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.