Debates of March 10th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Afghanistan

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have a motion, for which there have been discussions among the parties. I would have made it earlier but I had not yet heard back from the NDP. We now have heard back from them, so I believe you hopefully will find support for this.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Thursday, March 13, 2008, the House shall again consider Government Business No. 5 and, unless previously disposed of, at the expiry of time provided for Government Orders the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 5.

That is, of course, the Afghanistan motion.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, simply to explain our position. We indeed had some discussions, but we are considering the request at this time. We will get back to the government with an answer on this as soon as possible.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I want to pick up on the comments by the member for Halifax. She referenced an Oxfam report entitled, “Community peacebuilding in Afghanistan: The case for a national strategy”. I, too, think it is well worth the read. It is an excellent analysis of part of the way forward.

As many commentators have noted, the government has essentially photocopied the Liberal position on the future role of Afghanistan, and largely, so to speak, the political sizzle has gone out of the debate. I am hoping that the government actually responds positively to this motion so that we can enter into a substantive conversation as to where we go in Afghanistan instead of this eternal game of gotcha politics, which is really just playing with men's and women's lives, those of our own men and women and those in Afghanistan.

Until recently, this exercise in gotcha politics has largely characterized the debate. I hope we can move off that to this motion for change. It really is a motion for change.

It is conditional upon getting another 1,000 troops. I hope the government answers the questions put forward by the leader of the Liberal Party with respect to why 1,000 troops should make a difference, what the significance is in the number of 1,000, what exactly the troops will do, and whether an extra 1,000 actually will make a difference in Afghanistan.

To be truthful, my expectations of improvement are not all that high, given that historically Afghanistan has long been the place where armies go to die and treasuries get depleted. In particular, in regard to Britain in the 18th century, I think there were two occupations, which ended in a rather unsatisfactory conclusion and drained the exchequer of Great Britain. We also have the more recent example of the Russian invasion in the last 20 years, in the past generation. It, too, was a very unsatisfactory experience for the Russians. Now NATO is in Afghanistan and we have been there some seven years. Of course, the Americans have their own version in Iraq, where there is an insurgency which is very difficult to control and is in fact depleting their treasury.

Speaking of the NATO mission, the current mission in Afghanistan unfortunately has served to highlight some deep divisions among the NATO partners concerning the question of the appropriate role for the alliance in that desperate land. Despite the desperate state of affairs in that country, we still wish to believe that Afghans, like everyone else, wish to aspire to a greater sense of peace and security, much like other countries enjoy, and we are there because of that working assumption.

That hope is the basis on which I support the resolution going forward and that eventually we will improve the chances of the Afghan people realizing the standard of peace and prosperity. This is the main reason that I think this resolution needs to be supported going forward to 2011.

However, we should not be under any illusion that this is a war or an insurgency that can be won in a conventional sense, because the situation is a bit like a Hydra-headed monster. Once one element of the insurgency is dealt with, up pops another head. The unavoidable reality is that over the last three years the insurgency has increased. We have to ask some fundamental questions, which is the point of this debate, as to the best way to deploy our brave men and women in Afghanistan.

It is easy enough to talk about the 3Ds. We seem to talk about the 3Ds all the time. Over the past year certainly, and over the past seven years, the emphasis has been on the deployment of military forces to the neglect of the other two Ds. It has not been working as it should. I do not want people to get all defensive on me, but surely after seven years, which is, incidentally, longer than we were in World War II, we need to ask some pretty basic questions.

Afghanistan is an extremely complicated situation, mainly because it is a war on terror, and the war on terror is layered over a civil war, and the civil war is layered over tribal conflicts, and further, that is layered over personal disputes. It goes on and on.

We get a notion of perpetual fermenting conflict in all of these layers. I wonder where we would be today if, for the past seven years, we had put as much money into the other two Ds as we have put into defence. Maybe if we had, we now would actually be aspiring to bring our troops home.

In fact, Canada has no direct strategic interest in Afghanistan. We do not have any major businesses there. We do not have any resources that we are interested in. Essentially we are there to bring peace to the situation. Initially, we went in to help in the war on terror, but unfortunately, in the words of John Kerry, President Bush took “his eye off the ball”, and al-Qaeda, while defeated a number of years ago, still maintains some presence in this conflict.

I want to mention, however, that I like the part of the resolution that shifts the emphasis of the mission, but it will be meaningful only if we put serious effort into conflict resolution among the Afghans themselves.

I want to share two stories that relate to peace-building. A well known NGO in Canada submitted a very detailed peace-building initiative to CIDA. Its members had a great deal of experience. They certainly know what they are talking about. They were prepared to put up their own resources. The submission was received by CIDA and returned to them with an offer of $1,000 towards their initiative. Needless to say, that $1,000 was declined. The NGO was somewhat insulted. Therein lies something of the tale as to why we are not dealing with peace-building, or serious peace-building, in this country.

The second story involves an elected senator in Afghanistan. He was to mediate a conflict between two tribes. Apparently there was a blood feud. I am not quite sure what it involved, but the solution was apparently to offer up two women from one tribe and give them to the other tribe. If in fact that is the level of conflict resolution in Afghanistan, is it any wonder that these layerings of conflict continue, whether it is a war on terror or inter-tribal conflicts, et cetera?

My view of the matter is that Canada and our NATO partners need to get serious about these kinds of peace-building initiatives. My point in sharing those two stories is to emphasize that unless these kinds of low level episodes of violence are not resolved in coherent and just ways, it is highly unlikely that we will ever see peace in Afghanistan, and I fear that our troops will be there forever.

Actually, I would amend the last statement. We probably will be there indefinitely until at some point we simply get fed up and walk away from it. I do not think that would be very good for us. I do not think it would be very good for the Afghan people. I do not think that would be very good for the stated goals that we have in being in Afghanistan.

What would a serious conflict resolution process look like?

First, I believe we have to be intentional about building capacity. I realize that is an overused word. It is a type of lingo in the NGO trade, but we really need to remember that this country has known nothing about conflict resolution for a very long time. Afghanistan is a place where institutions are in fact corrupt and where justice is quite clearly hit and miss, more miss than hit.

Second, capacity building is absolutely essential and it should be taught in Afghan schools, because we have to inculcate that view into the children of Afghanistan.

Third, it needs to be involved in everything we do there, including our deployment of troops. It needs to be involved in everything from aid to diplomacy to troop deployment.

To drive that point home, the fourth point is that we need to drive it into the heads of every Afghan official we meet, every political official, every politician, every warlord, every police officer, every judge, and every man, woman and child in that country.

I do not want to sound Pollyannaish, but unless we have peace-building from the ground up, then this will be a perpetual conflict. However, I do want to be recorded as supporting the fact that this is a motion for change. I hope this motion for change will go forward.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member from the Liberal caucus who just spoke for acknowledging what it appears the Conservatives, with whom the Liberals have entered into an alliance around supporting the continuation of the counter-insurgency war, are not willing to admit.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood has quite correctly acknowledged that what we are seeing in Kandahar is not an improvement in the security situation but in fact a deterioration. He spoke about the recent Oxfam report, to which my colleague referred a few moments ago, “Community peacebuilding in Afghanistan”, in which it is absolutely acknowledged that security is deteriorating.

Red Cross officials have echoed those concerns and have talked about how really serious it is that NATO-sponsored provincial reconstruction teams often are treated with suspicion by Afghans, who believe that the teams are being controlled by foreign soldiers and so on. The UN has acknowledged 34 aid workers killed in the previous six months, with 76 abducted and 100 convoys and facilities looted. The UN World Food Programme reported that in the month of October alone 30 of its vehicles had been attacked and looted at a cost of $750,000 in stolen aid, compared to just five such attacks in the previous 12 months.

Given that reality, how is it that the member and his colleagues feel comfortable and feel that it is a responsible thing to do to critically sign on to a continuation of that counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar instead of getting onto a solid path of building peace?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the insight of the member's question. We in the Liberal Party simply are not prepared to abandon our situation in Afghanistan, but I want the hon. member to note that there are clear timelines laid down for change in the characterization of the mission. I want this period of time, from now until 2011, to be used to change that whole view of how we do this mission.

Thus far, we have gone on a kind of linear basis, so to speak. First, we have to get the defence situation and security taken care of, then we provide aid, and after that diplomacy, or diplomacy and then the aid. We seem to want to go one, two and three. We always want to seem to put pacification first and then everything else afterwards.

I am advocating for a more holistic approach in which we continually do all three and also that resources be deployed in a far more substantial measure on aid and diplomacy, and that in fact peace-building becomes integrated into our entire deployment of our troops, so that it is not just simply security first and then we will worry about delivering aid afterwards. I appreciate that it is not an easy situation, but we do have to start somewhere. I only wish we had started seven years ago with this kind of initiative.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments and for supporting an ongoing role for Canada in providing security in Afghanistan. I was pleased to hear that he himself, and I believe he committed for his party, would not abandon Afghanistan and would not abandon providing the kind of security that is required to continue the diplomatic efforts that are going on there as well as the huge job of rebuilding that country.

In order to make some progress, we are going to have to continue the job of reconstruction in that country and continue delivering humanitarian aid, but some people have proposed that there actually be a dialogue started between the Taliban and the ISAF forces to try to work toward some kind of an ongoing peace in Afghanistan.

Does the member himself believe that discussions with the Taliban and trying to work to some kind of a solution with them, and bringing them into that process, is advisable? Or does he believe that it would be counterproductive to rebuilding Afghanistan?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in some respects, the hon. member's question is a touch simplistic, and I do not say that in an insulting sort of way. I simply think that having a war with the Taliban or having dialogue with the Taliban is a bit simplistic.

The argument that I hope I have made in the course of my speech is that peace-building needs to start with these tribal feuds, with these situations in which justice is very much an absent concept in Afghan civilization and dealing with those things. If that leads to conversations with Afghan leaders, some of whom may well be Taliban, so be it.

The only way in which we will create a situation for peace in that country is if we work from the ground up and develop actual peace-building initiatives on a small basis, whether it is intertribal or within provinces. Those are the kinds of civilized infrastructures that are required in order for peace and justice to prevail. If they do prevail, then there is some chance that the conflict will go down.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate on the motion concerning Canada's role in Afghanistan. We in the Liberal Party were pleased to see the government's position move closer to the principles we have been advocating for over a year now.

We are also pleased that the government chose to base its new motion on the Liberal motion presented roughly a month ago. Under the government's new motion the mission must change, must have an end and must go beyond an exclusively military objective. Those are the three principles the Liberal caucus, the official opposition in this House and the leader of the official opposition have been defending for more than a year.

Through this motion, the government finally recognizes that the mission must change to become a mission that includes security and also must include training for the Afghan military forces and police.

I would like to read from an open letter to the Prime Minister that the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal leader, published on February 15, 2008. The letter addresses our conditions for the mission in Afghanistan.

Dear Prime Minister, we are in agreement that we cannot abandon the people of Afghanistan, as there remains much to be done to ensure that the stability and governance institutions are in place to allow Afghans themselves to resolve their differences. But Liberals recognize that Canada’s mission has to change. We cannot simply continue to extend the same mission indefinitely. That is why we have provided the government with an alternative plan for the future of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. The Liberal plan is consistent with our longstanding position that Canada’s mission in Kandahar must change in February 2009. It brings clarity to our goals in Afghanistan by placing a greater emphasis on stronger and more disciplined diplomatic efforts, and striking a better balance with respect to the reconstruction and development efforts that will be essential to creating a stable Afghanistan.

We, the Liberals, have been stressing and continue to stress today that the mission has to change. NATO must ensure that our troops are replaced in Kandahar province so that in February 2009 they can move on to a mission focused on training the Afghan army and police and on providing security for reconstruction projects.

As a follow-up to the Manley report, the government is telling us now that an additional 1,000 soldiers are needed. They do not say anywhere, though, how they arrive at this figure. Why not another 500, 2,000, or 5,000 soldiers?

We have heard armed forces personnel and army representatives say that about another 7,000 soldiers would be needed, but the Conservative government only talks about 1,000.

Since the government introduced its first motion and then its amended motion following the Liberal one, the leader of the official opposition and several of my colleagues, who have already risen in this debate, have been asking the government to explain this figure of 1,000 soldiers. What will be accomplished with another 1,000 soldiers? Will they be able to guarantee success, the stabilization and security of the province? If so, how did the government arrive at this figure? What studies were done? By whom and when? What consultations were held? We have been asking these questions since the government tabled its motion but we are still waiting for the answers.

We are told the mission must include a rotation of our Canadian troops so that they play some role other than simply combat. The government has been talking about providing training for the Afghan army and police and security for reconstruction projects. Why? As the colleague who preceded me said, we need the three Ds: diplomacy, defence and development. One is no good without the others. We cannot succeed at defence without diplomacy and development.

In order for Afghan society to stabilize and start to develop its economy and flourish, it will need stable institutions with rules, procedures and well trained personnel. This requires a population that accepts these institutions and considers them credible, whether it is the justice system or the taxation system or the government itself that determines the laws and regulations. The Afghan people must believe that their institutions are credible and objective. To achieve this requires diplomacy as much as defence or development.

Canada has a fine reputation around the world for development, especially the creation, expansion and capacity building of institutions. Many new democracies ask for our help with their police, legal system and judiciary, for example, to find out how to establish an objective, unbiased, well trained judiciary that can interpret the laws. Canada is also often asked to provide training for new parliamentarians.

When I was in my second year as a member of Parliament, I was asked to go to Vietnam and provide training courses. They were to show female MPs how to be good parliamentarians and represent their constituents. That is the kind of project we should be doing in various countries.

The mission in Afghanistan must have an end point, and before it ends, it must change. We must have a better balance between the military sector and reconstruction, development, diplomacy and defence.

We hope the government will provide serious answers to the questions we have been asking about the reasoning behind certain aspects of its motion.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her contributions to this debate and her reference to her previous experience in helping other female parliamentarians is commendable.

She would know that with the recent marking of International Women's Day we had here in Canada and here in these buildings six female parliamentarians who serve in the parliament of Afghanistan, democratically elected, courageous women with inspirational stories in fact.

We heard over the weekend that there were 1,000 women who turned out to celebrate. On this momentous occasion of International Women's Day in Afghanistan, as the member would know, this would be completely unheard of just a few short years ago.

I guess it is those obvious indications of democratization, the freedoms that women are now enjoying. They are hard fought, hard won, and clearly there is more to do.

I have a number of questions for the hon. member. Does she in fact see the ability of future missions, like the one she referenced in Vietnam, where parliamentarians and others from other participating nations, NATO, UN, could similarly undertake that type of work? Would they be able to do that without the increased security that is required and that is absolutely integral for the furtherance of the development, the reconstruction and the democratization that is underway in Afghanistan today? Is that possible without the security component?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite clear when I said Liberals believe that there has to be a balance between defence, diplomacy and development. One cannot have one without the other.

One of the reasons why our democracy here in Canada is so successful is precisely because we have that balance. We have a prosperous society. We have institutions which are credible and which people believe in and participate in actively, and we have a military that has the support of the Canadian people.

Therefore, it is not one opposed to the other. If we were to only have the defence side, then we would risk the population, the grassroots, losing any or a great deal of respect for the military that is there.

It is a combination of all three: defence, diplomacy, development. We have to find that balance. We Liberals believe that with the motion that we had presented, and which the government has largely adopted, the balance is there.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I would like to ask her a question, the same question I asked the government last week and a minister this morning.

I do not think that the text of the motion is the same in both languages. I am sure my colleague will agree that in the French version, following all of the items listed after “attendu que”, or “whereas” in English, the motion gets to the important things: the conditions. This motion sets out conditions; it creates obligations.

In the French version, when referring to the panel's recommendations, it says “—que, en vertu de ce mandat,...soit approuvé par la Chambre à la condition expresse que—”. The English version says “that, consistent with this mandate,...is approved by this House expressly on the condition that—”. What follows is a list of conditions. But then, when the motion refers to other conditions for accountability and transparency, the conditional is used: “—que la contribution du Canada à la reconstruction et au développement de l’Afghanistan devrait être—”. The English version uses the verb “should”. The following paragraph begins “—que le Canada devrait adopter—”. In English, this is given as “—that Canada should assert—”.

Personally, I find this very worrying because it implies that we have to trust the government. I would therefore ask my colleague if we really have good reason to believe that if this motion is passed, the government, the armed forces and other bodies involved will make a sincere effort to respect the conditions and obligations as written, whether in the conditional tense or otherwise.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. The Conservative government has accepted the fact that our presence in Afghanistan must not be limited to military action and that the development and diplomacy commitments that were lacking in the government's original motion were taken straight from the Liberal motion. However, it is up to us to make sure that the government acts. That is clear.

With this new government motion, Canadians understand that the government has agreed to the three principles set out by the official opposition, the Liberal Party: the mission must change, the mission must end, and the mission must strike a better balance between defence, diplomacy and development. It will then be up to us—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and I congratulate all members who have participated. I am pleased to be splitting my time with the Minister of Public Safety.

This debate, as we know, focuses on Canada's role in the United Nations' mandated NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, a mission that, of course, has the full support and encouragement of the democratically elected government of that country. As before, Canada was called in a time of dire need and we answered.

When one thinks of the contribution that is being made, it is difficult not to feel pride each time we have a discussion in this chamber, and the fact that we represent Canadians who are very engaged and very interested in Canada's mission in the future role that we can play in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Afghanistan's success may be determined very much by Canada's future role. In fact, Canadians have demonstrated, I would say, a profound understanding and an interest of the mission taking place on the other side of the world.

The combined efforts of numerous government departments are doing incredible work in building peace and prosperity in Afghanistan that it strives for. It is critical that they remain engaged in a whole-of-government approach because clearly we are shaping the 21st century for the people of Afghanistan through our actions and efforts, promoting values of freedom, security, peace, the rule of law and democracy. This is a possibility where before it was simply an impossibility.

I spoke recently at the Forum for Young Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and I know you have on numerous occasions. I was taken by the insights and the penetrating questions that came from those young representatives from across our country. I felt particularly proud to hear the understanding that they had for what was taking place in places like Afghanistan, Darfur, and other parts of the world where Canada is making such a genuine and positive contribution. The generation that I saw is a hopeful and thoughtful one.

Canadians have always been proud of our tradition of reaching out and helping the less fortunate.

The international mission in Afghanistan is part of this tradition. Nevertheless, it differs from the missions our military has participated in in the past. This has raised some serious questions for our country.

Our government has always been open to frank and transparent discussions about this mission. There have been 15 technical briefings since 2002, and 14 of those were held under the current Conservative government. I have appeared before standing committees to discuss my current and former portfolios. In total, the former defence minister and I have appeared 17 times. Take note debates have been held and many questions have been raised in the House.

The independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan played an important role in educating Canadians about the Afghan mission. The task force developed clear, fair and balanced recommendations. The government motion to extend Canada's military mission in Kandahar until July 2011 stems from these recommendations.

I and others have followed the debate on the future contributions in Kabul. We would like to take the opportunity today to answer some of the questions that were posed by members in today's debate and others. I also want to thank the participants, as I did a moment ago. I believe that the contributions are doing a lot to help inform Canadians further on the role that we are playing and no doubt raising the standard of debate on the issue itself.

The role Canadians are playing is one of which we can all be proud. Today, in Afghanistan, approximately 2,500 Canadian Forces members have joined with the forces of other countries who have answered the call of the international community to bring security to that country.

Canadian troops are there working side by side with their counterparts, among others, the Department of Foreign Affairs, CIDA, Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP. Canadian men and women are contributing in almost all areas of Afghan life, from education and health to community development, and the training of Afghan security forces. They do it well, with cultural sensitivity and recognizing the tribal nature of Afghan society. We are making a difference there.

Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian bilateral development assistance. Our pledge of $1.3 billion to 2011 for development and reconstruction ranks Canada among the world's top donors.

My colleague, the Minister of International Cooperation, has outlined for the House some of the important development work that is ongoing.

With perseverance, commitment and patience, we are rebuilding a country that was devastated by decades of war and hardship, and the Afghan population has endured such hardship. Yet, we continue to hear the stories of commitment and courage.

As I mentioned, the Afghan female members of Parliament were here, setting such a high standard and example for women in their country and our own.

This past weekend 1,000 women gathered in Kandahar to celebrate International Women's Day. This would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago.

Success in Afghanistan is very much dependent on the establishment of self-sufficiency in three key areas: security, obviously, development and governance. These three areas are mutually reinforcing, and are nurtured and supported by the Afghanistan Compact, but of the three, the achieving of security is the rock upon which all else will be moored.

The Afghanistan Compact is a landmark five year agreement between the United Nations, the international community and the government of Afghanistan. It maps out Afghanistan's road to recovery and governs most of what Canada and the 59 other signatory countries and organizations will be doing in Afghanistan.

With Canada and the international assistance, Afghanistan is making real progress toward achieving these benchmarks that are set by the compact. Not surprisingly then, many of the answers to the questions that have been posed in this debate can be derived directly from this document.

In order to meet the benchmarks set out by the Afghan Compact, we must surely assist the Afghan national security forces to establish a stable and secure environment in that country. That is why the troops are there. This government believes that they need to stay there until the Afghans are in a better position to take over this role for themselves.

In fact, the motion put forth by the government states things clearly. The mission should shift increasingly toward training the Afghan national security forces, so they can assume increased responsibility for security in Kandahar and in their entire country.

This training has always been a key element of our military engagement there. In fact, when one looks over the history of this mission, we have been engaged in increasing levels of training since we signalled our intentions last October in the Speech from the Throne.

We are glad that the Manley report reinforces this sentiment and that members here have also signalled agreement with the direction that we have already been moving.

Canada has contributed significantly to the development of a self-sufficient and effective national army in Afghanistan, and particularly the Afghan government, along with the international security assistance force, has called for an 80,000 strong Afghan national army by 2010.

There have been noteworthy successes, operational wins, which involve the active participation of the Afghan national army.

Should the mandate be extended beyond February 2009? We expect that our men and women in uniform will continue to work with the Afghan government and our allies toward achieving the other benchmarks, but particularly in the areas of training the security forces within the Afghan national security forces and their ability to engage or take on the extremists, the Taliban. Without that, we will not have success.

The Taliban are ferocious and fearless, and unrestricted in the tactics they will employ. They perpetrate the most hideous and immoral forms of violence imaginable, and that is their hallmark and their advantage.

We cannot cede any territory or back away. We win on the battlefield. IEDs are the type of system that has been employed and we are taking steps to counter these insidious forms of warfare.

As the security improves, the Canadian Forces will be in a better position to dedicate more resources to the building of a self-sustaining Afghan national army and police force. I know my colleague will have more to say on that subject.

Through its six operational mentoring and liaison teams, the Canadian Forces are focusing on training the Afghan brigade based in Kandahar province to plan and execute operations in the field. Because of Canadian efforts, competent Afghan national battalions are now deploying into Kandahar province and throughout the country. Afghans are increasingly able to plan and execute their own operations with the support of ISAF troops. Continued mentoring and training will be required to further develop professional and competent Afghan national security forces.

The Afghan national security forces are the antidote to the Taliban terrorists. Let us not forget the atrocities committed against the Afghan people and their pain and suffering.

Numerous mention has been made throughout the debate and found within this motion of the troop commitments, the equipment that is required. These are very much consistent with the recommendations of the Manley report. We have already announced our intention to acquire helicopters, both in the broader sense through the commitment in the budget and also to work to obtain UAVs and address the immediate needs on the equipment side.

We are also looking at achieving other objectives, including the emphasis that I mentioned as far as the training. The government will continue to work to get the troops what they need, when they need it. They are the best onces to give us that advice.

Canadian parents, sons and daughters expect that their government will support their loved ones, who are willingly accepting the risk and putting their lives on the line to work with others. We have listened to the Canadian Forces, its leadership and those who use this important equipment to make these determinations. We are committed to getting that equipment to those people who need it most.

Peace, stability and security are achievable in Afghanistan if we continue to work together in this international mission. We believe we can elevate the development, the reconstruction and good governance. These are all realistic goals, but only if we persevere.

I hope my comments have clarified the issue and helped to better explain the government's position.

We must understand the issues related to this mission, which is important to Afghans and to Canadians. We are helping lead the way for the Afghan people, but we are also making a decision about the kind of leadership we want to provide internationally. We are facing some serious challenges in Afghanistan. We can turn our backs and run away, but that does not fit into the Canadian tradition.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this important issue. I am grateful for the attention that Parliament itself and the people of Canada have focused now on the issue of the mission in Afghanistan.

I reiterate that we hope all members will consider support for this motion. Given that capacity, we believe Afghanistan will continue on the path to peace and the people of Afghanistan and the people of Canada will be direct beneficiaries of that united effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, a misunderstanding is being perpetrated in the House, and I believe intentionally, by some members about NATO being military only. Would the minister like to comment on some of the other areas that NATO operates in and some other capabilities it brings to a mission like Afghanistan that are more than simply military operations?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very insightful question and I commend my colleague from Edmonton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. He has a lifelong understanding of the military and, in particular, has participated in NATO exercises.

NATO, a 26 member organization, with participation in Afghanistan of other non-NATO countries, is focusing on many aspects above and beyond simply the military one. Clearly it is enabling much of the development that is happening in the country. Much of the reconstruction and humanitarian aid work is happening only because of the efforts of NATO.

The construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, the provision of humanitarian aid, the provision of the enablers that allow for the transportation of injured individuals, medical treatment for Afghans, vaccinations, education, commerce, all of that is very much attributable to the work that Afghanistan people are now able to enjoy because of the NATO contribution. NATO is not solely involved in the mission in Afghanistan. It is doing similar work around the world.

It is important, as the member has pointed out, to state, again, emphatically that NATO, just as the Canadian mission, is focused on far more than the provision of security. It goes well beyond that. However, clearly there is an inextricable connection between the elevated security and the elevated aid work and contributions that are made through other agencies.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the independent advisory panel on the Afghan mission, which was chaired by my colleague, John Manley, recommended that the mission not be extended unless 1,000 new NATO troops were put into the mix. There were some equipment requirements as well, that should be a contingent factor.

First, do you know where the 1,000 troops came from, what is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sure the hon. member does not expect me to know. Perhaps he could ask whether the minister knows rather than addressing the Chair.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister would know from where the figure of 1,000 additional troops came? I agree it should be a requirement to have that rotation before Canada would extend beyond 2009. However, I have also heard some reports from military experts who say that the influx of troops should be more in the order of 5,000 to 10,000 troops into the Kandahar region.

Could he comment on the 1,000? I know the government has endorsed that panel's report, but will the 1,000 be adequate to do the job?

Second, could he comment on where the discussions are with NATO with respect to NATO coming up with the called for additional troops and the equipment?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would say in advance that we appreciate the support of the member opposite and his party. Perhaps the biggest contribution the Liberal Party made to this debate was the work that was done by former deputy prime minister John Manley.

He and the panel were the source of this 1,000 troops. I presume, and I have had discussions with Mr. Manley on the subject, that the 1,000 troops is a recommendation that they received from their consultations, extensive as they were, with NATO and military personnel in theatre and with military personnel in Canada. Clearly we are always going to require more when one looks at the enormity of the challenge, more aid work, more development, more security. Therefore, many commentators will say the number perhaps should be higher.

I point out for the member opposite that we will receive the support of 3,200 marines starting this month in Afghanistan, 2,000 specifically earmarked for Kandahar province. That will be an enormous contribution albeit for a time limited period of seven months. However, I am confident the discussions we are having with NATO are going to yield more soldiers, more contributions to Kandahar province to meet the February 2009 timetable that has been set for the provision of other troops.

I am also very confident that Canada's position is well known. The NATO allies have been approached directly by myself and others repeatedly at international conferences. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just returned from discussions in Brussels. I am confident we will meet those commitments as outlined in this motion.

Again, I thank the member for his contributions to this debate.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Defence, in articulating the case for the motion before the House and also recounting for us some of the contributions that have been made in Afghanistan, certainly by the military but also other agencies.

It is very important that we recall why we are there in the first place, as the Minister of National Defence already eloquently articulated. Post-1989 there was a political vacuum in Afghanistan. As we know, just as physical nature abhors a vacuum, so does a political nature. A vacuum was created because of the preceding 10 years before 1989, from the 1979 historic and the somewhat horrific invasion of the U.S.S.R. and Russian forces into Afghanistan, occupying and maintaining somewhat of a reign of terror in that land for about 10 years.

As a result of the heroic struggle of the Afghan people in resisting that and wearing down the Russian forces, the U.S.S.R. moved out of there in 1989. Unfortunately, then in that particular vacuum, again it was the most vicious and the most powerful groups that would rise to power. They eventually became the organization known as the Taliban. They are ultra extremist fundamentalists who use any tactic and every tactic imaginable of both terror and horror to promote their single-minded agenda. In doing that, the litany of their tragic methods is legend and it is something which, when talked about, horrifies any reasonable human being. They used and still use methods such as training of and sending their suicide bombers into groups. They deliberately target groups of children wherein soldiers hand out candy to them, as has happened in the past.

They go into towns, villages and rural areas and with the most vicious of tactics subdue the local population. They behead elderly women, severe limbs and torture methods. Anything that the human mind could imagine as being horrific has been and continues to where possible be perpetrated by the Taliban.

The cry of the Afghan people was heard. It was heard as far away as the United Nations. It was the United Nations that mandated this mission. Therefore, for those in the House who have concerns and would say that we should immediately leave, and I know the LIberals do not say this but others do, is somewhat in defiance of a UN mandate, that a coalition, principally headed by NATO, to help the people of Afghanistan push back the Taliban to the place where things can be stabilized and the people then can move to develop a democracy that meets their needs and is suitable to them.

I know there was a great excitement over the elections in Afghanistan a few years ago. They were the first ever in their entire history, which goes back as we know many centuries of wartorn history. When people try to diminish the effect of that and how powerful it was, it is good to remember this.

At the time the elections were held in Afghanistan, it was about the time of the 2004 elections in Canada. Under threat in some cases of literally being murdered, people still voted in the elections in Afghanistan. In fact, they turned out in a bigger number percentage wise than Canadians did in our election. In doing so, they elected a higher percentage of women to parliament than we have in Canada. It was a remarkable first step and one that needs to be fortified and supported so they can develop along the lines that will best meet their needs.

We have seen some very positive changes in Afghanistan. While this is talked about a lot, often it is not reported as much as it could be. The GDP continues to rise in that country year to year. They are an impoverished nation but relatively speaking there is improvement there. On the health care side, polio was once rampant in that land. Five million children have been inoculated from polio since our involvement there. Health care centres and schools have been established. It is a long journey, but it has all the signs that the journey is paying off.

I would like to point to two particular agencies under the auspices of public safety that have had some positive effect. One is the RCMP which has 17 officers deployed, principally into the Kandahar area, but also in a few other areas. They have been very effective in working with the Afghan national police. They have developed, along with our NATO partners, a training program. The RCMP have now trained some 615 Afghan national police officers in basic policing and in recognizing the importance of human rights. Some 2,500 uniforms have been delivered to these people.

In different parts of Canada, there has been some sense of wanting to support that. As one example, the volunteer fire department in the community of Langford, British Columbia, has donated over $400,000 worth of equipment to first responders in Kandahar. So some exciting things are happening there.

On the correction side, we hear a lot of concerns related to the Taliban who in battle are captured or arrested in different situations. These terrorists are in jails in Afghanistan. In Kandahar, where we have our corrections officers, there has been great progress in impressing on the minds of the Afghanistan people that all individuals, even criminals, have certain basic rights and certain human rights that need to be respected even when in a corrections system.

Canada, of course, has a great record of exemplifying that within our own system and that is why people from around the world come to Canada to look at how we do corrections here.

We have three corrections officers who worked here in Canada and yet volunteered to go to Afghanistan, into a very dangerous neighbourhood and at some great personal risk, to offer up their advice where possible and offer mentoring programs to the people running the corrections system in Afghanistan.

Some of their accomplishments have included being a part of a group of individuals and a group of countries who have convinced Afghanistan officials and the government to move the whole area of corrections from the department of the interior, which is basically their security side, to the department of justice. That is to put the emphasis on the fact that human rights must be respected and, yes, even when dealing with possible terrorists and criminals, those rights need to be protected. They cannot permit things like torture. They need to allow for the basic needs of individuals.

I can say that the input of our three individuals there has resulted in a number of recommendations that are being followed and implemented, with improvements to the infrastructure in the prisons. A system has been established of reporting, whereby the prisoners are catalogued and their concerns are registered. If there are any concerns related to what is going on in the prison itself, those are logged in and passed on to the Afghan officials, where it should be passed on, to deal with and to monitor. Therefore, we can see that there is considerable progress that has been made, even in the corrections system.

I want to acknowledge the work of the RCMP and our corrections officers in both being diligent and, I might add, somewhat courageous in ensuring that the situation in Afghanistan continues to improve.

I would ask people, certainly in the House, but even across the country to realize that these types of changes do not happen overnight. If we look at history in the second world war, for instance, with Japan, it was a good number of years that allied forces stayed in Japan after its surrender before things were established. Japan was a country that already had a history of democracy and internally did not have a ravaging force like the Taliban trying to destroy everything that was being accomplished.

Post-war Germany took many years. Allied forces stayed in that country many years to see things stabilized. Again, that country already had a history of democracy and was not dealing internally with any significant force from within that was trying to destroy everything that was good and right from a human point of view.

Those are examples of two countries where allied forces spent many years stabilizing and now they are among the most productive and most robust democratic countries in the world today.

We need to allow time for things to happen. We need to continue to hear the cry of the Afghan people, as Canadians have heard the cries from other peoples in the past in our own development. I look for the support of this motion from all members in the House.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Safety.

Something puzzles me somewhat. With all the controversy about the detainees in Afghanistan being turned over to the Afghani or U.S. authorities and concerns about them being in conditions that most people would think are not terribly favourable, such as being tortured or whatever, I wonder if the Government of Canada has ever looked at the feasibility of putting up its own correctional facility in Afghanistan.

Normally I would not ask that question because I had assumed it would be an enormous cost, but there was an article in some newspaper that had gone to a website and extracted information showing that a very suitable and appropriate correctional facility or holding tank could be constructed by the Canadian government in Afghanistan at a very low cost.

I do not know if it is feasible but with all the controversy and concern by Canadians and the international community about the way that prisoners in Afghanistan could be treated once they are handed over by Canadian military people to the Afghani authorities, the Americans or others, I wonder if the minister has looked at the feasibility of that particular alternative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not question the intent of the inquiry from my hon. friend but we should keep in mind a couple of things.

First, in the preface to his question, I believe he made the suggestion that at times we hand over suspected terrorists to the American authorities but, of course, we do not do that. I just wanted to clarify that. I do not think he meant that but I wanted to clarify that for the record.

Second, it is not our policy to be building Canadian jails or taking responsibility for Canadian detention centres in Afghanistan. In fact, that is something the Afghanis need to do themselves as it is a matter of their own sovereignty.

If we were to do that, I am sure we would be quickly categorized as the Americans have been with its facility in Guantanamo Bay. I can imagine the type of pressure and critique we would be under if we were to do something like that. We are there to assist the people of Afghanistan, its administration and security forces to know and understand what it is to build an effective corrections capability.

Sometimes when we use the word “detainee”, it almost has a benign sound to it. These are not people being accused of jaywalking. These are people who are, in many cases, being accused of the most outrageous atrocities against fellow human beings. It is a very tenuous situation and one in which the Afghan people, as I indicated in my remarks earlier, are already showing an increased capacity, in a humane and effective way, to hold these individuals until they can be brought to justice.