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

Topics

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not look at the end date that is in the motion as a success date, as the member put it. We are successful every day that we are there. Our diplomatic efforts, our development efforts and our military efforts are making a difference on the ground for the men and women and the young people of Afghanistan every single day.

If we took the New Democratic approach and left tomorrow, all the work done and the sacrifices made by our men and women on behalf of Canada in Afghanistan would be or naught.

We need to stay there. We have put a date in the motion because we must let Canadians know when there will be a rotation and when we are leaving. We have put a date there. That does not mean that is the date when we will be successful. We are trying to make a difference and we are successfully making a difference every single day that we are in Afghanistan.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:30 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have the privilege to ask a supplementary question during debate.

Once again I go to the logic of the position that the hon. member is putting forward that we do not have a success date. We are locking in our soldiers to be engaged in Afghanistan for three more years without a measurement of success, without an understanding.

I think our position in all ways is more defensible. We are saying that the mission is not succeeding and that we need to change the mission. In order to change the mission we need to withdraw from the effort that we are engaged in now in southern Afghanistan and put forward a new approach from Canada.

How does it work to keep our soldiers in Afghanistan for three more years without understanding what success there will be?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Two years.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary reminded me that it is an additional two years, not three years as the member who asked the question indicated.

This motion is about the evolution of the mission. It is about seeing what our men and women have accomplished thus far, from a military point of view in terms of security and safety and a development point of view in terms of providing schools, wells, all those things that add to the quality of life for Afghans. We are working on those issues. This motion is about that evolution, about where we are headed next. That is why we are here today debating the motion. That is why we had a debate last week and why we will have some more debate. Then we will vote on it.

If we read the motion, it is about how the mission has changed and how it continues to evolve and how it has improved the lives of those who live in Afghanistan.

Again I want to thank all the men and women who have made the sacrifice of leaving their families and giving their lives. Their commitment has been overwhelming for me as a member of Parliament. I want to thank them once more.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to further contribute to the debate on this important issue and the motion before the House. I am very proud to speak to this motion, a truly Canadian motion.

This motion would extend our mission to 2011, increase the capacity of the ISAF, and better equip our soldiers. It is not a Liberal or a Conservative motion, but a motion to move forward and succeed in a tough and challenging mission.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate our Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for doing a wonderful job in ensuring that Canadians are playing an important role in that part of the world.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate General Rick Hillier. We are very proud of the general in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are proud of the leadership he has shown not only in this mission, but indeed with the Canadian armed forces.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians comprise approximately 1.5% of the population of this great country. We are proud that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, young men and women of our province, contribute to almost 10% of the Canadian armed forces.

I feel it necessary to go back to the basics in my remarks today and remind the House of the fundamental reasons that we are involved in Afghanistan and the benefits of such involvement.

As the Manley report states, “events in Afghanistan, and Canada's participation in the outcomes, will directly affect Canada's security”. This is one of the most important reasons that we are there and we must support this mission so we can finish the job. Let everybody be aware that our soldiers, our men and women, are making a difference. I would like to remind people of the difference we are making.

In 2001, 700,000 children were in school in Afghanistan and they were all boys. The Taliban regime did not allow education for little girls. Today, just a mere six years afterward, more than six million children are enrolled in school in Afghanistan this year, one-third of them little girls. Just that statistic alone shows us that our Canadian mission and our soldiers are making a difference in Afghanistan.

We take a lot of things for granted in this country. As the father of a five year old daughter who just started kindergarten last September, I shudder to think that I could live in a country where somebody would tell me as a father that my daughter was not allowed to go to school to learn about not only her own country, but the world.

I believe that to some extent this House, and perhaps some Canadians, have forgotten the core reason that we are involved in Afghanistan. We forget that the events of September 11, 2001 were the catalyst of our involvement there. Ask any Canadian if they can remember where they were on September 11, 2001. It is one of those days in our history when everybody knows full well where they were at the specific moment they found out about the attacks on America.

We lose sight of the fact that it was from Afghanistan that al-Qaeda leaders planned and directed the terrorist attacks of that day. Canada's role as a member of the United Nations and NATO led to our involvement in Afghanistan. The UN Security Council acknowledged the right of individual and collective self-defence, and we participated in the efforts to bring justice and stability to a formerly unstable and unjust country.

We know that this conflict is justified and beneficial. Why would we then abandon the cause? Why would we jeopardize international, Canadian and Afghan security by withdrawing from the mission before the job was done?

We know that the job is not done. We know that the insurgents that Canadians, alongside Afghans, are so bravely fighting are the same people that received safe haven from the Taliban government of Afghanistan prior to the days of September 11. We know that almost certainly they will receive the same safe haven if the Taliban were allowed to regain power. We know that if we give up now, the Taliban would seek to return and bring back their brutal regime.

Great progress has been made on the ground with the Afghan army and police and there is still more training to be done. We have seen a steady rise in the numbers enrolled in the Afghan national army. Since transferring control to these forces is the ultimate goal, we must make sure they are properly prepared. With a greater focus on training the Afghan army, we will be working ourselves out of a job and that is our goal, to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.

Our colleagues from the NDP have proposed to remove our troops completely and abandon the people of Afghanistan. However, this is a reality denying proposition. We must wonder about the sincerity and commitment of the NDP to its own principles.

Internationally, almost every social democratic party in the western world supports our mission in Afghanistan, such as the labour parties in the U.K. and Australia, or the social democrats in Germany. Yet, what can only be described as a cheap shot for votes, the NDP has forsaken its own principles for an easy isolationism that appeals to the worst of our natures, the selfish and easy way out.

One wonders whatever happened to solidarity. There is no easy way out of Afghanistan. We are there to protect. We are there to make life better. We must address the reasons why we should remain in Afghanistan until 2011. Again, these are linked to security and to prevention of terrorism because a safe Afghanistan, free from the Taliban, makes the region, makes Canada, and indeed, makes the world a safer place to be.

The efforts of Canada and our allies have some great gains in this mission including furthering democratic elections and institutions. We can all remember seeing millions of Afghans voting just a few short years ago. Just last week a group of Afghan women parliamentarians were here in the House of Commons. What a great day it was. What a testament to the progress that has been made. What a testament to the lives that have paid the ultimate price. What a testament to what Canada is doing in that far away country.

Those women would not be standing in this House without the security and aid of Canada and our allies, and the brave Afghans who have rejected barbarism and terrorism. To keep these gains moving forward we need to increase the number of troops and give them better equipment. The decade of decay in our Canadian military is over.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have made great efforts with our allies to find 1,000 more troops to partner with Canada in Kandahar. With the passage of this motion, Canada will have a clear mandate at the upcoming NATO conference in Bucharest.

Medium lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles recommended by Mr. Manley will greatly aid our troops in doing their job effectively. They will also hopefully lead to preventing more deaths from IEDs. Medium lift helicopters will allow our troops to avoid dangerous stretches of highway. UAVs will allow our troops to search out the Taliban and deal with them before they cause more trouble.

The insurgents that our troops our fighting in Kandahar province are the same insurgents that will again fight to instill this brutal regime on the people of Afghanistan. They are the same insurgents that would forbid girls from going to school and would forbid basic health care needs to women.

We have a chance in Afghanistan to make a real difference in the lives of people who want the same things we want here in Canada. The Afghan people want a better world for their children than the one they have.

Let us look at the progress in the few short years we have been there: the vaccination of more than seven million children against polio, including approximately 350,000 in Kandahar province; the delivery of food aid to more than 400,000 people in Kandahar; and 83% of Afghans now have access to basic medical care.

We have made great strides in the economy of Afghanistan. Per capita income has doubled between 2004 and 2007.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order. The hon. member does not sound like he is winding up, but his time wound up a minute or so ago.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of National Defence.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend from Avalon for his remarks and his presence tonight to take part in what is a historic event.

He has recited quite accurately some of the improvements and changes for the positive that we see happening in Afghanistan. In particular, he personalized it quite rightly by comparing it to his young daughter's own future in Canada and compared to what young women in Afghanistan face. The improvements they see in their lives are a direct result of the contributions of Canadians and the allies.

I think he was headed in the direction of discussing some of the other important improvements in the area of the economy. There are businesses now opening. Merchants are able to trade their goods both internally and externally. The infrastructure is improving so that those same merchants can bring goods to neighbouring communities and people are free to seek out new economic opportunities. The micro finance credit is another area, of course, where women in particular are the direct beneficiaries.

I wonder if the member would take the opportunity to reflect a little further on the situation where some of the economic principles are taking root and some of the opportunities that will flow from this. He mentioned the GDP, for example, of the country expanding. I wonder if he would expand a little further on how the economy and the GDP is benefiting from Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to congratulate the Minister of National Defence. He is doing a superb job on behalf of Canada.

Certainly, the economy of Afghanistan is changing. As I touched on earlier, per capita income doubled between 2004 and 2007 and Canada is the top micro finance program donor. More than 418,000 people are accessing small loans and savings services in 23 provinces, including Kandahar.

More important than that, and another statistic I am sure people would like to know, more than two-thirds of those 418,000 people are women. There is no doubt that Canadian assistance is supporting skills development throughout Afghanistan and we are indeed making a difference in the lives of these people.

At the end of the day, the important thing is that the people of Afghanistan are given the opportunities that we have here in Canada, that they be allowed to grow, expand and have the freedom to be able to choose to do what they want to do. That is the underlying principle that we are trying to establish in Afghanistan and, more importantly, I believe and I am sure many Canadians believe, we are succeeding in doing just that.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member has said in his speech and the good things we are doing in Afghanistan.

How can we guarantee the Canadian public that we will in fact finish what we are doing by 2011? In other words, can we comfortably say there will be a military victory in light of the fact that not long ago 100,000 troops from the Soviet Union were not able to achieve a military victory?

How many more troops will it take? Is it conceivable that we will be there for a long haul? Ultimately, does he really think that we can achieve a complete military victory in Afghanistan?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, achieving a military success in Afghanistan certainly would not be done by packing up and going home.

This is the philosophy that is being put forward by the NDP in the House. I have sat here and listened to it for several months. Members of the NDP say: “Let us go over and negotiate, let us go over and talk to these people to see if we can find a resolution to the concerns we have”.

The Taliban are very difficult people to talk to, people who have abused children, abused women, and used them as shields to put forward their concerns. They have brought about injustices on the Afghan people over the past number of decades. How are we going to negotiate with them?

I challenge the NDP in the House to select four or five of its members to go to Afghanistan and carry out those negotiations, and carry out those consultations in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and then come back and report to us, if they are lucky to get back out alive and tell us how the negotiations went so that maybe we can solve this crisis.

I doubt very much that they would go, and I certainly doubt that they would return. The Taliban are not interested in peace. They are not interested in giving people a chance to have a better life. They are interested in destroying the country and destroying the people.

We as Canadians will not sit idly by and let that happen. That is why we are in Afghanistan and that is why we are going to stay there until the job is done.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to be here in this full House and to talk to all my hon. colleagues.

My hon. colleague from Manitoba would like to use my notes later on for his speech and I am sure that I can make them available to him.

Benjamin Franklin once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I would like to begin by talking a bit about a former Soviet soldier, Sergeant Nikolai Lanine, who served in Afghanistan and who now lives in Canada.

Some would say that there is no similarity between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 and today's NATO efforts to assist in the stabilization and democracy there, but Lanine's experience in Afghanistan lifted a veil of propaganda from his eyes and now he worries that in fact we are making many of the exact same mistakes that the Soviets did.

Let us go back in history to 1978. At that time, Afghanistan had a relatively progressive secular government with labour unions, health care, women's rights, girls in school and land reform. Noor Mohammed Taraki, a Marxist, was asked by the army to form a government. The U.S., along with the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan reacted by training Muslim extremists, the mujahedeen, and Taraki was killed in 1970.

The Soviets invaded in 1980 and the U.S. armed Muslim extremists, among them bin Laden, in its quest to overthrow the Soviet occupation. As we know, the Soviets left in 1989 and the extremists, or Taliban, were able to seize power.

Interestingly enough, in the 1990s, the U.S. invested financially by encouraging the Taliban government to sign a contract with Unicol to build a gas pipeline south from the Caspian basin to Pakistan. The point to note here is that when oil was on the agenda, the U.S. government was ready and willing to negotiate with the Taliban.

In the spring of 2001, the negotiations broke down. President Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, was a consultant for Unicol during the failed negotiations with the Taliban. Another point to note is that Karzai's current government consists of many of these warlords, drug lords and oil executives, in addition to other agents from other countries.

In 2005, the UN documented atrocities committed by the U.S. backed northern alliance, many of whom currently serve in the Afghanistan government. Human Rights Watch found that 60 of the Afghan legislators have links to warlords, 20 still have active private militias and 20 or more have been involved in drug smuggling.

President Karzai himself stated that the warlords and private militias, who were once regarded as the west's staunchest allies in Afghanistan, were now a greater threat to the country's security than the Taliban.

This is a situation that we find ourselves in today in Afghanistan where it is not a war of good versus evil. In the province of Nangarhar, for example, in April 2004, women were still banned from performing on TV and radio and where opium was dominating Afghanistan's economy. The country is being turned into a narco state under the noses of NATO.

A 2005 report by Amnesty International found that violence against women and girls was pervasive. At the same time, 70% of the population is undernourished, while infant mortality is twice that of the third world average.

At any rate, let us get back to Nikolai Lanine. In his youth he read in the papers that the Soviet army was in Afghanistan to help build a stable society. Later he learned that his best friend was part of a group of soldiers who had been ambushed, savagely mutilated and then executed. Later, Lanine himself was drafted and wound up in Afghanistan in 1987.

Today his library includes 1980s articles from the Soviet newspapers Pravda and Izvestia which state:

“Working together, Soviet and Afghan government forces this month successfully cleared Kandahar of insurgent activities.

The goals of the new Afghan constitution are to establish peace and guarantee the rights of all Afghans.

Lanine said that these humanitarian perspectives, remarkably like those in contemporary Canadian news and opinions, were not just official propaganda. Many Soviet citizens genuinely felt them. A former Soviet commander told CNN News many years later that “We had set ourselves a task of turning Afghanistan into a stable, friendly country”. As he hears of personal eulogies, politicians, condolences and military tributes to our fallen soldiers, Lanine could not help but state that he had heard it all before.

The Soviet citizens were told that their army was there to help the Afghan people to establish a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan, to protect women's rights and to have a better future for children. Here in the west the Soviet claims were, of course, ridiculed as twisted propaganda by our leaders and our media. The motives were regarded as actually plausible that included blatant colonizing, propping up an unpopular pro-Soviet regime, creating a buffer zone and, most important of all, reaching for oil.

President Carter at that time announced that the Soviets had advanced into a strategic position that posed a grave threat to the free flow of Middle East oil. U.S. President Regan dubbed the violent Afghan rebels “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers,” and sent waves of covert aid, including to the early Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

The massive U.S. support transformed these ragtag Afghan mercenaries into a major, modernized fighting force. In other words, it was the west that enabled the repressive Taliban government to seize power once the Soviets left, a similar situation to when the U.S. provided Saddam Hussein with biological and chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war. Soviet forces immediately came under siege while hurriedly buttressing the Afghan government, army and police.

Like NATO since 2002, it then launched counter-insurgency operations, relying heavily on bombings, search and destroy operations and house to house invasions to rout out the terrorists. However, like in more recent years, the hammer-fisted combat operations started converting many average Afghan people into enemies. Reconstruction slowed and destruction skyrocketed.

By the time Lanine arrived, the Soviets were choosing battles more carefully and primarily trying not to make things worse. His own unit mainly performed counter insurgency operations along supply routes. When not fighting, Lanine's unit delivered food, firewood, clothing, school books and other supplies to ordinary Afghan people. They built hydro lines, protected Soviet doctors working in villages and loaned trucks for home construction.

Unfortunately, Lanine said that all of that together principally created widespread distrust and the shifting of allegiances and, for similar reasons, a coalition of 160 international relief agencies requested that NATO basically shut down the provincial reconstruction teams. Maintaining stability amidst all of that, explained Lanine, much like NATO is experiencing today, became an intermittent but never-ending barrage of low level fighting.

He worked as a grenade launcher with a two kilometre range. He said that often he did not know who he was shooting at and if anyone was killed. For him, as layers of indoctrination peeled away, philosophical thoughts crept in. He wonder who the suicide bomber was trying to attack and whether it was the Canadian soldiers in Kandahar? He said that we did not see that side of the story and that it was the same in the Soviet media.

He said that it was taken for granted that whoever resisted them must be bad. Lanine began to see that not everyone was a political fanatic. They were just regular people, many of whom had lost family members. His journals show where he was struggling with his growing moral doubts after their unit, in an accident tragically similar to a 2002 U.S. air strike, mortared an Afghan wedding. He found himself sympathizing deeply with every Afghan on all sides, understanding them simply as human, just like him, caught in chaotic, miserable circumstances.

According to estimates, 15,000 Soviets and 1.5 million Afghans were killed during the occupation. One-third of Afghans were refugees. However, it was the final fall out that taught Lanine a penultimate lesson. Once Soviet combat troops withdrew, instead of launching coordinated disarmament and calling for independent peacekeepers, both superpowers left the warlords to battle their differences out over the bodies of the civilian population.

For him, that illustrated that underlying all the self-aggrandizing bluster from westerners and Soviets alike about their noble intentions in Afghanistan, there was a lack of real concern for the Afghan people themselves.

I am not saying that is the case today. What I am saying and what we are trying to underline is that there might be a better way of bringing some kind of peace to this region without just continuing a war effort that may last indefinitely.

It upsets Lanine to see this happening all over again. Although the Soviet intervention was much larger in scale, it was not fundamentally different than NATO's intervention today. According to him, they were both acts of aggression where foreign armies tried to make a nation fit their vision for what it should be. Afghans themselves, like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, also make the comparison.

The obvious parallel, he adds, is the most insidious: the propaganda. He points to the government gags in reporting Canadian wounded, for example. After 9/11, he particularly noticed increasingly self-righteous drumming as bin Laden, the Taliban and the failed state of Afghanistan were portrayed this time as purely tyrannical agents of destruction.

He states:

Nobody was really seriously discussing the roots of the whole militant Muslim movement in Afghanistan. It was very shocking for me, how wrong the memory was. It wasn’t something I expected to see here. I couldn’t believe how much a supposedly democratic society was shifting towards unquestionable acceptance of war.

“I’m not sure what we should be doing,” comments Lanine. “I only know that what we’re doing right now was tried before, and it failed. Are they feeling better about being bombed by NATO than they were under the Soviets?”

Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls, in their new book Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence, present reams of evidence dispelling many common beliefs about our impacts. They describe in detail botched elections, a government riddled with notorious warlords, shocking setbacks to women's rights, legalized private and religious militias, civilian massacres and stalled reconstruction, all fueling popular disaffection.

NATO countries, including Canada, are calling for more combat troops but the Soviets used six times as many as NATO currently has and they still describe it as fighting an octopus with one hand. According to Kolhatkar and Ingalls, we should do what surveys show most Afghans want, and that is to bring in peacekeepers under UN control, stop hunting combat, make this army sufficiently lucrative and direct reconstruction money through grassroots, Afghan-led initiatives that give poor Afghans employment rather than through multinational contracts.

Let us take a moment to put all this into perspective. Let us put aside the rhetoric, step aside and look at what has happened.

According to a Maclean's magazine article, it was our current Chief of Staff, General Rick Hillier, who convinced the prime minister in 2005 to undertake a combat role in Afghanistan. He wanted Canada to prove ourselves to the Americans and to the world. That was the main reason given, if I am not mistaken, as he attempted to and subsequently did convince our government to lead a search and destroy mission in Kandahar.

I do not think there is ever a need for members of the Canadian armed forces to prove themselves. Myself having served in the armed forces, I see and have seen first-hand the dedication and professionalism of our men and women in uniform. We do not need to go into a special type of combat to show how good we are.

I had the good fortune in 1990 of accompanying the Royal Canadian Navy into Vladivostok as an interpreter with the commander of the HMCS Provider. I noticed then the respect that our former enemies had for the professionalism of our Canadian armed forces. I would like to reiterate that we do not need to go to war to prove ourselves. We do have that capability if and when the need arises to do that.

It is up to us here in Parliament to make the right decision and to ensure that we do not send our young people unless it is obviously necessary and not as some token of support for American policy. It is absolutely imperative that a peace process be started in Afghanistan as we signify our intent to leave. Let us remember that this does not happen overnight. We must press NATO and other major players in this region to start discussions toward a ceasefire and a peace settlement.

In the debate over the future of Afghanistan, others are also calling for a new approach. President Karzai, Afghan parliamentarians and aid groups have all spoken of the need to start a dialogue, which will bring about a lasting peace. Sixty-five per cent of Afghans say that disarmament is the most important step toward improving security in Afghanistan. This is a major step as we try to push for a truce.

The vision of peace must be carried out by the United Nations, which explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security.

UN peacekeeping missions have been successful in East Timor, Cambodia and Mozambique. In East Timor, with the help of the UN, the Timorese were able to surmount incredible odds to create a largely stable and successful state.

Many criticized this approach as being too idealistic, and I have heard these comments from the other side today, and state that a strong military presence is needed before any peace and reconciliation is to begin.

However, once again, how much military strength and how far do we have to go before we can somehow ensure a peaceful and stable area? Would it not be better to start a process where we can provide incentives for groups, warlords and other groups and those who may not be the extreme fanatics to start to lay down their arms and bring in the United Nations under that umbrella to work on some kind of a reconciliation between all waring factions?

Remember, it is not a black and white situation. The fallacy of this argument that we need a strong presence is that there will always have to be a strong external military force at constant war with the other side. This did not work with 100,000 Soviet troops, and it will not work today with NATO. That situation does not bring stability. The only stability that can take place is under a peace process where, gradually, all fighting comes to an end. Then and only then will true reconstruction begin.

The Afghan people will have to construct the future themselves, with help, but not interference, from others. Canada has the golden opportunity to encourage this process. What is to stop our Prime Minister, now as we are in Afghanistan, as we debate this, from reaching out to other NATO countries, countries in the region and the Taliban and others and to say, “Let's try to work on some kind of a dialogue and peace process?” It happened in Vietnam. We were successful in Northern Ireland. We did negotiate with terrorists and now there is peace. What is to stop this process from at least starting?

As I speak, a very unpleasant thought keeps coming back.

First, does the United States, for example, truly want to see a peaceful solution in Afghanistan or does it want a military victory to further its own interests? If this is the case, what are we doing fighting alongside with the U.S.?

Second, will the U.S. ever allow an Afghan government to take power that may not be in the best interests of U.S. foreign policy? If in fact the U.S. sees Afghanistan as a vital link in a geopolitical policy to ensure an American presence in the area, is this the only reason that the U.S. is there, as in Iraq? If this is the only reason, that is more reason for Canada to pull out of Afghanistan and signify that we will participate only under a UN-led peacekeeping mission.

We have a chance today in Parliament to change the direction of the course of history for our Canadian military and the Canadian people. We have a chance as we are in Afghanistan, as we negotiate a gradual pull-out, to start negotiating a peace settlement and discussions among all groups. It is worth a try. Talking has never hurt. We can and we should make a difference.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's arguments are false. He tries to draw parallels between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1970 and early 1980, and our mission in Afghanistan today.

The biggest difference between the two missions is that the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan under unilateral auspices. We are in Afghanistan, however, under multilateral auspices, under multilateral organizations like NATO and the United Nations. That is the biggest difference between those two missions. I do not think he can draw the strong parallels between those two, which he has tried to draw.

The biggest problem with the member's argument is this call for an immediate unilateral withdrawal of our military from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada pursued a policy of isolation in the 19th century, a policy with respect to engagement in European affairs. However, the bloodshed of the 20th century taught us one thing. It taught us that we could not live in isolation, that we must be engaged in the world. That is why external affairs diplomats like Hume Wrong and Norman Robertson helped to construct multilateral institutions like the United Nations and like NATO.

What follows from the position of member for the New Democrats is one of two things. Either it is returned to the isolation of the 19th century, or he is asking the Canadian government to do diplomacy and development work without defence.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's questions and I understand his comments.

With regard to false arguments and whether our situation parallels that of the unilateral invasion of the Soviet Union, once again, we have to look at what the former Soviet soldier says as he tries to make the comparison and finds parallels in his mind. Whether it is a multilateral or unilateral intervention, there are still a number of troops that are in combat against people who are there, and in this case the Taliban and those who support them. I am not quite sure what difference it makes, whether it is unilateral or multilateral. War is still going on. As I have tried to point out, there is chaos and it is not simple black and white.

As far as isolationism, I challenge the member. If we go into Afghanistan with the United Nations, under a UN flag, in no way does it signify isolationism. In fact, it signifies that we are ready to work with the world community to foster some kind of a process where people can at least talk to form a peace and a truce.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is an extremely amazing party. It is unbelievable how it comes along with the logic of this thing, and totally forget about reality.

He talks about unilateral and multilateral. He says that there is not a difference between unilateral and multilateral. There is a difference.

First, the members of the NDP say that they want a UN mission. This is a UN mission under the UN authority by the security council. However, they do not want to recognize that. What other UN authority they want, I have no idea.

Then they say that we need to have capacity out there to go ahead now that NATO is working under the UN. I have no idea what peacekeeping they are talking about, and with people who do not want to even comment.

Perhaps my hon. colleague has seen the neighbour reconstruction offered by the neighbours of Afghanistan. Every country, India, Pakistan and China are all putting money into reconstruction of that country. Perhaps he should look at those reports and understand what is happening there.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not need any lessons and neither does my party from the member of the opposing party. If he thinks our party is so amazing, he is welcome to submit an application and maybe we will accept it.

The reality is everybody understands, and we understand, that the UN sanctioned this mission and it designated NATO as the organization to carry this out. What my party and I are trying to point out is we may be taking the wrong direction. Maybe we should be pursuing another direction that will bring a lasting peace and not some kind of a peace that is based on so many thousand or a hundred thousand troops that go back and forth depending on who wins the military victory.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, does the NDP accept the fact that this mission was sanctioned by the United Nations? Does he accept the fact that it is a NATO mission? Does he accept the Afghanistan compact, which has tried to unite countries from diverse backgrounds in order to rebuild Afghanistan? That is the fundamental difference between this mission, which is UN sanctioned, NATO-led, and involves Iran and neighbouring countries in the Afghanistan compact. That is a fundamental difference from a country like the Soviet Union moving in its tanks to occupy another country for its own will and its own reasons.

Does the NDP accept that this is a UN-NATO mission, yes or no?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear. I understand the UN has sanctioned this mission and designated NATO to undertake it. We should also understand that U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan do not come under this mission. They are in there unilaterally.

The difference is this is a combat mission. NATO is designated by the UN, but we are in a combat mission. We are not in there to try to keep sides apart so there could at least be some kind of lasting peace process.

Is it not worth the try? Is it not worth one life to see if there can be at least some kind of peaceful settlement in that turbulent area of the world?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, we kind of got somewhere along the way of what I was hoping to establish with the member. I appreciate the fact that my colleague asked him whether he understood there was a difference between a UN sanctioned mission, a mission where a democratically elected government asked us to stay and defend it.

The member kept on saying that we had a chance. We have a chance to defend people like the six female members of parliament, who were here last week. They asked us not to abandon them. They asked us not to give up the gains that they had made. They asked us to defend them, to stand with them. They are building a democratic republic in Afghanistan where women are respected, where children have an opportunity to succeed, where business can succeed. They told us they were building a real nation.

Why does the member not see that? Why does he not support it?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, is it not much easier to build a nation when there is a truce and a peaceful settlement? That is my question.

If it is much easier, why do we not at least try to bring some kind of a truce and disarmament to that turbulent country? Why must we continue with a combat mission where we increase our troops every year with an indefinite end to this mission? Is it not worth trying some diplomatic solutions? Those are my questions to the member.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, despite the subject, it gives me great pleasure to rise here this evening. This is a matter of great importance for both Canada and Afghanistan. As we heard earlier, people have been asking questions that suggest they have already made up their minds. Nevertheless, this evening, I hope that I will be able to clarify the New Democratic Party's reasons for its position on this issue, which is simply that the combat mission in southern Afghanistan must end, and a comprehensive peace process must be undertaken.

To begin, I would like to clarify one thing that is very important to many people in Quebec. I did not think that I would have to do this because things were becoming clear, but today, for reasons of their own, some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues deliberately chose to further confuse the situation with respect to individuals' votes.

I will use evidence from the record to explain the differences between how the Bloc Québécois has voted and how the New Democratic Party has voted over the past few years.

Let us begin with April 24, 2007. For those who are interested, that was when a vote was held here in the House. Without exception, all members of the Bloc Québécois who were here in the House voted in favour of a motion to extend the mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. In September 2006, the New Democratic Party resolved to put an end to the combat mission in southern Afghanistan, so obviously, we could not support a motion to extend the mission until 2009. However, the Bloc Québécois did support extending the mission in southern Afghanistan at least until February 2009.

I said “at least until” because, as reported in the newspaper, Le Soleil, on May 24, 2007, the Bloc Québécois national defence critic said that the Bloc was prepared to agree to extending the mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009.

Those who wish to do so may look this up on line. The motion I am talking about, which was debated here, was put forward on April 19, 2007, but the House voted on it on Tuesday, April 24. All of the Bloc Québécois members are listed there. Beginning with their leader, all of the Bloc members voted for war. It could not possibly be any clearer. There is no ambiguity at all on this issue.

Then, a few days later, on April 30, 2007, there was a vote on an NDP motion. All of the Bloc members present voted with the Conservatives to reject an NDP motion to immediately inform the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, that we planned on withdrawing from the mission in Afghanistan. We could even look back at the various speeches made in the House. I would like to quote the Bloc Québécois defence critic. During the debate on this topic, he said: “Obviously, I must say to my NDP friends—at least we are friends [speaker's emphasis]—that we cannot support their motion today.”

There are two things here. When there is a motion to continue the war, the Bloc votes—as a group—in favour. When there is an NDP motion to withdraw the troops, the Bloc votes against the motion.

As unbelievable as this may be, I gave this bit of background tonight—even if that was not my plan when I prepared my speech—because Bloc members tried to put a spin on these two historic votes, which are duly noted in the official record of Parliament and are easily accessible online for anyone who is interested. I could not believe that Bloc members said that Canada was going to be in Afghanistan until 2011 because in 2007 we had not supported the motion to continue the war until 2009 only.

As though that would have changed anything. We were against the war. That is a principle. In September 2006, the very first NDP event that I attended after leaving the Government of Quebec was a major meeting in Quebec City at which the NDP adopted this controversial but clear position.

I know the Bloc members do not like things that are clear. They prefer to try to beat around the bush and cultivate an image that can be read more than one way. But the truth, the simple truth, is that when faced with the possibility of an end to the mission, as we proposed, and the withdrawal of our troops, they said no. When faced with a motion to continue the war, they said yes.

As I said earlier, they are now trying to say that if only we had voted to end the war in February 2009, it would not be continuing today. How naive. As if the Conservatives, who are determined to continue this war, would be influenced today by a vote held in 2007 that would have established February 2009 as the end date for the mission. That is absurd.

The only way to deal with this is with clear positions. Although I completely disagree with the position of the Conservative government, at least that position is clear. One can be for or against it, but it exists.

The position of the NDP is also, dare I say, quite clear. We are against the war in Afghanistan. We are for a comprehensive peace process. We believe that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created to wage war. It cannot be involved in peacekeeping missions. That is not within its mandate.

After the tragic events of September 11, the Americans established Operation Enduring Freedom, which resulted in the attack on Afghanistan. Canada was involved in this operation from the start of that attack, or early in 2003, even while we were saying no to Iraq. The decision to commit our troops to the military mission in southern Afghanistan was almost a consolation prize that we gave the Americans to make up for our daring refusal to go to war in Iraq. That was five years ago.

We are about to agree to an additional three years. In the end, we will have spent more time in Afghanistan than we did in Europe during World War II. We were there from the beginning, in September 1, 1939, until the end of the war on May 8, 1945, and until August 1945, with respect to the war in the Pacific. Canada was there the entire time. The Afghanistan war will last even longer. And with what results? According to all the experts—from those in Sandhurst, England, to those in the United States—this war cannot be won under current conditions.

I heard some MPs earlier discussing with my colleague whether or not we can compare our current involvement to that of the Soviets. However, I will take it upon myself to inform them that ever since the former Soviet Union invaded in December 1979, this poor country—and I do mean poor because it is one of the poorest countries in the world—has been almost continually in the throes of war. And we are about to contribute to more violence and more conflict but not to increased security, no matter what the opinion of those who have already spoken this evening. It is wrong to claim that there is greater security as a result of our intervention in Afghanistan.

There are always those who will say such things during a war. We will not start saying that we do not believe it is a good cause. Naturally, we have succeeded in convincing ourselves that, since we are good people, our presence in Afghanistan must be a noble cause. But that is not the case. Our presence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with our own strategic interests and everything to do with what the former Conservative Minister of Defence had the honesty to say: that it was retribution for the attack against the Americans on September 11, 2001.

The problem with that is that 19 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, not Afghans. People will say that there were al-Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and even that bin Laden was hiding up in the mountains and so on. Is that any reason for Canada to maintain a military presence there without making an ongoing effort to achieve peace based on a comprehensive structure?

To date, 79 young Canadians have returned home from Afghanistan in coffins. How many others will suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome? How many ticking time bombs are we creating?

This is a heavy price to pay for our involvement in a mission that was originally an attempt by NATO to support the government in place. With the Bonn process, that original mission evolved into an attempt to involve not only NATO, but a number of other countries in an international security and reaction force, but the people behind the Bonn process acted like children who cover their eyes and think that everything has disappeared. They did not include the Taliban in the Bonn process.

I hear the jeering of the government members, who say that you cannot negotiate with people who behave in this way in a conflict and who use terror and schemes like this.

But the fact is that because of its history and the pride it takes in working for peace, Canada has succeeded on a number of occasions when people thought it was impossible. John de Chastelain, in Northern Ireland, is the latest example. I am in no way excusing the tactics used by the IRA in Northern Ireland, but the fact is that they engaged in terrorist acts and the government said in no uncertain terms that it would never negotiate with terrorists. Success came only when there was agreement in Northern Ireland to bring everyone together at the same table.

What a sight it was to see former IRA leaders, now elected members of the parliament of Northern Ireland, seated at the same table as Reverend Ian Paisley. No one would have thought it possible 20 years ago. And yet, this parliament works. In a place where there was war, negotiators succeeded in dealing with all the parties involved and securing peace. On the strength of its experience and credibility in keeping and monitoring peace, Canada was able to impose a system where the IRA would withdraw its weapons. And it worked.

Some of my colleagues sincerely believe that if Canada were not in Afghanistan today, the situation would revert to what used to be with respect to schools and so on. I heard them say so earlier. The NDP is not saying that it does not want to continue working there. We are just pointing out a simple fact: NATO was created for the purpose of war. We cannot place ourselves in a conflict of interest. We are promoting peace by means of war. That is what we are doing when we say that, and it does not work. It is a paradox.

The motions before us are also paradoxical, and it is worth spending a little time examining them. Those who wish to check the House of Commons' on-line documents for today will find the motion currently before us and the New Democratic Party's amendment. Why simplify things when they can be so complicated? The motion goes on for four pages, but the NDP's amendment is just three paragraphs long.

In the motion, there are many historical references to our activities in Afghanistan. The Conservative government is having a bit of fun at the Liberals' expense to prove that even though the Liberals like speaking out against war, they supported these measures at every stage of the game. This brief reminder of what went on is a good idea.

Even though what I said earlier is true, namely that the Conservatives have a clear position with which people disagree and the NDP has a clear position with which people may or may not agree, the Liberals, as usual, are being wishy-washy. They will say anything. They might be all for the war on a Tuesday morning and against it on Thursday afternoon. We will train the Afghan troops and if war breaks out, we will be there. You should read all four pages. I invite people to go on line and read them. It is quite something. It is tortuous. They talk about changes and carrying on until 2011 and that they will try to ensure that there are conditions. The conditions are generally taken from the Manley report.

That is another paradox. In supporting the Manley report, the Conservatives have always said they are opposed to the NDP and others who dare speak up for peace. There are just two paths. There are not 36 different options: either we continue the war or we work toward peace. The NDP prefers to use Canada's experience, expertise and credibility to work toward peace. However, we will let the Conservatives explain their desire to pursue war.

The NDP is saying this has not worked and, under such conditions, Canada should withdraw. The Conservatives are saying that is shameful. They talk about schools and people. They say that our position on withdrawing in light of the conditions is irresponsible. That is what we have heard from a number of people who have spoken this evening.

And yet, what do we find verbatim in the Conservative government motion supported by the wishy-washy Liberal party? It says:

That, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

That is where the Conservatives get tough: they impose a condition. They want to continue the war for another three years. How many more young Canadians will come home in coffins and how many more will be physically wounded or psychologically scarred? The Conservatives impose conditions to show how tough they are. The motion continues:

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

There is a slight difference between the French and English versions. The English version says “(operational no later than February 2009)”. The difference could prove to be a problem one day, since the English version is peremptory. It describes an obligation of result. If we do not have the 1,000 troops, we will withdraw.

The same people who are saying that the NDP is irresponsible for talking about withdrawing our troops, considering the current conditions, are setting a condition requiring 1,000 more troops, without which we will withdraw. This is the Conservatives' second paradox. They have the gall to say that it is irresponsible to talk about the possibility of withdrawing our troops in February 2009. But the motion expressly states that we will withdraw our troops in February 2009 if the condition of 1,000 additional troops is not met. Coincidentally, they are soon going to Bucharest, Romania, and will likely be successful in obtaining 1,000 troops. If they do not get the troops, they will be forced to withdraw our troops according to the terms of their own motion.

The second condition also refers to February 2009. It talks about the use of medium helicopter lift capacity and unmanned aerial vehicles for aerial surveillance.

From paradox to paradox, the mission is failing. When we see that we are spending ten times more on the military component than on rebuilding, the government's arguments or attempts to convince us that this is a peace or rebuilding mission are revealed for what they are. It is immediately clear that this is not the case.

This is a combat mission. The treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan is another big problem. I will likely have a chance to talk more about this when I respond to questions.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that all Bloc members here this evening noted the NDP member's convoluted critique.

He did not stop at being convoluted with that critique. He stayed convoluted for the rest of his remarks. There are so many things to take up, but I am going to take up a couple.

Actually there have been 80 Canadians killed because civilians count and I am sure the family of Glyn Berry would appreciate him being remembered as well.

Also, 11 minus 9 is 2. It is an extension of two years, not three. He should do a little more math.

The point I really want to make is that he said twice that NATO was created to wage war. That is patently ridiculous. NATO was created to keep the peace. My helmet was not blue, but what was I doing in CF-104s and CF-18s for 30 years flying in Europe and other places if it was not keeping the peace? That kind of statement is absolutely ridiculous and absolutely outrageous and he should apologize to everyone who has ever served in NATO.

My question is one which I did ask before, but I will ask it slightly differently. Is there anything that the New Democratic Party members would be willing to actually take up arms for, or will they always, as John Stuart Mill would say, rely on better men than themselves to make and keep people free?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in English having heard the member's French.

If we look at the paragraph that I was referring to earlier, the paragraph that explains the extension of the mission, it says that the withdrawal will start in July 2011 but it will be completed by the end of December 2011. So, from February 2009, that means all of 2009, it means all of 2010, and believe it or not, December is the last month of 2011, so that means all of 2011. In case the member has as much trouble with his math as with his French, it is important for him to understand that it is another three years.

The other thing that I can tell the member, despite the number of years that he tells us he spent flying around Europe, is that NATO is not a peacekeeping organization. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created to wage war, to be the first line of defence against the former Soviet Union. It is the United Nations, and that is why the New Democratic Party of Canada is in favour of handing this mission over to the United Nations--

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

That is absolutely untrue.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

That is ridiculous. Read the NATO charter.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre did ask a question and some hon. members are preventing the Speaker from hearing the response. If members could just allow the hon. member for Outremont a few more seconds to respond, then we will move on the next question.