Debates of March 10th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Afghanistan

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the public safety minister assert that the security situation is much improved.

It is, therefore, not totally surprising to me that he will not listen to the position, the views and the information that the New Democratic Party brings forward on this issue. What is surprising is that he rejects the very contrary view that has been expressed and documented by the World Food Programme, the International Red Cross, Oxfam International and the United Nations itself. Apparently, the minister is not prepared to listen to that evidence either.

I would like to ask him to comment, if I could, on the position expressed by the U.K. defence minister when he stated:

A peaceful, developed Helmand cannot be won by the sword, and the longer we try, the greater the tragedy.

The Belgium defence minister stated:

The situation is deteriorating,...and, over time, NATO forces risk appearing like an army of occupation.

The French defence minister stated:

One should not try to bury one's head in the sand:..the operation...is encountering real difficulties...the situation is not improving,

Could I ask the minister to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not presented a rosy picture of what is happening in Afghanistan. My remarks, if the member had been listening at all, would have suggested that this is a long process and not an easy one.

Just as I did not present a rosy one, I did not expect the member opposite, from her previous positions, to suggest that nothing good at all was going on in Afghanistan. I wish she had been present to hear the female members of parliament from Afghanistan who were here just last week thanking Canadians for their great contribution, in fact a contribution of the highest sacrifice in terms of Canadian lives at times, and talked about the progress there.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

As we discuss the future of Canada's military role in Afghanistan, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to add my thoughts and comments to this very important issue.

My constituents have provided me with a great deal of feedback and correspondence regarding Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan and, as the member of Parliament for Nipissing—Timiskaming, it is my duty to ensure that these voices are heard.

My constituents have made it explicitly clear that Canada's mission in Afghanistan must change and that the government must commit to a firm end date for this mission.

There is no question that the mission that the Canadian Forces are currently undertaking in Afghanistan is vitally important for the future of that country and the security of Canada. Nevertheless, sanctioning a never-ending combat role for our troops is simply unacceptable.

When the Prime Minister and his Conservative government first introduced their draft resolution a few weeks ago, it did not include many of the Manley panel's recommendations, such as improved diplomatic efforts, a better balance with respect to reconstruction and development efforts or the need for greater accountability by the government on the process of the mission.

The motion did not address important issues Liberals have been concerned about for over a year, such as the safe transfer of Afghan detainees, the cultivation of opium in Afghanistan or fixing the way the government manages the mission here in Ottawa.

However, the most significant problem with this motion is that it did not respect our position that the combat mission should end in February 2009.

When it became apparent that we could not count on the Prime Minister to show leadership on this issue, the Liberals put forward an amendment that incorporates the views expressed by thousands of Canadians coast to coast. The new motion adopts principles that the mission must change, that it must end and that it must go well beyond an exclusive military focus, principles that the Liberal Party has been calling for over the past year.

With this motion, the government is ensuring that the description of the mission after February 2009 will change in focus to a mission of training, security and reconstruction. Furthermore, this motion sets a firm end date to Canada's mission in Kandahar of July 2011.

Canadians from coast to coast agree that our presence in Afghanistan must be about more than military. They are looking to the government to ensure that the key commitments on development and diplomacy are included in the new motion.

The government must also recognize the need for greater transparency and accountability to Parliament. This includes important provisions with respect to the transfer of detainees.

While my Liberal colleagues and I remain hopeful that many of these concerns will be addressed in the new motion put forward by the Conservatives, what we are looking for now is a firm commitment from the Conservative government to support the following three conditions of the Liberal amendment: one, the Government of Canada must immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011 and, as of that date, the deployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible so that it will be completed by July 1, 2011; two, NATO must ensure troops to rotate into Kandahar to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training and reconstruction; and three, the government must secure medium helicopter lift and high performance, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Furthermore, in order to move forward and build a better future for the people of Afghanistan, my Liberal colleagues and I believe that after February 2009, Canada's mission in Afghanistan should consist of the following: training the Afghan national security forces; providing security for reconstruction and development projects in Kandahar; and the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team.

The Liberal amendment to the Afghanistan motion also calls for Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan to be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan; to focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of a sound judicial and correctional system and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan, and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic freshwater shortage in that country; to address the crippling issues of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and, to be held at a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan.

The Liberal amendment also calls for a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region, who could ensure greater coherence in Canada's diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination among the partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region.

On the issue of transparency, our amendment also calls for quarterly reports on the progress of the mission to be tabled in Parliament, and it calls on the ministers of foreign affairs, international cooperation, and national defence to take on monthly appearances before a parliamentary committee.

In short, the four issues that must be addressed are the following: First, we need to clarify our commitment. Second, we need to better integrate our military and aid efforts in Kandahar. Third, we need to focus on the very salient problem of the opium economy. Fourth, we must address the chronic shortage of fresh water.

As Canadians we must remain committed to the Afghan people in the reconstruction of their country and their society. It is with that goal in mind that my Liberal colleagues and I are committed to a principled and constructive way forward on Canada's Afghan mission.

Under the Conservative government the Afghan mission has changed in both structure and purpose. The Conservatives have focused almost exclusively on military aspects of the mission, abandoning diplomacy and development. The time has come to ensure that the three D approach, which is rooted in the three fundamental pillars of diplomacy, defence, and development, is re-established as the primary mission of Canada's troops in Afghanistan.

While I believe that most members of this House support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces wherever they are serving on behalf of Canada, the needless politicization of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan must end. Canadians are worried about our role in Afghanistan. The best way that we as parliamentarians can demonstrate our support for our brave men and women in uniform wherever they are serving on behalf of Canada is to ensure that the conditions are such that their mandate work is achieving results.

When I was in Afghanistan in October 2005, I had the opportunity to meet some Afghan citizens. I saw the people in Kabul and Kandahar, and I saw a huge difference between those two regions. In Kabul, people were working and children were going to school, not just boys, but girls as well. But I did not see the same thing in Kandahar.

I would like to see the same thing in the south. This development has begun, and it will continue. Security is one of the issues we must address, but it is not the only issue. Security is essential, but development and diplomacy are also needed so that Afghanistan can have a stable democratic political regime and people can live in a free and democratic country and can move forward and be proud to be Afghans.

In this way, the Afghans will become Canada's allies, people we can do business with. This will not happen overnight. It will happen with time, and it is something we will have to work at.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a letter from a medical intern, Dr. Bashir Ahmad, at Herat University in Afghanistan. The member talked about leaving Afghanistan. That seemed to be the focus of his speech. I would like my colleague to respond to this letter:

Afghan pleads for Canadian help

Afghanistan is my home. And it's a bitter reality to me, but we need external assistance to keep our country peaceful. People here are worried about rumours that international forces are planning to leave Afghanistan. If international forces leave, the future for us Afghans will go as well. There is hope in Afghanistan, but this hope depends on how strong the international commitment is. The involvement of the international community, including Canada, means more peace and security here. Will the rest of the world be safe if Afghanistan is left in the hands of destructive forces? Our enemies do not recognize borders; if they win in Afghanistan, they will turn it into a base to attack the rest of the world. So continued international commitment in Afghanistan is something that must be done for the sake of a more secure and peaceful world.

That is a plea for Canadian help. I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question and a good question.

Am I advocating running out of Afghanistan as soon as we can? No. What I am looking at is giving fair warning to our NATO allies who are in Afghanistan. I am not saying to pull out NATO.

When I look at Afghanistan I see a country that is in disarray and needs help. I am saying that our only role is not one of defence. In Afghanistan there is a multilateral force in place. We have to look at the concept of rotation, people going in and out. Kandahar is tumultuous. It is violent. It is tough. I am saying that there are other countries that should be stepping up to the plate. We have to give notice to NATO early enough so that it can replace the people we will be taking out and putting somewhere else.

In the long term, Afghanistan is going to need a lot of help in diplomacy and security.

We have to pull out the combat mission from Kandahar and move our troops somewhere else, into some other peacekeeping area, and concentrate on development. What the hon. member was speaking of was the development that is coming with that occupation. We want to see democracy develop. We want to see a government develop so that it can cover its own issues. It is important that we get Afghans to stand on their own two feet and make sure that they take care of Afghanistan for themselves. They do need help at this time and we are there to help them.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member is going to support our government's motion, or he is certainly inclined to do so.

I was concerned about one statement he made. He made an almost categorical statement that all of Canada's efforts have been focused on military intervention and very little on development and diplomacy. I think he knows that is not correct.

I want to remind him that six million children are now going to school in Afghanistan, two million of whom are girls. Girls were never allowed to go to school under the previous Taliban regime. There are thousands of miles of roads. Through CIDA and other Canadian partners 350,000 small businesses have been started with microfinance loans. There is a marked increase in the standard of living in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has democratic institutions. There is a democratically elected prime minister. It is my understanding that the local councils and also the parliament in Afghanistan are 25%--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there has been some work done. As I said, I was there in 2005 and I saw the difference. Unfortunately, most of that work was done in the north end of the country, in Kabul, where a lot of the development happened.

I was saying that a lot of the efforts over the last couple of years have been focused on combat. I would like to see more focus on development, more on diplomacy, more on getting an organization in place and expanding on that governance that exists in Afghanistan but is mainly concentrated in the north end where Kabul is. The member is right. I was there. I saw the kids going to school. I saw the little girls going to school. I have a daughter myself. It is very important to have education. But when we look at the south, in Kandahar, it is not happening. I do not believe that combat is the way to do that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this discussion on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

In doing so, I would like to take us back to the origin of this mission in which our Liberal government essentially undertook to commit troops, and diplomatic and development efforts to Afghanistan following September 11, 2001. At that time it was learned, and perhaps intelligence was aware of this before the fact, that there were a number of terrorist camps in Afghanistan with the blessing or the support or both of the Taliban regime. It was decided that action had to be taken.

Osama bin Laden was the key leader in that endeavour at the time and the United Nations sanctioned the action in Afghanistan through the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, which is implemented by NATO. NATO provides the combat missions and the countries of NATO are all participants, some in very major ways, like Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and others, and some in a very minor way, but all countries of NATO are involved.

We were invited by the Afghan people to come in and help them after the initial conflict to try to rebuild their country, and help them develop the democratic institutions and the infrastructures that were needed.

We need to remind ourselves that the Taliban is a regime that has a very oppressive policy with respect to women's rights. They have a very oppressive regime when it comes to crime and punishment. They have policies and techniques that most westerners find quite abhorrent.

I supported our government's decision to stay out of Iraq. I think that was a good decision on the part of Canada, but I supported our commitment to Afghanistan. The part that we need to understand is that there are various parts of Afghanistan where the danger is more extreme. We know about the Kandahar region, where the Canadian troops are, that this is a very dangerous area.

Northern and other parts of Afghanistan are not quite so dangerous. This is where the NATO troops are deployed in various levels and in various numbers, but some of the countries, like Germany and France, committed their troops to Afghanistan with various caveats. They said that they would be involved in Afghanistan militarily, but they will not fight in the south, they will not have troops in the south of Afghanistan where the dangers are greater, or they will not fight at night. There are a number of caveats which are somewhat problematic.

In 2006, when I was at meetings in Arusha in Tanzania, I met with some Afghani MPs who were there and I made a point of chatting with them. They told me two things. First, the levels of corruption in Afghanistan were quite incredible, horrible in fact. The levels of corruption in Afghanistan had permeated all sectors of society: the military, the police, the judicial system, the private sector and pretty much everything.

Second, they also told me that in their judgment Canada was getting the short end of the stick with respect to the rotation in Kandahar because of the fact that Canada was in the south and had been in the south for a while, and there were other countries which refused to go into the south where the danger was greatest.

I certainly brought that message back and spoke about it at the time. That is something I support in terms of the rotation. That is what the motion essentially talks about, that Canada would not be in Afghanistan beyond 2009 unless there is a commitment of 1,000 extra troops and some equipment, including helicopters et cetera to assist with the mission in Kandahar. That should be, and is, the bottom line as far as Canada is concerned.

There has to be rotation of other NATO troops into Kandahar, into the south, to help share that load. We are hoping, on this side and I think on all sides of the House, that NATO will come through with that kind of effort.

My own personal view is that while Canada should get some relief in Kandahar and we should refocus our efforts in terms of developmental assistance, I do not see how our combat forces in Afghanistan can be involved in developmental projects without the risk of getting into some kind of combat operation.

I say that because if, for example, Canadian troops are providing some protection to a road building project in a part of Afghanistan and the Taliban decides to use some hit and run tactics on this particular project, I do not think we can expect Canadian troops to stand by while they see the Taliban scampering up the hills and phoning Kandahar to say, “Someone has to come and deal with these people”.

What is coming out of this compromise which seems to be coming from the House, and I hope it does, is that the party opposite has agreed that we have to have an exit strategy in Afghanistan. We cannot be there forever.

Therefore, the Conservatives have agreed to put a finite term on our mission in Afghanistan at 2011. I think on this side of the House there is a view now that we cannot micro-manage the military leaders in the field. Does that mean that they are given carte blanche to engage in combat? No, but I think the rules of engagement have to be very clearly defined and clearly understood.

However, I am of the view that we cannot have troops in Afghanistan without giving them the latitude and the flexibility that they need to protect themselves and the people that they are trying to protect as well.

In this area of southern Afghanistan the level of drug production, poppies, I am told, is equivalent to about 80% of the total poppy production and consumption in the world. Those poppies are converted into heroin and cocaine. Those drugs are causing huge amounts of destruction on our streets in Canada, around the world, and indeed in my riding of Etobicoke North. I think we have to deal with that.

What we have discovered, of course, is that when the combat troops get closer to the drug crops, the Taliban increase their efforts. They have a lot of cash. They hire more people to get involved in combat activities. Therefore, to the question that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, I think there is some validity to that argument.

By the same token, and I think the Russians are a good example of a country that found that out, when we are dealing with this type of insurgency, this type of terrorist group and given the terrain and topography of Afghanistan, I am not sure that a military solution is in the cards, depending on how we define a military solution.

I think we should be looking at another question and that is what are the consequences of leaving Afghanistan prematurely before the Afghani people have taken on the additional responsibilities for their military, their police, and to the extent that they can supplant this United Nations force? What are the consequences for the Afghani people by pulling out?

To pull out immediately would be totally irresponsible. By 2011 it gives the UN and NATO allies a chance to transfer some of those skills and some of the technologies to the Afghani people, so that they can carry on their mission.

The independent advisory panel on the Afghan mission, which was headed by our colleague on this side of the House, John Manley, the former deputy prime minister, came up in my view with a very balanced and reasoned report. I could quibble about whether a 1,000 troops is sufficient to do the job.

Nonetheless, I think the panel came up with a balanced report. I certainly can live with that, the qualifier being that NATO must respond with additional troops and equipment, so that our troops can get some relief because our soldiers are just as important as soldiers from other NATO countries. We need to ensure that the burden is shared fairly and evenly across all members of NATO.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of what the member said makes sense. He did, however, make the statement that he does not believe there is a military solution. Our government does not believe that a military solution alone is the answer either. We believe in a balanced approach that includes: diplomacy, development and defence.

However, if the member believes there is no ultimate military solution to the problems of Afghanistan, does he support commencement of negotiations with the Taliban to move toward a power sharing arrangement with that terrorist organization?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how one would even define a military solution, but if we can make small advances in Afghanistan, if we can neutralize the growth of the Taliban and incrementally reduce their influence and sphere of influence, I would see that as some measure of success.

With respect to actually negotiating with the Taliban, my own personal judgment would be that it might not be totally inappropriate to at least engage in some kind of discussions with them, but I think one would have to be very careful. That is sort of stating the obvious I guess, but there might be circumstances it seems to me where there might be a power sharing model that might be acceptable to all.

I would be very careful before putting any ink to paper on a deal with the Taliban because I am not sure that if one did disengage, based on those commitments, I am not sure how much we could put into any sort of arrangement or deal with the Taliban given their history and their agenda in that part of the world.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a little bit about rotation. This was one of the areas in the whole debate leading up to today's motion that has come into some question. A number of opposition parties spoke about the concept of being able to rotate other countries in and other countries out.

The question came before the foreign affairs committee when retired General Lewis MacKenzie was there. He stated that he does not believe in that type of rotation. Rotation speaks of a nation rotating its own soldiers in and out of a country. The concept of rotating another country in ends up eroding a lot of the very positive work that the one country's military has done.

I did note that he spoke a little bit about other countries rotating. The general also stated that when there are new countries moving in, many times it is almost like starting at square one and for this reason we have allotted different areas to different countries.

I think Mr. Manley in his report came up with that idea as well because he stated that we must supplement what is already there, not rotate all of Canada out and put another country in.

Could the member expand on what his ideas about rotation would look like?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have is that when we have non-military people speaking in military terms we can often get sidelined.

I understand the value of rotation within a combat unit, but when I talked about rotation in my parlance, I was talking about having other NATO countries share in the major combat burden in Kandahar. As I understand it, for lack of better terminology, there is a seek and destroy unit in Kandahar whose mission it is to go out and seek and destroy the Taliban.

I think the Canadian troops have been doing that quite capably, but I would like to see other NATO troops take some of that responsibility, whether it is shared or not I am not so finite on that, but I think that other NATO countries should share in that burden and Canadian troops could move out to other areas and help in that way.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again about Canada's mission in Afghanistan, and particularly to echo today's motion on the role of Canada in Afghanistan.

Quebeckers find this role confusing, even ambiguous. What role exactly does Canada want to play by participating in the NATO and UN mission in Afghanistan? We believe that Canada must focus more on reconstruction and military training. That has always been the position of the Bloc Québécois, who would like to see this process begin immediately and continue until the end of the mission in February 2009. The Government of Canada must present a position that clearly reflects this role. It must make a clear commitment before the NATO summit in Bucharest, which is to begin on April 2, 2008.

Let us remember that this is not the first time Parliament is debating the mission in Afghanistan and its February 2009 deadline. Allow me to elaborate on some aspects of the last speech on this issue I gave in this House.

The war in Afghanistan was authorized by the UN from the outset, after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. At first, it was an operation—Operation Enduring Freedom—whereby the United States exercised its right to legitimate defence after receiving proper permission from the UN. The purpose of the operation was to push the Northern Alliance, which was fighting the Taliban regime, toward the capital. The goal was to weaken the Taliban, who had been recognized by the UN as a threat to international peace and security.

Defeating the Taliban regime was relatively easy; achieving peace and rebuilding a viable Afghan state is a far more demanding task. The fundamental objective of the international coalition and the United Nations is to reconstruct the economy, the democracy and a viable Afghan state enabling Afghans to take control of their country and their development.

Canada has been on mission in the Kandahar region since October 2005. In February 2006, it assumed command from the United States of the regional command south in Kandahar. Canada was responsible for the Enduring Freedom operations conducted by the coalition in southern Afghanistan until November 2006. At that time, Canada also committed to keeping most of its troops there until February 2007. In May 2006, the Conservative government asked the House to support extending the Afghan mission by another two years, effective February 2007. The House agreed to this extension. At that point, the mission was to end in February 2009.

In July 2006, NATO officially took over command in southern Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces left Operation Enduring Freedom to join the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF.

The situation in southern Afghanistan proved to be much tougher than originally thought. NATO troops, and particularly Canadian troops, have faced organized and ferocious resistance from the Taliban. It was at that point that the number of deaths of Quebeckers and Canadians started rising at an alarming rate, going from eight deaths between 2001 and 2005 to 70 deaths between 2006 and 2008. For a country of about 30 million people, we can consider that we have done our part. In fact, Canada has deployed the fourth-largest number of troops in Afghanistan and has suffered the third-highest number of deaths. Canada has paid a high human price to maintain security in Kandahar. The country has not lost so many lives since the Korean War.

Add to that the financial cost of the mission. According to figures published in National Defence's report on plans and priorities, the cost of Canadian operations in Afghanistan was over $7.7 billion for the period from 2001 to 2008. If it ended the combat mission in February 2009, Canada would have some financial flexibility to invest in development assistance in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, if we consider that NATO's mission in Kandahar is an international mission and that 38 countries currently have a military presence in Afghanistan, we can say without shame that Canada has carried out an important and dangerous mission in Afghanistan for over three years, and that the time has come for others to take over in that region.

Even though we want Canada to withdraw from Kandahar at the end of its mission, we do not think that the entire NATO mission should end. That is why we have always advocated handing the reins over to other NATO countries to replace the Canadian contingent in Kandahar. The federal government should notify NATO member countries now that our mission will end in February 2009.

Complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, as recommended by the NDP, would be irresponsible toward the Afghan people, their government and our allies, who are counting on our participation until 2009.

We need to create a new balance by the end of the mission in 2009. That is why for some time now, the Bloc Québécois has supported focusing on increasing development and diplomacy in Afghanistan.

For too long, all we have heard the government talk about is money and military and human resources. Since 2001, the primarily political process through which sustainable peace can be achieved has often been ignored in debate.

However, the crux of the problem is this: if our deepest desire is to give Afghanistan back to the Afghan people, that is, to support our friends in distress to help them regain their autonomy and sovereignty over the land they inhabit, then our actions must reflect this basically political paradigm and must involve representatives from the Afghan government. Otherwise, the legitimacy of our actions could easily be questioned by the Afghan people. We are in Afghanistan because the Afghan people want us there. We must act as partners with the Afghan people and their representatives.

However, since the very beginning of this mission that we are participating in along with 38 other countries, the coherence of our efforts has left something to be desired. This lack of coherence is one of the main reasons for the opposition expressed by people in Quebec and Canada regarding this mission. Indeed, can we blame these citizens for opposing a mission that sends their brothers and sisters to the other side of the world, when it is impossible to concretely measure the results?

We believe that Canada and the international community should give the mission in Afghanistan a “success program” that would include clear objectives combined with success indicators allowing us to measure our progress over the months and years, while recognizing that this will be a long process that will no doubt continue long after the departure of Quebec and Canadian troops.

So that we do not lose the support of the Afghan people, this political rebalancing would mean that Canada must immediately contribute to development assistance that is strategically planned and well monitored and that produces measurable results.

In that regard, all the NGOs that appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in the course of our study on Afghanistan emphatically declared that the amount of money invested must not take precedence over the quality of the programs created or serve as means of measuring the results achieved. It is the results that will determine whether the money invested was worthwhile and the foundations can be laid for an Afghan state.

This is an urgent matter. In the wake of over 20 years of war, devastation reigns in Afghanistan. There is next to no civil infrastructure or economic growth. Everything needs to be reconstructed. It is therefore not surprising that Afghanistan is considered one of the poorest countries in the world.

It is becoming increasingly clear that concerted action by the international community is required for successful development in Afghanistan. To convince our allies to do more, Canada must lead by example and increase aid immediately, and we must ensure that the money invested produces compelling results as quickly as possible.

Canada can and must invest more resources in Afghanistan and must increase the budget for development assistance. This would enable us to achieve the goal of 0.7% of the GDP by 2015, as promised, and as recommended by the UN. Let us not forget that currently, Canada allocates 0.27% of its GDP to development assistance.

We have to increase that amount to provide humanitarian aid in the short term and to help with the construction of roads, wells, and basic infrastructure.

Furthermore, it is well known that, generally speaking, international aid and reconstruction efforts are poorly coordinated. As the Secretary General of NATO stated:

We need a better international coordination structure for Afghanistan. We must provide the security and do the reconstruction but we must also do the politics.

His comments echo those of the UN Secretary-General:

—without stronger leadership from the [Afghan] government, greater donor coherence—including improved coordination between the military and civilian international engagement in Afghanistan—and a strong commitment from neighbouring countries, many of the security, institution-building and development gains made since the Bonn Conference may yet stall or even be reversed.

In January 2007, inspired by what was done in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Bloc Québécois proposed the appointment of a senior UN official with real, considerable power to better coordinate all international aid in cooperation with the Afghan government. This senior representative would also act as the link between NATO and the reconstruction teams in order to direct aid to where it is needed most.

We were pleased to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs say he was in favour of appointing a development assistance coordinator in his speech to the UN General Assembly on October 2, 2007.

Canada and its allies must also channel their aid as much as possible through multilateral organizations, and in particular United Nations agencies, since this will eliminate duplication and avoid working at cross purposes.

As well, the issue of poppy cultivation is key to the economic development of Afghanistan. The illegal opium trade feeds corruption in the Afghan government and is also used to finance the Taliban insurgents. The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that the poppy crop that is the source of opium is still a lucrative means of subsistence for some Afghan growers.

We must recognize that since 2002, poppy production has risen steadily. It has increased from 70,000 hectares under cultivation in 2002 to 165,000 hectares in 2006.

We therefore have to try to square the circle: how do we put an end to a crop that is the source of over 90% of the heroin in the world while at the same time making it possible for Afghans to work and earn a living? So far, the strategies used to combat this scourge have been synonymous with failure.

We believe that we must now give serious thought to a three-stage strategy. First, continue and intensify enforcement efforts against drug traffickers. Second, fund and implement programs to encourage alternative crops, while building the infrastructure needed for marketing them. And third, for a transitional period, buy the poppy harvest directly from the small farmers, for medical use.

Canada should play a bigger role in the diplomatic realm, as well.

One of the major problems facing the international forces in southern Afghanistan is that the Taliban have a safe haven in Pakistan. That border can be described kindly as extremely porous, and Afghanistan has never recognized the border it shares with Pakistan. Some Pashtuns who have been blithely crossing from one country to the other for millennia even want to see a “Pashtunistan” created on that border.

The Government of Canada must bring more diplomatic pressure to bear on the Pakistani government to solve this problem. Pakistan is the linchpin for the stability and coherent development of Afghanistan.

At present, Pakistan is experiencing widespread political instability. Since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the country has been on the brink of a civil war, with democrats, the military and religious groups engaged in a struggle for power.

Canada should use diplomacy, as far as possible, to create the conditions that are needed for stabilizing the country. If Pakistan were to descend into chaos, the impact on Afghanistan would be far-reaching.

In addition to Pakistan, we must also intensify diplomatic efforts in dealing with other actors in the region of Afghanistan, including Iran, India and China. Those countries will have to be involved in resolving the conflict and, as far as possible, in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

And last, the Afghan government, the international community and Canada must be open to negotiations with the Taliban, again, as far as possible, in order to achieve a lasting peace.

Again, development assistance and putting new infrastructure in place must go hand in hand with a process of political dialogue that must include Afghans from every region. This is essentially a matter of implementing a national reconciliation process where the different cultures of the Afghan mosaic will find their place in the construction of a modern Afghanistan and where differences will be resolved democratically and not through the use of weapons.

Allow me to add this, Mr. Speaker: whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere, the Bloc Québécois has always supported the principle that Canada must treat detainees humanely and in accordance with the Geneva convention and the convention against torture. This has hardly been the case for the detainees transferred to the Afghan authorities. Having heard about major problems and the torture of detainees, we asked repeatedly for changes to the relevant agreement between Canada and the Afghan defence minister.

As a result of all the pressure exerted by the Bloc Québécois and civil society, Canada signed a second agreement with Afghanistan on the treatment of detainees on May 3, 2007. It was an improvement on the 2005 agreement, but to be effective, it must be vigorously enforced.

In the Bloc Québécois' view, there should be a framework agreement between NATO and the Afghan government on detainee transfers. It would ensure greater uniformity in the treatment of detainees and more control over what goes on in Afghan prisons.

The Bloc Québécois feels as well that, in proposing to extend this mission until December 2011 instead of ending it in February 2009 as originally intended, the Harper government is completely disregarding the desires of the people of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

The member for Papineau knows that we refer to other members by their title or the name of their riding.

She has three minutes to finish her speech.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I thought you were stopping me. I obviously do not have my earpiece.

Our soldiers have done their part by fighting for several years in the most dangerous area in Afghanistan. Until the end of the mission in 2009, Canada should help the people of Afghanistan through the training of Afghan forces, reconstruction, development and diplomacy. That is the best way to promote democracy to the people of Afghanistan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her interesting speech.

For the most part, my colleague's speech was thoughtful. I disagree on a few points. I will say, though, that the best statement by Quebeckers in this whole thing is the statement by the Van Doos in terms of their mission accomplishment, and we should be very thankful for that.

Training and development were among the things the member talked about. We have been doing that all along. It is accelerating. The further along we get, the more capable the Afghans are. I have a question for her, but first I have a couple of points.

The member talked about providing more aid to Afghanistan. We could always do more, but we are giving over $1 billion in aid to Afghanistan. It is our largest single recipient of foreign aid.

She talked about a lack of economic growth. In fact, the average wage for Afghans has doubled and the GDP has tripled since 2002. It started from a pretty low base, but that is growth and there is progress.

I am pleased to hear that she believes we should be there in a continuing role for development and so on, and I think she agrees that there needs to be a security umbrella over that, although we may disagree about who should provide it.

The question I have for the member relates to how she talked about Pakistan, the influence of Pakistan, and the ability of the Taliban to hide there. With regard to the recent elections in Pakistan, particularly the election in the northwest frontier province, where the Taliban-friendly party was in fact booted out of office and the ANP was voted in, which will be much less Taliban friendly, I would like her to comment on how she thinks that might influence the ability of the Taliban to operate as freely as it has been historically.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Yes, there has been a change in government in Pakistan. But in the absence of immediate results, we should not assume that things will change.

We must ensure that Canada's diplomatic position and diplomatic statements are continuous and that we are able to see the trends at any given time. That would enable us to intervene and prevent the situation from returning to what it was in the past.

As we have known since the start of the war, the Taliban are extremely powerful and they are everywhere. If we leave them alone, telling ourselves that since there has been a change in government, the Taliban will change, we would be kidding ourselves, because that part of the world has been at war for a very long time. We will probably see long-term changes over the years. But we must monitor things and there must always be a diplomatic presence so that we can take action at any time.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was well thought out.

Your facts are in line with what most people are well aware of. I noted your concern about the transfer of prisoners. The events of the weekend, with the President of the United States announcing that he is going to veto an anti-torture bill that Congress and the Senate have passed, are of great concern.

However, let me take this a little further. From 1978 to 1988, the Soviet Union had from 80,000 to 250,000 troops in Afghanistan. They lost 14,000 and had 53,000 wounded. We have been there seven years. We have the former defence minister, someone we would expect to be well informed--of anybody in this country--on where we are situated in this particular war, admitting that “there is no military solution” to this.

Would that not make it obvious, or should it not be obvious to people, that now is the time to move away from this combat role immediately to protect ourselves and our countrymen who are over there serving?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Papineau, I would like to give a friendly reminder to the hon. member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek not to use the second person but the third person, because the only second person is the one standing here, and I do not have all that wisdom.

The hon. member for Papineau.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is no military solution. This has been demonstrated by the years and decades of war in that part of the world. A military solution is not a solution. However, the solution could be military if combined with something else. The military aspect alone is not enough, which is why we called for a reorganization of Canada's efforts.

We are not alone in this. Thus, when we say we want to leave the combat zone, we have taken into account that others can take up that part of the mission so that we can focus our efforts on development and reconstruction, which, incidentally, would be more in line with what is important to Canadians, rather than always being deployed in combat zones.

We do not feel it would be appropriate for the mission to end, and we are not calling for the mission to end completely. However, with 38 countries present, we believe that it is totally unfair that Canada should remain in the most dangerous part of the country any longer. We have given our share and done our part. Let us leave this role to others and engage in more diplomacy and development in Afghanistan.

We are not really saying that the entire mission should end, but as Canadians and as Quebeckers, we need to recognize that our efforts have earned us the right to work more in other areas where we have expertise. And that is what the public is calling on us to do. This is a key part of the Bloc Québécois position.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's intervention. The Bloc Québécois from time to time claims to have a monopoly on representing women and children, but of course the member knows that it is perhaps the women and children who are at greatest risk if we abandon Afghanistan.

My question for her is this. If we as a Canadian government withdraw our armed forces from Kandahar, and the rest of the international community does that as well, how does she expect those vulnerable women and children, and those who have thrown in their lot with the international community in building a strong democracy in Afghanistan, to defend themselves against the Taliban? The Taliban will almost certainly want to return and implement their horrific regime, one that has imposed such terrible misery on the people of Afghanistan.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my hon. colleague that the Bloc Québécois does not claim to have a monopoly on representing women and children. We hope that all the members of this House feel that it is their duty to protect women and children. However, men who wage war have always used women and children as an excuse for their aggressive attitudes. They always say they are going to protect women and children, yet all over the world we see that women and children are always at the bottom of the heap. And that makes no sense.

However, we understand that men use women and children in this way in order to ease their conscience. Things being what they are, this is something we must keep in mind. We are saying that we must pull out, because there are other people who share the responsibility for looking after the weakest members of society. We should let them do their part.

Nowhere does it say that Canadians are the only ones who can defend the people of Afghanistan or other countries. It makes no sense that we should be the only ones who realize this.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi for a brief question.