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.