Debates of March 10th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Afghanistan

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Papineau.

Given that we have spent $4.7 billion on the war over two years, could we not also spend $4.7 billion on reconstruction and be just as popular, rather than shooting Afghans as we are now doing?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Papineau for a brief answer.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a matter of balance. If all the money is used for the military mission because we tell ourselves that there has to be security and we do nothing else, the same people we are supposed to be helping, and who are also being killed—we should not forget that—will turn against us and tell us to go home. Therefore, we must rebalance the mission so that we invest at least 0.7% of our GDP—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlottetown. He always has good points to make and I appreciate him as a colleague in Parliament.

First of all, I want to thank all the parties for the fine balance they have struck in this debate. All members of Parliament strongly support our troops and the work they do, but also the importance of having a public debate without giving our enemies an advantage or disadvantaging our allies. It is the public's right to know, the public's right to see a debate of ideas on something that is very important to them. I congratulate all the parties for dealing with a very difficult debate in a very sensitive manner.

I visited our troops in Afghanistan to make sure they had everything they need. I am very supportive of the excellent work they are doing. Having been there, I can attest to the great support and appreciation that the Afghan people I met have for us and for our efforts there.

In my riding a couple of Yukoners left for Afghanistan recently. I visited their families or wrote to them. They are very proud of their sons, as they should be, although they are worried about their sons being in harm's way. They feel it is something of value to help people, and they are very proud of that.

Having being over there, I am very proud of the aid the allies are providing, schools and other type of aid to very poor people. Canada is offering an instrumental service there and around the world. Canada is well known for doing very important work for people who have less than we have.

Let us imagine for a minute that a family is on a hike on a Sunday in November. It is getting dark. It is cold and some snow flurries start to fall. The family is lost. They find a rundown wood shack with nothing in it, except for a bag of rice or dried beans and not much else. Darkness falls and the family has to spend the night in the shack. They did not tell people when they would be back so no one will be looking for them for quite some time. Think of the awful prospects of that family, the young children and the wife and husband with no heat, no matches and no sustenance. What an awful situation.

Many people in Afghanistan face that type of life, not just for two days, but for their entire lives. It is one of the poorest countries in the world. When it gets cold and it snows, people are scrounging around for some type of heat, a wood fire on the dirt floor, but outside there is no wood. It is either desert or above the treeline. People have to scrounge for the very little fuel there is. Compared to what we have, as we could see when we were there, it really is a horrible life. Many people there are thinking more about survival than about politics.

So, for that family that is lost on their hike, imagine if a couple of men with guns burst open the door of the shack. The kids, the wife and the husband are there and the men threaten them, telling them that the wife cannot leave the shack alone and the kids cannot go to school. Would the family agree? I think they would pretty well promise anything in a situation like that because it is not their biggest concern.

These poor people were overrun by Taliban with submachine guns and other weapons telling them what to do and they were not going to get that politically involved. How could they have any say at all or control? They were subjected to a totalitarian, religious, ideological government dictating over people's rights and freedoms.

That could have gone on for a long time, but the Taliban made a mistake. They attacked the United States, North America and many people in the western world. When they attacked the World Trade Center, it was not simply a United States building. Canadians and representatives from countries around the world died. No one wants to be attacked, so the people of the free world fought back. Perhaps we in the western world should be ashamed that we did not lobby against that regime harder and earlier.

The former bureau chief in Kabul, a journalist and the wife of the Afghan Ambassador to Canada explained that under the Taliban, women were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to attend school or pursue an education. They were not allowed to receive medical care from a male doctor. They basically were non-citizens without rights or representation, which is totally foreign to Canadian values. No wonder NATO and the UN were supportive of this mission.

As many members have said, a lot of things have to come into play to solve the problem. It is not just arms. We have to provide a living for these people and it costs a lot of money. I will get into that later.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi said that the solution is not violence or war. Competing interests will assume that the side with the most arms is the one that will solve the problem. That is not the permanent solution we are looking for.

I have a lot more to say, but I will save it for the next time I speak to the issue.

Regarding rotation, when Canadian geese fly north, the lead position of the flight in the V is very strenuous and taxing, so the members of the flock take turns in the position up front for the common good. They take a battering up front. Canada has taken that position long enough. It is our turn to move back in the flock to recover. That is the theory and the philosophy of NATO, which of course we support. Many members of the House have spoken in favour of that rotation.

Finally, I want to put on the record the questions that we have asked of the government and we are still waiting for answers to finalize the details of what we are looking for.

When exactly will the government notify NATO of the end date in 2011? Why did it change that date from February to July 2011? Why has it chosen 1,000 as the exact number of additional troops? Could we have the analysis behind that? What is the timeframe for meeting the conditions with respect to new troops and equipment? When will we be able to say that the conditions have not been met? On the detainees, what is Canada doing to ensure that we are in compliance with our international obligations?

I hope that with everyone working in cooperation to find a solution that we can finalize the details of the solution for the people of Afghanistan. Teachers who tried to teach girls were murdered. People had no vote and no personal freedoms because they had to follow a religious ideology with which they may not have agreed. People are very poor but they have a marvellous nation and could be free and move forward like other people in the world who have much better lives.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, as I have done with every debate we have had thus far on this important subject. It is my belief that this is probably the most important subject that we can debate in our nation's Parliament at this particular time in our history. It is the debate that will ultimately decide whether we continue to have our young people in uniform in harm's way.

I listened with some great interest to my colleague from Yukon and his suggestion that we try to imagine the lifestyle of the average Afghani. I speak probably for everyone in this chamber and for all Canadians when I say that our hearts go out to these people. We know how poor they are. We know the trials and tribulations they face on a daily basis just to have some food, some heat, as my colleague was suggesting, in their homes, if they are fortunate enough to have a home of any type at all.

I would ask the member to imagine one situation that I was just made aware of. Six Afghan female members of parliament visited our country just last week. The Speaker of our august chamber had the opportunity to introduce them to the House and, through the television cameras, to our nation.

One of these individuals told me that she had not always been a member of parliament. As the member said, in the past under the Taliban regime women were not allowed to work at all, let alone to aspire to and ultimately become an elected member of parliament. Yet that is the role she has now. She told me that unfortunately her husband had been arrested by the Taliban, had been tortured, and had been murdered by that regime. I would ask my colleague to imagine that.

Imagine what it must be like for that individual to come to a nation like Canada to express her appreciation for everything that Canada has done, for the sacrifices that so many of our young Canadians have made, and then hear the leader of an opposition party suggest that we negotiate with these people, the people who took her husband, the people who left her a widow. She is the mother of two young girls. I would ask my colleague to imagine that.

I wonder if my colleague could suggest to me how it could be possible to negotiate power sharing, which the New Democratic Party believes is somehow possible, with the Taliban when, as he pointed out, ideologically they are so different in so many ways from the duly elected Afghan government that is in power today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his thoughtful remarks. The awful conditions over there and the total lack of democracy are exactly why we need a solution. We need to start working toward that solution.

The Canadian people appreciate that we have set a deadline for the rotation so that other countries can play a role over there. We could then provide the necessary aid as well as other things to convince the Afghan people to come onside and permanently support that democracy when the troops are not there.

I am sure all members of Parliament know that the hearts of the people have to be on our side. They have to be convinced that what we are doing is in their best interests. They have to be convinced that what we are doing will give them better lives. We cannot subjugate them totally by military force.

That is why we want to move on and put some major investments into the country. We have made good investments so far, but we need to put some major investments into building people's lives, into helping protect those who are building people's lives, and into training the Afghan military and police so Afghans can be in charge of their own lives. When people have control over their own lives in a free environment is when democracy works.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this very important issue. When I look at the documents that support this motion and some of the debates that we have heard today, what I think the Canadian public looks for is clarity. Not only the Canadian public are looking for clarity on Afghanistan, but also our troops in Afghanistan and our international allies are looking for it as well.

Sometimes this is boiled down into simplistic statements, which I do not think are that constructive. We are now in Kandahar province in a very specific role. It will change somewhat in 2009, and end totally in 2011. I hope Canada's role in Afghanistan will not end in 2011. In the whole area of diplomacy, development and foreign aid, et cetera, there will be an ongoing role for Canada.

The issue we are dealing with will not end in 2011, 2013, 2015 or 2017. It will go on. We are dealing with a failed country. It did not fail last year or the year before. It failed generations ago. I think our country and perhaps more important our allies deserve some of the fault. Afghanistan was of interest to our allies when the Russians were there during the Cold War. That interest disappeared from the radar screen after the Russians withdrew their troops, I believe in 1989.

Between 1989 and 2001, very little effort was put into Afghanistan. We have seen what happened. The terrible conditions that existed there were well debated and well expressed in the House before Canada entered.

I want to make the important point that as far as I am concerned this will be a litmus test as to the future of the NATO organization. This is not a Canadian mission. This is not a United States mission. This is not a Great Britain mission. It is a NATO mission. There are 37 countries in NATO. Right now 2,500 Canadian troops and approximately between 37,000 and 40,000 troops are in Afghanistan.

We were a party to the Afghanistan compact, signed I believe in January 2006, which had benchmarks and time lines. Again, if we read the Manley report, one of the glaring statements in that report is the lack of leadership from NATO in this initiative.

Responsibility shared is responsibility shirked. That has to be a very important component of this debate and of debate in the NATO meetings coming up as to the role of NATO in Afghanistan. Also, Canadians want to know what are the time lines, the benchmarks and the game plan.

Again, the motion calls for a continuation after 2009 to 2011. It would refocus on training the Afghan National Security Forces for reconstruction and development and the continuing Canadian responsibility for the Kandahar provincial reconstruction initiative.

It has been said by many speakers before me that in the long run there is no military solution to Afghanistan. The solution has to come from the Afghan people, but it is the developed world that has to provide the assistance to provide the basics such as the infrastructure, the government and the economy for the country to develop as it should develop.

We have heard about the economy of Afghanistan. I understand from everything I have read that Afghanistan provides 90% of the world's heroin and that crop increased 34% last year, which in and of itself is very disturbing.

I fully support the notion that our engagement in the Kandahar end in 2011 to allow for a natural rotation of another country, not more Canadian troops. Again, that comes back to NATO. If NATO thinks we will be there forever, there will be absolutely nothing done. There will be no leadership shown by that organization.

Another issue that was raised strikingly in the Manley report was the whole issue of communications on this initiative or the lack thereof to the Canadian people. I hope, going forward, that some of the recommendations in the motion, which are supported by the Manley report, are adopted. I would like to see a parliamentary committee. I would like to see a lot more leadership conveyed to the Canadian people with clarity as to exactly what goes on in that country, what the benchmarks are and how we plan to accomplish what we set out to accomplish.

I hope the debate will lead to a lot more clarity on our role in Afghanistan. More important, and I know I am repetitive, the international debate vis-à-vis the role of NATO, the future of NATO and the leadership of NATO on this issue, has to be very distinctly set out, not only to Canadians but to all members of NATO.

As one of the previous speakers pointed out, there have been some other political developments going on in Pakistan that may assist in this whole initiative. However, a new coalition government was announced over the weekend. We do not know yet, and this is speculation on my part and anyone else's part, but that may assist in the resolution of this issue in the long run. Again, it is too early to tell.

The other issue is the outcome of the United States election, which may have a profound effect on the United States engagement in Afghanistan, depending on who wins the election. As the House knows, again, this is speculation at this point in time.

I hope we end this debate with our role being clarified, the language of our engagement being clarified and that the language being concise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest. No one has ever said that a military only solution is possible in Afghanistan. Will my colleague agree with me that the military is a critical component of a solution when we deal with a murderous regime like the Taliban?

He made a comment wherein he said that responsibility shared was responsibility shirked. I would think that responsibility should be shared by Canada and other NATO allies. Therefore, I am unsure what he meant by that. Could he clarify that?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I do not necessarily call it a military solution, but there has to be security and that is provided by the military. There has to be security while NATO continues to develop in Afghanistan. That is obvious from what is going on.

On the NATO issue, from everything I have read on this issue and everything I have heard in the House and in other fora, there has to be leadership in that organization. That leadership cannot come from 37 different countries. I do not see it right now. John Manley and the other distinguished people on his panel did not see it either. They were quite critical of the leadership coming from that organization.

This is a NATO initiative. If we do not have leadership coming from that organization with respect to this initiative, the initiative is going to fail.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I know time is very short, so I will keep this short. I posed a question for his colleague, the member for Yukon, and I had hoped to get a response.

There are some in this place and outside of this place who suggest negotiations should be undertaken with the Taliban to eventually lead to power sharing in Afghanistan, recognizing what I would think are irreconcilable differences between the way in which the Taliban regime operated when it was in power and where presumably it would operate again.

I think about the views of the Taliban on the separation of mosque and state and on the lack of rights of women as two primary areas that dramatically differentiate them from the free and democratic government currently in place in Afghanistan. How would it be possible to share power with an organization, a political party, a regime that adheres to those types of ideological extremism? Does my colleague support the idea of negotiating power sharing with a regime like that?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer with my impressions only.

Again, this is a very complex issue. Sometimes the difficulty is when we try to boil it down into very simplistic statements. Right now I would agree with the member that I would not want to see negotiations take place with the Taliban. Perhaps in five or ten years time it might not be ruled out.

However, I would ask the House to look at what happened in northern Ireland. That went on for generations and generations, killing after killing. Both sides were very set in their opinions. There was not a military or a violent solution to the problems in northern Ireland. The solution came when the parties got together and there was a negotiation between people. The thought of those two people speaking to each other, being in the same room, or even being in the same city was unheard of twenty years ago.

Right now, with the actions of the Taliban, I agree with the member's premise. However, in eight years or ten years, or in two year or five years, I do not know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in this important debate on Canada's future role in Afghanistan.

I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

Members of the House have now had several weeks to carefully consider the government's revised motion on the extension of our military mission in Kandahar. It is important for us to ponder this matter with the utmost consideration.

As parliamentarians, we have a tremendous responsibility. The decision we collectively make will have a profound impact on the millions of Afghans who are looking to us and our international partners for assistance. It will also have a profound impact on the cohesion of the NATO alliance, on global and regional security, and on the brave Canadian men and women, civilian and military, who are helping Afghans rebuild their country after decades of conflict.

Our government fully understands what is at stake. We have been proud and consistent supporters of the Afghanistan mission since 2001. We believe that NATO's International Security Assistance Force mission, of which Canada is a part alongside 39 other nations, is not only fully justified but also firmly rooted in the traditions of Canadian foreign policy.

Because this is such a critical issue not only for Canadians but for Afghans and for our international partners as well, it is not only understandable but also desirable that we as parliamentarians carefully examine every option that is before us. It is our duty as elected officials.

Like all members present, I take this responsibility very seriously, but it is a burden that we carry with pride and resolve. Parliamentarians demonstrated that resolve in 2006 when the House of Commons voted for a two year extension of the mission.

As the end of that mandate approaches, there obviously has been a vigorous debate over what happens next. Our government welcomes this debate, but given what is at stake both for our troops and the Afghan people, we also want the debate to be as non-partisan as possible.

That is why last October the Prime Minister appointed a group of eminent Canadians to examine options for the mission past February 2009. As we all know, the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan presented the government with its findings and recommendations in late January. To its enormous credit, it delivered a clear, fair and balanced assessment of the situation.

Through their work, Mr. Manley and his colleagues affirmed the strong belief that Canada's commitment in Afghanistan matters. Mr. Manley will be appearing tomorrow in front of the foreign affairs committee, which will be televised, and we are looking forward to his testimony.

We should all be grateful for the important work of the Manley panel. Its thoughtful analysis and recommendations have laid the foundations for a broad consensus on the future of this mission.

Our government subsequently tabled a motion reflecting the panel's recommendations, including its direction that we engage our NATO partners to secure future troop commitments in southern Afghanistan and specifically a battle group of approximately 1,000 soldiers in Kandahar. We have since revised this motion to reflect amendments proposed by our colleagues in the official opposition. The revised government motion was introduced on February 21.

By now, I am sure, everyone is familiar with the content of this motion. It acknowledges what is required for Canada's mission to succeed in Afghanistan. It reiterates our commitment to the UN mandate for Afghanistan, but reaffirms that our commitment is not open ended. It commits our government to notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, completing redeployment from the south by December of that year.

This motion shows that parliamentarians understand the importance of building consensus on this critical issue. Finally, it clearly indicates our determination to see our commitments through.

Our government has been taking vigorous steps to ensure that our troops have the support and equipment they need to successfully complete their mission. In recent weeks, the Prime Minister has contacted the leaders of major NATO countries and has advised them that Canada's continued role in the region is contingent on greater support from our allies.

This message was conveyed by our hon. colleague, the Minister of National Defence, when he attended the NATO defence ministers meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania in early February, and was reinforced again by our hon. colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels last week.

We feel it is important that our allies know where we stand and what is at stake. We are confident that our message has been heard loud and clear.

These diplomatic efforts are fully consistent with the purpose of the motion that is now before the House. It reinforces Canada's efforts toward training the Afghan national security forces so they can take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole.

Our troops must also provide security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar to build on the important work Canadians have accomplished in the past few years.

Canada understands that development and security go hand in hand. Without security, there can be no humanitarian aid, no reconstruction and no democratic development.

While serious challenges remain, our efforts are bearing fruit. They are bearing fruit because our ultimate aim is to empower the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security, governance and development efforts.

We know that the only real solution is to help Afghans to take ownership of their own government.

Afghans are proud people. They appreciate our help, but they are eager to take the reins of their own destiny. By supporting Afghan efforts to establish better governance and security across the country, we are helping Afghans build the foundation for a better future.

Allow me to cite one example of an important area where Canadians are making a difference in this regard: the police training.

Canada has adopted a comprehensive approach to Afghan police reform, which includes: supporting the ministry of interior reform; providing strategic policy advice; providing equipment and uniforms; building police infrastructure; contributing to the payment of police salaries; and, deploying Canadian civilian police to train and mentor the Afghan national police.

There are currently over 46 Canadian civilians and military police trainers deployed in Afghanistan. Thanks to their efforts, over 600 members of the Afghan national police have received training through the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team, or PRT.

These are some of the efforts we have deployed to help development and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

We know that this approach is essential to the success and sustainability of our efforts. That is why our government has committed an additional $100 million for Afghan reconstruction and development in budget 2008, bringing Canada's 2008-09 assistance envelope for Afghanistan to a projected $280 million.

These additional resources will help the Afghan people, including through the provision of more training to the Afghan national police and the Afghan national army to allow them to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and throughout the country.

These additional funds are above and beyond the commitment to double international assistance by 2010-11, which will increase Canada's total aid commitment to Afghanistan to $1.3 billion over 10 years.

Our government is taking the steps that are necessary for this mission to be successful. We are deploying sustained efforts to secure additional troops and further equipment capabilities from our NATO allies.

We know that Afghans are behind these goals. The international community is behind these goals. So are Canadians.

To us, the choice could not be clearer and the cause could not be more just. That is why I respectfully urge all members to support the motion that is currently before this House.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary, who touched on a few things in his statement.

Before I ask my question, I will note that as the parliamentary secretary opened his statement, to which I listened to very carefully, at one point he said “critical” but was just this short of saying “crooked”, because it is really one of the problems that we are facing there.

In order to deal with the problem, we have to deal with the reality of a crooked administration. I am referring not to President Karzai but to anything beneath that level. Does the member have any suggestions for how we could address the crookedness, if I may use that word again, that is going on in that country?

Second, he touched upon what is so vital and that is the training. He talked about 46 people. I do not know if he knows, but the information I got as the former chair of the committee is that we have only about seven or eight policemen who train, and the rest might be trainers for other services, which I believe are important. Could he confirm that? If so, does he think that seven or eight policemen are adequate to do the work that vitally needs to be done?

Last, does he feel that the additional 1,000 soldiers that we are hoping to get there over the next two years are going to be sufficient to do the work that needs to be done?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's questions. Talking about a crooked administration, his colleague who just spoke talked about a failed state. It was a failed state for years and years. It takes time to build an administration. It takes money and effort to build an administration. That is what the international community is doing.

I can assure members that over a period of time this international effort will help eliminate the corruption and everything he was talking about, and it will build Afghanistan's independent democratic institutions, which will serve that country well.

As for his other question in reference to the 46 personnel that I talked about, they are Canadian civilian and military police trainers. We have to understand that this is a comprehensive approach and it is best left to the people in the field, not the politicians in this room, to make the decisions. That is critically important. We just provide the general guidelines of what we need. It is the people on the ground who have the expertise and the knowledge to do the job effectively. Should those people ask for more officers, then Canada will look at it, but we will leave the running of it and the training to the people on the ground.

As for the reference to the 1,000 soldiers, Mr. Manley will be in front of the foreign affairs committee. My colleague can ask him the question as to why he asked for 1,000 people. However, again I will say that Mr. Manley must have heard it from the people on the ground, from our commanders, because at the end of the day it is our commanders out there who are at risk and who are commanding the forces. It is their responsibility to look after the well-being and interests of the soldiers out there and to provide the command. They are doing that. We should allow them to do their work effectively.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked three questions and really did not get an answer. I asked the parliamentary secretary, and I will ask again, if he feels that 46 people, of which 7 or 8 are police officers, are sufficient to do the training?

With respect to the 1,000, he talked about the Manley report and how the generals know, but here is what all the generals said, and I can name them, General Henault, General MacKenzie and General Manson. I am not saying this. The paper is saying it, if I may quote: “generals doubt 1,000 troops will turn the tide”.

Could the member please respond, if he can?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Of course the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, with all his experience in the House, knows not to use props.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has 23 seconds to respond.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I answered his question. He should listen very carefully to what I am saying. All I am saying is that for military officers, for the commanders, for everybody, it is they who are on the ground who will make the decision on what is best, what the objective is and how to achieve the objective that we have laid out there. The decision should be theirs, not ours.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to this debate.

In supporting this motion, we are fulfilling our commitment to the people of Afghanistan and the international community. We cannot walk away now. Our nation has a long and honourable tradition of contributing to international peace and security. It is a heritage that was born in the fields of Flanders, the hedgerows of northwest Europe and the hills of Korea, a heritage of Canadians serving for the greater good.

Canadians then and now take pride in the role their country plays on the world stage, and as Canadians we can take pride in our mission in Afghanistan.

Canadians have never shied away from their international responsibilities. During the first and second world wars, Canada responded to the call from its allies. Canadians fought and died to liberate others from tyranny and oppression. We have served in every region of the world on land, at sea and in the air.

From the ashes of the second world war, Canada helped found the United Nations. Our membership symbolized our commitment to international peace and security. This devotion was further demonstrated in the assistance we provided to establish the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That alliance was designed to protect the freedom of its peoples and defend the principles of democracy, freedom and international law.

We have continued to uphold those values for almost 60 years now.

In the farthest reaches of the world, Canadians have served in multilateral missions to ensure international peace and security. From the rugged slopes of Kashmir to the heat and humidity of Haiti and almost every imaginable place in between, we have never shied away from our commitments. We recognize that this has always been dangerous and difficult work.

In Korea, over 25,000 Canadians fought oppression. This United Nations mission demonstrated the effectiveness of multinational forces. In the Balkans, the Canadian Forces proved themselves in dangerous operations to help restore stability. In Cyprus, Canadians have served for over 50 years. Our efforts have been integral to maintaining a sometimes fragile peace.

In those and countless other cases, Canada's commitment to international peace and security has been shown over and over again. I would remind members of the House and Canadians that everything that every member of the Canadian Forces does every day is about peace, and we are seeing it today in Afghanistan.

The report by the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan was recently released for the benefit of all Canadians. In that report, Mr. Manley and his colleagues recommend a commitment that serves Canadian interests, gives expression to Canadian values, and corresponds to Canada’s capacity. These are valid goals, but goals that can only be reached if we have the courage to stay the course.

That is why I am calling on my colleagues, in this House, to join me in supporting this motion.

Our government does not believe that Canada should abandon the people of Afghanistan in 2009. As part of our international responsibilities, we have committed to helping the Afghan people. These are a people who have never enjoyed the privileges that most of us take for granted. They have a long and turbulent history. They have suffered through hostile occupations, civil war and oppression.

Afghans deserve better. They deserve a chance for peace. They deserve an opportunity to rebuild their lives. They deserve a voice in their own future. We must ensure that Afghans can guarantee their own security and we cannot walk away now.

Canada is helping Afghans rebuild their country as a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society. We are there at the request of the democratically elected government, as part of a NATO-led mission under a UN mandate.

Canada's efforts in Afghanistan are based on three pillars: security, development and governance. Our soldiers provide the necessary security to facilitate development. Without security, there cannot be humanitarian aid, there cannot be reconstruction and there cannot be democratic development.

Our troops are joined by police officers, diplomats and Canadian humanitarian workers, in the help they provide to Afghans in rebuilding their lives.

We are making a difference.

And we are not alone. We are joined by our allies and our partners in this effort. The United Nations, NATO and the international community share our vision for a better Afghanistan. They believe as we do, that Afghans deserve a hand up and a chance at a better life.

Our allies are helping Afghans shoulder the burden of reconstruction. We are joined by 39 other nations in contributing troops to improve Afghan security. In the south alone, we have benefited from close partnerships and cooperation from Great Britain, the United States, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, Romania and Estonia. Together with our allies and partners, we have almost 19,000 troops in the south of Afghanistan and others are joining us.

Recently, Poland pledged 400 more troops and 8 additional helicopters to our collective mission. We are in talks with our allies and partners to get more troops on the ground in Kandahar.

Across Afghanistan, a large and rugged country, the international community is pulling together to support the mission.

The Germans are working with the Swedes, Hungarians and Norwegians. The Italians are working with the Spaniards, Lithuanians and Turks. Afghan national security forces are taking the first courageous steps to provide for their own country's defence.

These nations and more are standing shoulder to shoulder to benefit Afghans and their country. This cooperation is a testament to what is possible with collective strength and collective resolve.

We owe it to ourselves and our allies to further this combined effort.

In supporting the Afghanistan Compact, Canada promised to finish the process undertaken in Afghanistan.

We are going to accelerate training of the Afghan police and army, continue to help rebuild crucial infrastructure and help implement the necessary conditions to allow Afghanistan to stand on its own.

So far, that has not been an easy task.

We have often encountered challenges in our international missions. We do ourselves a disservice if we imagine that our duty in places like Cambodia, East Timor or the Congo has ever been easy. Tragically, in many instances the price to Canada has been steep. The Books of Remembrance inside this edifice bear testimony to that fact.

Yet, we did not walk away. We maintained our efforts, even in the face of the greatest adversity. We must do the same in Afghanistan today and we cannot stop now. We will continue to play a role on the world stage and we will continue to believe in the shared values of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law. These are the same beliefs that led us to join the United Nations and NATO so many years ago.

Last week, as other members were, I was honoured to meet and spend time with six female members of parliament from Afghanistan. Their stories were inspirational. They left me feeling somewhat inadequate. One has a price on her head. One woman's husband was arrested, tortured and murdered by the Taliban. One has a double who stays at home to look after her family while she sneaks into parliament to do her job. All have the courage to try to make a difference in the future of their country. Our hardships certainly pale by comparison.

Their message to Canada was simple, “We have come so far, please, please don't desert us now”.

Our mission in Afghanistan continues a proud Canadian tradition of international engagement. Since Canada took its first steps on the world stage, we have played a valuable role in furthering international peace and security.

As a founding member of both the United Nations and NATO, we have worked with the international community to help ensure peace and stability. Canadians take pride in this history. In Afghanistan we continue our work with the United Nations and NATO but this work is not yet done. We owe it to Afghans, our allies and ourselves to support this motion to see this mission through.

I will finish with a quote from UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who said:

The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there.

I urge all members to support the motion. We cannot leave until the job is done.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very moved on some of the points that the parliamentary secretary made in terms of our military, in terms of past conflicts and so on.

I was quite pleased when he talked about our pride in our military. There is no question that every member in the House, and I am sure I speak for every Canadian, that our pride was, is and will continue to be there. He also touched upon some conflicts but the two conflicts that stood out were the Korean War and World War II.

I know the hon. member's previous career was in the military. I, too, come from a family whose ancestors served in those two conflicts, the Korean War and World War II. Could the member please take a moment to describe those two conflicts, describe how the world came together to address those conflicts and compare it to today's conflict?

When I have my opportunity later on to speak I will elaborate. However, it is incumbent upon us to bring forward what we are hearing on the street from our constituents. No one has ever said that we want to walk away from this.

I agree with the member that we have an obligation but could he take a moment to compare those two conflicts, the Korean War and World War II, with the current conflict and perhaps point out some of the differences?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague with whom I sit on the defence committee.

Korea and World War II were quite different conflicts from what is going on in Afghanistan. The similarity between all three is the fact that people were having their freedoms and their human rights taken away from them. Canada, along with allies from around the world, stepped in to end the tyranny of the Nazis in World War II. We stepped in to end the occupation of South Korea by the communist North Koreans. We are working together with 39 allies in Afghanistan to do the same thing.

Obviously the conflicts were and are all relatively different in size but the principle remains the same: it is to free people. It is people with the capacity and responsibility to stand up to tyranny and oppression to get together and to free a people who deserve to be free.

If we had not done what we did in World War II, who knows where we would be today. If we had not done what we did in Korea, South Korea would be a communist country instead of one of the most prosperous economies in the world.

There are similarities and differences between all three missions but it comes down to one simple thing: free people with the capacity to act and the national will to do the right thing in cooperation with like-minded allies who value freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Canada will always do that because it is the right thing to do.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the words of my colleague who speaks with some authority because he has been there a couple of times.

I have often thought what it would be like if we could take every Canadian over to Afghanistan, as I and many of my colleagues have been there, so they could actually see what is on the ground and see how much of a difference our young men and women are making every day in improving the lives of Afghans and protecting them from tyranny, oppression, torture and murder.

My colleague's comments about the six young, brave Afghan female MPs certainly struck a chord with me. I wonder if he has any other personal human stories that touch people so deeply to share, not only with members of Parliament in the House but, through the wonders of the television camera, with Canadians at large.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will focus on a couple of things.

I have spent a lot of time with our soldiers, sailors and airmen. I have spent a lot of time with our soldiers, particularly in the last couple of years, obviously because of Afghanistan, and I have talked to literally hundreds of them. I have shaken their hands as they have come back from their missions over there, have looked them in the eye and have thanked them. I have also talked to their families.

The soldiers get it. They understand why they are there because they see the differences they are making on the ground every day. Sometimes they are small differences but they are making a difference every day.

I have talked to families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and they get it. There is no question that they are grieving but they are very proud of what their sons and daughters did and they understand how important it was. They are solidly behind the mission.

Those are the kinds of people who I wish more Canadians could see. They are the most spectacular citizens that this country has and we would be lost without them. God bless every one of them.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. I will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough Centre with the proviso that this debate will collapse at 6:30 p.m.. The hon. member has a little over five minutes.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments within five minutes.

We debate this most important issue in order to deal with it. I had the opportunity some time ago to talk about the Afghan mission. I will begin today in the same fashion I did then. When we debate the mission, this theatre our men and women are engaged in today, we do it for their benefit and for the benefit of each and every Canadian.

It is not, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out earlier, a partisan issue. However, it is a partisan issue when it comes to Canada being taken for a fool. It is a partisan issue when Canadian lives are almost the only lives being put in danger. It is a partisan issue when Canadians are asked to do much more than the troops from those other 38 or 39 countries there. It is a partisan issue when NATO is not doing its share.

I said it before and I will say it again, NATO's credibility is on the line today. I have had the honour and the privilege of attending some of the NATO meetings. I have had the honour of chairing and now vice-chairing the defence committee.

I do not have a military background, but over the many years I have heard from all the experts and I use their input to speak somewhat intelligently, if I may, not like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence who proudly served in the military, and I compliment him.

He knows, as I do and all the members who sit on the committee, that there are very rare moments when we do clash. He will assure you, as I do, Mr. Speaker, that 90%, if not 99% of the time, we find ways to do what needs to be done, and that is to do the right thing.

There are two right things to do. First, is our international obligation, so that the proud tradition the hon. member spoke about is sustained and improved. Second, and just as important, is to do the right thing for the men and women whom we have asked to put their lives on the line every day while serving in Kandahar, or wherever else, as he mentioned earlier.

Do I have a beef with NATO? I hesitate to say I do, and I will give some examples. We met with the German defence committee. Every time we meet with our counterparts, whether it is at NATO conferences or not, we talk about those so-called caveats.

Earlier on I asked the parliamentary secretary to compare the two conflicts of the many that he mentioned: the Korean conflict and World War II. He said that all the Allies came together to take on the Axis forces and fight tyranny, so that today we can live in freedom. He was right.

What was the difference? When all those nations came together, they did not say that this nation will go there and that nation will go here. We went in there together. When we sent our men and women to fight in World War I and World War II, we did not have them pick their spots. They went in there full blast and did their duty.

That is why today the pride is so high and we fly our flag so proudly. That is why in Holland and all over Europe they talk about what Canadians did and their participation.

In order to deal with this problem, we have to face reality. I do not want to sound pessimistic, but I want to be realistic. The situation there is as such. Opium is extracted from the poppies that are grown there, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Why can the international community not come together and say, “That's where the cancer is. Let us address it”.

At the same time, I do agree with the comments that were made earlier to provide training for police and civil servants and build schools. That is what we do well. NATO today has to pull up its socks. I will be greatly disappointed, on behalf of my constituents and many Canadians I talk to, if we do not get the caveats lifted.

In closing, I do not like Canada being taken for a ride. That is exactly what is happening today. The French said they would send troops. Where are the French today? They are nowhere to be found. Where are all these other nations? Let us ask ourselves, where are they serving? Not too long ago, we had another Canadian soldier unfortunately pass away.

We have taken our hits. We are prepared to take our hits. We are asked to bring in equipment. At the same time, why can NATO not bring in the dollars and the equipment? We are providing the bodies.

But no, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about it costing us $1.8 billion over 10 years. The statistics that have come back from military people talk about over half a trillion dollars.

This is not what I am saying. I did not use a prop. I simply wanted to be accurate in my quotes. I quoted three distinguished and well-known generals. I will mention them again: Lewis MacKenzie, Paul Manson and Ray Henault. They all said that 1,000 troops will not do it. Why? It is because the Americans have confirmed this and said that we need over 400,000 troops.