even greater portion of the population.

Canada plays no small role in these advances and in this consolidation. Our troops are in a region where much progress has been made but where more needs to be done to bring security, stability and better livelihoods. To pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan in 2009, or worse, as early as right now as members opposite have suggested, would be an easy way out in the face of adversity. That is not the Canadian way. Imagine if we had pulled out in World War I or World War II or if we threw up our arms at Juno Beach or the Battle Britain or on Vimy Ridge.

Our government believes that we cannot let the Afghan people down and we will not let them down.

Our third fundamental obligation is to our men and women in uniform who believe in their mission. They were asked by politicians of both parties in 2001 to take part in this difficult but extremely important mission.

Since the first major Canadian deployment in early 2002, more than 15,000 Canadian troops have been stationed and rotated through Afghanistan. Every day Canadian men and women are putting their lives on the line for all of us. They believe in the mission and in what they are doing for the Afghan people, and so does this government. This is why we have taken concrete measures to support our troops.

The Prime Minister announced last month that the government has decided to set aside stable and predictable funding for our Canadian forces by increasing the automatic annual increase in defence spending from 1.5% to 2%. This funding, together with new and upgraded equipment, will improve the general effectiveness and safety of our troops.

Support for our troops goes well beyond funding and equipment. It requires that we give our troops the opportunity to continue the important work they have been doing and to continue this work without interference from third parties.

I commend the Liberal Party for respecting the operational decisions of our military leadership in Afghanistan who are best placed to understand the needs and tactics to succeed. Our government has always been a strong advocate of this kind of independence and we believe that operational decisions should be left to Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan.

The military mission is, of course, only one component of the 3D strategy. Our diplomatic and development gains also have been numerous. For example, Canadian assistance has supported skills development in the Supreme Court, the Attorney General's office, the Minister of Justice, including training for judges, prosecutors, public defenders and court administrators, as well as setting up legal aid programming.

Canada is working to strengthen the Afghan national police and improve the prison system so that the new Afghanistan can effectively police its own population and bring law and order back to the country and people can feel safe in their communities. This also includes a recent $1 million investment to upgrade prison facilities.

In early 2007, Canada announced a $20 million contribution to the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan which helps pay Afghan national police salaries. Canada's total contribution to the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan is nearly $30 million and has paid the salaries of nearly 65,000 Afghan national police members and their staff. Canada has contributed over $50 million to the national solidarity program, nearly 20,000 community development councils have been elected nationwide and over 30,000 projects have been approved by these councils to date.

Those are just some of the gains made in the last six years. I am sure with more effort and with the passing of this motion, Afghanistan will see many more.

We cannot forget the many gains made for women. Women now have health care, education, they can vote and, as we saw last week, they are sitting in parliament. This is a gain we are staying for and a gain worth fighting for.

As a father of three daughters, I want to see women around the world, especially in Afghanistan, have the same opportunities, rights and privileges that my daughters have.

I would like to congratulate this House once again for achieving a bipartisan consensus on the future of this mission. We have recognized that we cannot and will not abandon our obligations. The Afghanistan mission is important enough in terms of Canada's international reputation and obligations and in terms of the obligations we have taken toward the Afghan people and, of course, to our men and women in uniform.

I urge all members to vote in favour of this motion that will bring greater coherence and effectiveness to Canada's efforts.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments were right on the mark. I wonder if he would expand a little bit on Canada's place in the world. What we are doing in Afghanistan is obviously very important and it is setting an example for other nations to follow.

Would the member care to comment on the leadership that this Prime Minister and this government are showing to the world, how that might benefit Canada's standing in the world overall and how it might benefit the world in giving the world more of Canada?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Canada's reputation abroad has expanded dramatically over the last number of years since we joined the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. People now take us seriously when we talk about matters that are important to them.

I look at what happened in Lebanon and how our Minister of Foreign Affairs was invited to be part of the peace process to talk about how to bring about some resolution there. I think 10 years ago that would not have happened but people now see us as being a leader on international affairs.

Our Prime Minister moved very quickly in the condemnation of the different terrorist groups that are out there, like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Countries are serious about downplaying and getting rid of all this terrorist activism around the world and bringing about real peace and security. They are turning to Canada for our ideas and for what we can do to not only bring aid and development to those countries, but to help them with the peace resolution process.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the parliamentary secretary's reference to Canada's leadership role and the heavy lifting, so to speak, that we have done, not only in Afghanistan but in other parts of the world, and his reference to our recent efforts to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon during a very volatile period of time, it does demonstrate that in the last two years we have seen a reinvigorated Canada.

We have seen the Canadian military, in particular, given not only the necessary equipment and financial resources and support, but the respect that is certainly afforded our men and women in uniform and a degree of gratitude and outward expressions of appreciation that we have not seen, certainly I have not seen in my lifetime nor, I suspect, have you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague from Edmonton, who spent a good part of his life representing the Canadian Forces, being a person of considerable ability, intelligence and intellect going into the Canadian Forces and dedicating his life to that cause, speaks from a very unique vantage point when he talks about the transformation that has occurred in the last few years in particular. This is something that showers those men and women with the glory and with the necessary outward expressions of appreciation and affection that is due to their effort, particularly given the enormity of the role they are playing in Afghanistan today.

I wonder if my colleague would note the same thing in his community, with red rallies, with sporting events and just people on the street passing soldiers and airmen and airwomen in the airports, when they see them in uniform, when they see an opportunity to express their thanks, that appears to be happening in abundance. It is long overdue and is something that our country can be proud of. We are seeing people every day in small towns and big cities embracing that important role played by Canadian men and women in uniform.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:35 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of National Defence and our Prime Minister for letting the world know that Canada is back. We are back in a major way on the foreign stage and people appreciate that we bring our own special ability to the negotiating table when these major discussions are taking place, whether it is at NATO, at the UN or at special conferences on the future of Middle East peace.

My riding borders a military base in Winnipeg and many soldiers and airmen and airwomen live in my riding. Every time I see them they always want to stop and say “thank you for respecting us, thank you for giving us the equipment to do our jobs and thank you for taking our training very seriously”.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:35 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

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.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments very much. He mentioned the disproportionate number of Atlantic Canadians who are part of the Canadian Forces, and they should be very proud of that.

I would like to take a moment to mention Trooper Michael Hayakaze, who was the Canadian brought home last week to the loving arms of his family and the arms of a grateful nation. Trooper Hayakaze was from the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) from Edmonton, a unit with which I am forming a special bond. That unit's motto is “Perseverance”. I suggest that perseverance is what Canadians and Canada need to show in the mission in Afghanistan to get the job done and get it done right.

I would like to ask my colleague for his comments on not just the Atlantic Canadians but some of the Canadians of other origins. Trooper Hayakaze is a Japanese Canadian. I would like my colleague's comments on the contribution that Canadians of all ethnic origins are making in this current conflict and in the Canadian Forces and Canada in general.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do recognize the contribution and the supreme sacrifice that Trooper Hayakaze made on behalf of the Canadian people and for the people of Afghanistan. We should not allow that sacrifice to be wasted, quite frankly. We have an obligation to stay the course for the long term, not for the short term, and to make sure that Afghanistan returns to a peaceful, democratic and truly open country that it is very capable of being.

In respect to the 80 men and women, Canadian soldiers and diplomats, who have died in Afghanistan, there was no vote that I have ever taken in this House that was more difficult than the first vote on the mission in Afghanistan. There was no question in my mind how I would vote. I knew how I would vote at home. I knew that when my grandfather served in World War I and when my father served in World War II there was a reason for that and I knew the vote I would take. I do not think any man or woman in this place stood and voted for the mission in Afghanistan without knowing the very real, very urgent danger that we put our men and women in uniform in. For that I have nothing but respect for those soldiers, sailors and airmen.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for his support of this motion.

It is important to remind Canadians why we are in Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan to ensure that a government friendly to organizations like al-Qaeda does not re-establish itself and provide a safe haven to allow those organizations to train, to plan their attacks, to threaten our interests here in Canada. That is the reason we are engaged in Afghanistan.

It is also equally important to remind Canadians that the very province in which we are presently engaged, Kandahar province, is the province from which the Taliban rose in the early 1990s, after the Soviets had left, to take over the government of Afghanistan and establish their own very brutal and totalitarian form of government. We are not only in Afghanistan to protect our interests, we are in fact in that region in Afghanistan from which our interests had been so seriously challenged during the events of 2001. That is the reason we are there, and I think everything else, frankly, is secondary. That is why it is important that Canada stay the course.

As I mentioned before, any other party who suggests that we can unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, unilaterally withdraw our military from Afghanistan and be consistent with Canada's engagement multilaterally and otherwise in the world, and be consistent with Canada's commitment to development and diplomacy, I think, is completely naive.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Speaker, I think a unilateral withdrawal would be a travesty of the worst proportions. We would leave the Afghans wide open. If Canada withdrew and other nations withdrew, we would leave them wide open to external forces. It would be an absolute bloodbath.

Let me take the last 15 seconds to look at why we are there. When I listen to the Bloc or the NDP speak about this, they would have us think that no Canadian citizens died in the twin towers. In reality, Canadians did die. That was not just an attack against the United States. It was an attack against many countries of the world. It was an attack against democracy and everything that Canada stands for and has stood for since 1867.

Surely, if we are going to stand for anything, if we are going to fight for anything, then we are going to fight for freedom and democracy on this planet.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:50 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

11:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Unfortunately, because of an order due earlier we cannot seek a request for unanimous consent, but if there are no further members rising, we can accomplish the same goal.

Resuming debate. There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made Thursday, March 6, 2008, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:53 p.m.)