Debates of March 11th, 2008

Afghanistan

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about trust for just a minute and get my colleague's thoughts on that.

Trust is hard won and easily lost. One of the things that Canada has regained after a few years of losing it in the last few years is in fact trust, trust among our allies, trust in the international community, and trust in a perverse way from our enemies who know they can trust us to do the right thing, to their detriment but that is okay.

We talk about responsibility to protect. That was a phrase coined at the United Nations by a former prime minister and those are great words, but people have to be able to trust us to put those words into action.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments on what would happen to the trust that Canada is currently held in if we simply up and walk away from the mission in Afghanistan and abandon the Afghan people at this point?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is an important one. It really leads to why we are in Afghanistan. As a nation we have been there as defenders of other people around the world.

More recently, we were in the Balkans and I think our people built a tremendous reputation there as an organization, as a country, and as a military presence that is worthy and trustful.

I think that it is the same scenario in Afghanistan. The rest of the world knows that Canada is there. We are there for the good of the people. We are not there for the short haul. It is an important part of why we are in Afghanistan.

We have talked about 9/11 in the United States. That did not just affect Americans. That also affected Canadians. There were a number of Canadians in those twin towers on that eventful day. We should not lose sight of why we are in Afghanistan.

There is no question that it is for the good of the people of Afghanistan to help them rebuild, to get their women and children back to schools, and to give them the opportunities to grow, but it is also for the good of Canadians.

As I indicated earlier, if we do not fight them there, we will end up fighting them on our own soil. I think our military has obviously given us that trust around the world and people can rely on us.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion on behalf of the great people of Cambridge and North Dumfries. It is a motion that represents an effort to achieve a bipartisan consensus in this House on the future of the mission in Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that our presence in Afghanistan is not only an obligation but it is our duty as part of an international effort requested by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.

Alongside our international partners and as part of a UN mandated and NATO-led mission, we are doing our part to create a safer environment, an environment where development and reconstruction can take place. Through our efforts, we can help Afghans build the foundations for stability and lasting peace.

This motion supports a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009 into July 2011. This motion has been created in an effort to bridge the gap between the Conservative and the Liberal parties, the two key parties in this House. It represents leadership by the government in finding common ground that both sides can support.

By carefully examining the Liberal Party's position, our current government has been able to meet almost 95% of the opposition's concerns. In this willingness to negotiate and to work together, this motion has become a paramount achievement. It is not a Liberal or a Conservative motion. It is not a Liberal or a Conservative decision. It is a decision made by the vast majority of representatives elected by the Canadian people. It is a tough decision by courageous people.

This motion stipulates an end date and is conditional that NATO provide 1,000 extra troops and some additional equipment to support our troops in Afghanistan.

By extending the mission we are able to enhance our focus and build on our reconstruction efforts and training, both of which are completely necessary for the rebuilding of this war-torn nation.

In order to fully understand our presence in Afghanistan and appreciate the incredible work our troops are doing in this nation, it is important to understand the reasons why we are there in the first place.

I am not simply referring to our international obligations that I previously spoke of, but I am referring to the countless benefits that the Afghan society will inherit due to our participation.

By continuing our mission we assist in helping Afghanistan with its infrastructure, community development, economy, and the health and educational sectors so needed by these citizens yet denied by the Taliban.

Furthermore, we will and have already assisted in the establishment of elections, its democratic legislature, the justice system, the Afghan national police, the country's freedom of expression, gender equality, human rights, the right to simply be educated, and to dream and feel safe at night.

Lastly, we must assist in the most important factor of all, one that is necessary for any nation's development, and that is security.

By continuing our efforts in Afghanistan, we are able to help train the Afghan national army and assist in landmine clearance and disarmament programs.

Our efforts in these three key areas of development, governance and security are guided by the Afghanistan Compact, which is a five year blueprint for coordinating the work of the Afghan government and employs 60 international partners in doing so.

We are making important investments in the future of that country. Our commitments are already delivering remarkable results. We support projects that strengthen democratic development and assist in building public institutions. Reliable community-based policing systems, building the capacity of the judicial system, and a corrections system that meets international standards are key components to rebuilding the legitimacy of the Afghan government.

Our troops are relying on us to continue making this effort a reality, but what is more, the Afghan people are relying on the international community to help rebuild both their lives and their country. Because of our efforts, more than six million children are now in school, one-third of them girls. That compares to only 700,000 and only male children in 2001.

As we know, education is the essential component of a successful future for any nation. Canada directly supports 4,000 community based schools and the training of 9,000 teachers. This progress is invaluable, it is undeniable, and it is historically Canadian.

Because of our assistance, the country's per capita income doubled between 2004 and 2007.

Canada remains the top microfinance program donor, allowing over 418,000 people to access small loans and savings in 23 provinces, including Kandahar. Microfinancing is essential for people to access funds to create new businesses, from grocery stores to hairdressing salons and so on.

We are not just saving lives in Afghanistan. We are literally creating livelihoods for those people every day.

Through our national solidarity program, more than 19,000 community development councils have been established. More than 33,000 local infrastructure projects have been approved nationwide. Almost 6,000 kilometres of roads are being built or rebuilt. Our financial and physical assistance is tying the provinces of Afghanistan together, which will create a stronger society and economy going forward.

In harmony with rebuilding education and infrastructure, Canada is rebuilding the health of this new nation.

In 2004, 91% of Afghans did not have any medical care. Today, through our support, 83% have access to medical facilities and personal care. Infant mortality is down by 22% and 4,000 new medical facilities have opened. This is remarkable. As well, tuberculosis is on a rapid decline. We are winning on all fronts.

However, the improvements do not stop there. Along with developing stronger, healthier environments for civilians, Canada has assisted and continues to assist in the rebuilding of governing bodies.

Because of funding from countries such as Canada, more than 10 million Afghans are now registered to vote in free and fair elections. Thirty parliamentary commissions have been established. Three hundred members of parliament have been trained. Prosecutors, public defenders and over 200 judges have been trained to increase their knowledge of law, order and procedure.

Along with stabilizing the courts, Canada has assisted in the training of civilian police, military police and national police.

We are currently directly supporting the coordination and mentoring of training of soldiers in the Afghan national training centre in Kabul. Over 35,000 graduates have come out of that centre and have assisted in the disarming of former combatants to the tune of 85,000 light weapons and 16,000 heavy weapons. These weapons can no longer be used to create harm.

Judging from our recent work, Canada has been a paramount and positive force within the country of Afghanistan, and we must continue.

In my final seconds, I want to take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt thanks to all those who have served our country in the armed forces, many from my own riding, and to their families. I want to thank all the soldiers who have ensured that the people of Afghanistan will enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy as Canadians.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cambridge for his passionate speech. As I look around tonight, I see that a number of young people have joined us in the gallery. The member for Cambridge talked about these young people being incredibly impacted by this discussion and by the decision that will happen tomorrow or Thursday night, when there is a vote on this motion. I believe that these young people realize that in the great country of Canada, in the democracy we have, they have freedom, education and hope, and they can have vision.

Could the member for Cambridge express how important that is to the success of a nation and to the building of families? How important is it for the people and parents in Afghanistan to have that same opportunity for their families, although likely in a smaller way, that we share with our families in Canada?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very intelligent and in depth question. The fact remains that we are very fortunate in Canada. We sometimes take for granted the freedoms that we have, but freedom is not free. Freedom does not come by way of a gift.

In many countries around the world, there are evil folks who want to take away these kinds of rights. They are obsessed with oppressing people. The best way to oppress a nation is to withhold some of the basic services, including food, to destroy the roads and telephone system so that there is no communication, and to make sure that people are not educated, for heaven's sake, so that they do not get to the point where they understand that life could be better.

We have a nation that was built on the backs of brave men and women. We are so fortunate in Canada to be able to go to school, to watch television when we want to, to make phone calls to whomever we want, and to come and go as we please. This is not the case in Afghanistan.

Young women in Afghanistan can have their fingers cut off for wearing nail polish. I heard a story about a young man who chose to go to university here in Canada and was killed by the Taliban because of his desire for education. That oppression against human rights is what that we are fighting to eliminate. We want to provide the Afghan people with some semblance of freedom so they can enjoy what we enjoy and move forward in making the entire world a more peaceful place.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues from the Conservative Party across the aisle invoked the word “trust” and stated that Canadians were trusted in Afghanistan. That is quite important. There is no doubt that most Afghans, although not all, would trust the intentions of Canadians. However, there is another component to this trust. That is whether or not they trust us in our capacity to change the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

The member for Cambridge talked of children being able to sleep at night without having to worry. He put it in a very visual way. The member for Edmonton Centre invoked the terminology of “responsibility to protect”, but responsibility to protect also comes with a responsibility to rebuild.

We see a process of rebuilding taking place in Afghanistan, but it is quite worrisome. We see that the economic situation in Afghanistan is such that for average villagers to be able to provide food for the table, they have had to take part in the drug trade, in growing poppies.

Very specifically, I would like to ask the member for Cambridge this question. Afghanistan quite clearly has now become a narco-state and we--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. If the hon. member is going to ask a question, he should ask it right away.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been news reports that the brother of Hamid Karzai, Mr. Walid Karzai, is one of the biggest poppy growers in Kandahar. What do we intend to do over the next two years to turn that particular situation around?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to continue doing exactly what we are doing: providing hope to the Afghan people and rebuilding roads so they can get proper crops to proper markets.

I thank the hon. member for his support of our budget the other night and his support and confidence in this government, but I will say that one thing we are not going to do is take the member's advice and go and negotiate with the Taliban, which actually can never be trusted.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House and speak to this important debate.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean—Carleton.

The dialogue that our country is having on our role in this international mission in Afghanistan is a very important one. This government is trying to do whatever it can to inform Canadians about this mission so that we can come to the right decision on the future of our involvement in that country.

Before I get into how the government is working to promote this ongoing national discussion, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the many Canadian civilian workers and our Canadian Forces members in Afghanistan. They are serving our country with great courage, dedication and professionalism. I would also like to pay tribute to Canadians from across the country who have shown their support for our troops.

This time, there is a personal side to this for me. My nephew is with the British forces and arrived in the Kandahar area just in the last week. We certainly pray for his safety as well as that of all our forces.

Right now approximately 2,500 Canadian Forces members are serving as part of the United Nations mandated and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force to help bring security to Afghanistan, especially in the south. Their work in increasing the security of that country has made it possible for our diplomats, development workers and civilian police, among others, to make their own significant contribution.

Canada is among the world's top donors to Afghanistan and is an active contributor in areas such as education, health, community development, and training and mentoring for the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police.

Canadians, military and civilian, are making a difference as a key part of an international effort to help rebuild a country that has suffered through decades of war and upheaval. We cannot thank them enough for the difference they are making. We know it is not an easy task.

Our forces are experiencing the most demanding operation since Korea. The mission carries risks and challenges.

The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are making real, tangible progress where it counts in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans. They are doing so in many ways: on patrols that provide security and in provincial reconstruction teams that facilitate development.

Their contributions are helping to rebuild Afghanistan every day, one piece at a time. They have my full support and, I trust, that of every member of the House.

I would like to speak of Canadians, who have demonstrated incredible support for our troops over the past few years. Their outpouring has been incredible. I would like to recognize it here tonight.

Without the support of Canadians, the progress made by our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan would not have been possible. There has been support from people from across the country, from individual Canadians, businesses and associations. In every corner of Canada, people are taking time away from their own lives to show our troops that they and their work are valued.

I think we need to commend all of these people who have made such wonderful heartfelt gestures of appreciation to our troops, not because they had to, but because they felt deep in their hearts that they needed and wanted to give something back to our men and women in uniform.

Some of those examples I am talking about include the red Friday rallies that happen from coast to coast. People from across the country are wearing red in support of our troops on Fridays. I have a red T-shirt that was given to me by a family member from Markdale, in my riding, which I wear every Friday. To be honest, I wear it at other times as well. It makes us think about our troops over there.

I am talking about the daily messages posted on the “write to our troops” website of the Department of National Defence.

I am talking about quilting associations across the country making quilts for injured Canadian Forces personnel or for the families of the fallen.

As well, we have seen people gathering spontaneously on the overpasses of Highway 401 to salute fallen soldiers along what has been renamed the Highway of Heroes.

I am thinking, too, of businesses and employers taking the initiative to show their support. I am thinking of employers who support the reservists who work for them and ensure that they have jobs when they get back from service.

There is also the support coming from the sporting world. Our Canadian troops have been honoured at NHL games and were an important part of Grey Cup festivities last fall.

There are also things like the great many warm gestures over the holidays, such as letters, gifts, packages and email messages sent to our troops in Afghanistan.

Canadians of all ages, all religions and all professions know that the holidays are often a tough time of the year for our troops overseas and, of their own accord, took time from their families and all the things that make the holiday season special. They went out of their way to show our troops in Afghanistan that we remember them, that we care about them and that we appreciate all that they do.

It is initiatives like the one made by the Canadian Christmas Tree Growers Association last holiday season. It donated more than 2,000 Christmas trees to the families of Canadian Forces members serving their country overseas. It is year in and year out efforts by the massive number of volunteers across this country who organize events and initiatives for family members of Canadian Forces personnel. I recently attended one of those myself, the third or fourth one.

These dedicated volunteers are a small army in and of themselves. Canadians make all of these efforts because they want to express their support directly to the troops. Such expressions of support mean a great deal to the men and women of the Canadian Forces as they help Afghans secure and stabilize their country.

In many ways, such heartfelt gestures fuel their work. It comforts them when the going gets tough. It reminds them that Canadians from the east coast to the west coast and in the north support their work.

One of the core responsibilities of any government is to foster debate on the important issues facing our country. When a matter of national importance must be decided, the Canadian public and its elected representatives must have the information they need to draw their own conclusions.

This government is absolutely committed to that principle. Canadians expect and deserve nothing less, especially as the end of Canada's current military mandate in Afghanistan, scheduled for February 2009, approaches. That is why this government took the responsible course of action and our Prime Minister struck the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, headed by former deputy prime minister, John Manley.

This panel was asked to explore options for Canada's mission in Afghanistan following the end of the current mandate. That non-partisan panel drew on the independent voices of five eminent Canadians with extensive foreign policy expertise and commitment to public service. It heard informed opinions on Afghanistan from across the spectrum: regional experts, development workers, academics and non-governmental organizations. Some were voices of support and some were not.

The panel members travelled to Afghanistan and saw for themselves the work being done on the ground. The panel provided a thorough report that assessed what had been done and that pointed a way forward. It confirmed that Canada's effort in this international response to Afghanistan is important and should continue.

It said that notable progress had been made and it listed the very real challenges to be overcome for us to see further success in this mission, along with presenting some well-thought out recommendations aimed at ensuring further progress. This government listened. We welcomed the panel's report and we responded to its recommendations.

Among other things, the government immediately created a cabinet committee on Afghanistan and created an Afghanistan task force within the Privy Council Office. Both of these measures are designed to improve the coordination required for us to increase our effectiveness in Afghanistan.

We are increasing our technical briefings to the media on Afghanistan. There have been 15 technical briefings since Canada first deployed troops there in February 2002, 14 of which have taken place under this government.

Of course we, in partnership with our Liberal colleagues across the floor, also responded to the Manley panel report by bringing forward a motion to the House that would extend Canada's commitment to the United Nations' mandated mission in Afghanistan until 2011 but not without important conditions and, importantly, we have worked with the opposition on this motion. Our mission in Afghanistan is neither a Liberal nor a Conservative mission. It is a Canadian mission.

In closing, I would like to indicate my support for the mission there and the government's efforts in this regard.

For my nephew, Lane, who has just arrived in Afghanistan, I wish him have a safe trip home.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for some very pertinent insights into what we are doing in Afghanistan, why we are there and the outreach that the Prime Minister had across the political landscape to solicit and obtain the support we need in order to continue the job we are doing in Afghanistan.

I will preface my question for my hon. friend by saying that I have the tremendous honour and privilege of representing the good people of Northumberland—Quinte West, in which we have CFB Trenton. As we know, CFB Trenton is the hub of Canada's air force and it is from there that almost all of our aid, equipment and men and women depart for that theatre.

When the member was discussing the men and women who are in Afghanistan and the need to ensure that they have the best possible uniforms, equipment and support, many people in Canada believe that the purchase of these goods and equipment, especially aircraft and other items, in particular the C-17 Globemaster, the replacement to the Hercules, that it has to do specifically with Afghanistan.

Although it is an assist there, could the member talk about the Canada first policy and the fact that this equipment was purchased because of its great use in Canada? I wonder if he could explain, not only the benefit that equipment has for Afghanistan, but the other benefits that the Canada first policy has toward Canada's sovereignty.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the refurbishing of, not just our armed forces, but the equipment they use, after years of being starved, which I guess is a good word and one of many that I could use to describe it, of resources to do the job.

Anybody with the right training and the right tools can accomplish just about anything. Canadians, especially Canadian troops, have proved that better than anybody over the course of time. Their record in the two great wars, in Korea and now again here, plus all their peacekeeping missions in-between have proved that. They were gutted to the point where they hardly had anything left to work with. We have given that back to them.

We have northern security in Canada. We must protect our sovereignty in the north because it is a part of Canada. That does not mean that we cannot have agreements with countries around the world to traverse through there, but at the end of the day it remains Canada's north.

We have our DART from Kingston that can help out in disasters around the world. The tsunami was an instance where it was certainly used, and in many other cases around the world. We also provide clean water equipment in devastated villages, whether it be war-torn or natural disasters. Canada's record for providing humanitarian aid worldwide is second to none.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite incorrectly, one of the previous speakers made a suggestion that I said that we negotiate with the Taliban. I would like to point out that President Karzai, at a number of press conferences, has made that very suggestion.

I have a question for the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. President Karzai has suggested several times that we negotiate with the Taliban. Under what conditions would he agree with Mr. Karzai's statements?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sovereignty was the word that was floating around here a few minutes ago. We can have all kinds of debate out in the poppy fields or wherever but at the end of the day, every country has the right to sovereign decisions and that is an Afghan decision.

Canada has many of those same decisions and we do not want any other country telling us how to make our decisions, whether it be on the Arctic, on the coast or on anything in-between.

That is not to say that there are not things we could maybe help the Afghan government try to eradicate. It is a problem and maybe it can be turned into a positive in some ways through the medical aspect of opium, but at the end of the day it needs to be done through the cooperation and the decision by and with the Afghan government.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the global threat of terrorism with which our nation and many others are menaced.

Many believe that this global threat of terrorism that we watch often on the evening news, playing itself out in faraway lands, is not our problem but rather somebody else's problem. These people who take this view argue that the terrorists of the world are either responding to provocation or are engaged in faraway conflicts that are of no concern to Canada.

They also argue that if we shrink ourselves into a cocoon and we make ourselves small and unnoticed, perhaps this menace will not entertain itself upon us. Maybe there is a burglar in the house but if we hide under the bed they will not bother us. Recent history, however, does not support this narrative.

Let us consider the kinds of terrorist attacks that have carried themselves out over the last five years around the world and learn why it is so important for us never to allow Afghanistan to once again become a staging ground for this sort of terrorism.

Before I do list the number of attacks and the geography of those attacks, I would like to point out that the terrorists who carry them out are not concerned with race or religion, or with foreign policy of the target nations upon which they are carrying out these attacks. They are totally indiscriminate and they are capable of attacking anywhere, at any time.

They attack Muslims in Istanbul, Turkey. They attack Arabs in Tarabin, Taba and Sharm El-Sheikh, all in Egypt. They attack Europeans in Madrid, Spain and British in London. They have tormented and murdered countless Israelis over long periods of time of our democratic ally in the Middle East, and, of course, they killed 24 Canadians on 9/11 in attacks on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and a downed plane over the United States.

We learned on that day, on 9/11, that if we do not go to Afghanistan, Afghanistan will come to us, and, thus, we are there today carrying out a UN-mandated mission, executed by NATO, part of roughly a three dozen-member coalition designed to defend and stabilize a democratically elected government at the request of that government.

The importance of carrying this effort to its ultimate conclusion cannot be overstated. If we leave now or before the job is done, the Taliban will surely capture ground. In the key battleground, that is, the southern province of Kandahar, that would allow a base of operations to form, which could then spread to other vulnerable provinces, like the neighbouring Helmand province, and eventually push its way north, recapture Afghanistan and turn it into the tyrannical, theocratic dungeon that it was before we arrived.

If that were to occur, we would once again have an entire nation controlled by those who seek our demise. This is a group that will attack anywhere or anytime, regardless of race, religion or foreign policy, and, as I have noted earlier, we are therefore subject to this menace, just as is every other free nation on the planet Earth.

Many of my colleagues have talked at great length about the projects that we are undertaking to provide basic necessities in Afghanistan in order to elaborate upon the social, physical and other forms of infrastructure already been built. I will not spend additional time on this because I believe it has been adequately covered. However, to expand education, to build roads and build accessibility to clean water, none of those good works will be possible if the workers, who are undertaking such works, are threatened on a regular basis by terrorists and extremists: thus the important and even quintessential role of our troops.

Our troops have shown, with great bravery, the sacrifices with which they are willing to give their lives and to turn over their efforts to secure the hard won gains that have been built up over this time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is also making note of the important work of our troops. I know he takes very seriously the work of our troops. That is why he is participating in the debate today.

On behalf of all my constituents in Nepean—Carleton, I want to say how grateful I am for the sacrifices of our soldiers and the lengths to which they are prepared to go to advance Canadian interest and defend Canadian security.

In this place we oftentimes honour those who have sacrificed before us. On Remembrance Day all of us attend 10 sometimes 15 different events in our communities to celebrate the role of past armed forces service people. A Liberal member is nodding in agreement that all of us hold these people in the highest esteem. We have carved on the stone wall outside of this room biblical inscriptions honouring those who gave their lives for their friends. It is the highest statement of loyalty to one's country. That is how we look back upon our grandparents and great grandparents.

What will our grandchildren and great grandchildren say of us? They will open their history books when they go to school. They will read of Canada's historic role, Vimy Ridge and Passiondale, in helping to advance the allied cause in the first world war. They will learn of our historic role in defeating Nazism, Fascism during the second world way and pushing back the tide of evil communism in Korea. They will read of the role of the government in the eighties in overturning the apartheid system of South Africa. They will learn all of these great stories of Canadian contributions all around the world.

Then they will get to our point in history, here in 2008. They will ask themselves and perhaps, even more important, they will ask us. They will say: “Your ancestors carried a great torch and they handed that torch to you. What did you do that was so great in your time? Did you shrink from the challenge when the going got tough or did you stand strong for the values that made Canada what it is? Did you stand by your convictions and sacrifice the most in order to achieve the best for the world and for the security of future Canadians?”

I want to be able to tell them that we stood strong, that we did the Canadian thing and that we saw through the mission that we set out to achieve. God bless Canada.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member invoked the tremendous sacrifice of generations past and the ultimate sacrifice that Canadians have paid during this Afghanistan mission, this Afghanistan war. We have offered up probably what is best in our country. Many do lose life and many others do lose limb.

We know from the statistics of the returning soldiers, the young men and women who have lost limb or been physically wounded, that most are tremendously well taken care of. Approximately 85% believe they have receive the care that they require.

However, there are many more so-called walking wounded. Canadians would be shocked and surprised upon hearing that 37% of all returning soldiers have been diagnosed with some sort of mental health issue: substance abuse, deep depressions and post-traumatic stress disorder. What is especially disturbing, 75% have said that they have not received the care they need.

When talking of the great sacrifices that these young men and women are making and will continuing to be making over the next two years, what can the member opposite tell us in regard to the government's approach to dealing with this issue?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has taken interest in this subject on the public accounts committee. More broadly, I would like to thank his party for its role in supporting this motion. This has been a truly Canadian exercise in consensus building, led by the Prime Minister but in cooperation with many others.

I note it was his party which led our country during the second world war. Ours led it during the first world war. Today we are uniting in a spirit of non-partisanship in order to see our way through this mission as well.

As the member has noted in the public accounts committee, our military leadership has already begun the process of hiring more counsellors and psychological experts to provide those soldiers, who come back suffering from post-traumatic stress, with the very best treatment that can possibly be summoned to put them on the road to recovery from some of the terrible things they would have seen and experienced in Afghanistan.

This is an important issue. We will have new veterans. Our legion halls will be populated with young men and women, which is a good thing. However, this brings a whole series of new challenges for Canada and responsibilities for legislators, like those here today, to ensure that those new veterans are given the very best care, both physically, psychologically and any other way they most need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague who, as a young man, shows tremendous insight. In his last statement he has said that we have embarked upon a mission like others that will produce a whole new generation of veterans within the country. The member opposite, who made the previous point, also touches upon the fact that it is incumbent upon the government and a grateful nation to demonstrate the type of support those men and women will require upon their return.

The member would know, and the previous government recognized this as do we, that this requires investment. Close to $100 million are specifically dedicated to the issue of support upon return. This is the stresses and strains that require specific psychological treatment. Operational stress disorder requires a very special approach. We are seeing that in places like Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax and others across the nation. It requires a whole team of counsellors, psychologists and occupational stress therapists. There are many strides and new innovative ways to help treat that type of trauma.

I am proud to say that this government and the previous government invested. We have doubled the number of individuals in our country and those in theatre who are embarking upon that very important support. The system is growing and will continue to grow with the support of this government and hopefully members opposite.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's name will go down in history as the defence minister who helped build this great Canadian consensus at such a pivotal time in the history of Canada. There is a grateful nation out there for his work, but even more so, and I think he would agree, for the soldiers who will come back, having served on the front lines of this great challenge. I agree with him that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having this evening is a solemn one and an important one.

As CTV News reported just a few hours ago that Jeremie Ouellet, 22 years old, with the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, based in Shilo, Manitoba, died in Afghanistan. He is now the 80th member of our military personnel to die in Afghanistan since 2002. I express the condolences of the entire House of Commons to his family.

This underlines very clearly the debate we are having here tonight.

Members of the Canadian Forces are incredibly dedicated and believe profoundly in our democracy. They will do what the House of Commons directs them to do, even at the cost of their lives. This debate about the future of our mission in Afghanistan is a profoundly important one. Canadian Forces personnel will follow the orders that are provided by our democratically elected government.

This is much more than a philosophical debate. The debate and the decision that is made by the House of Commons following it will have profound implications on the future of Afghanistan and on the future of our Canadian Forces.

The NDP has offered an amendment to the government's motion, which is supported by the Liberal Party. It calls upon the government:

—to begin preparations for the safe withdrawal of Canadian soldiers from the combat mission in Afghanistan with no further mission extensions;

that, in the opinion of the House, the government should engage in a robust diplomatic process to prepare the groundwork for a political solution...

The motion also states, among other things:

that, in the opinion of the House, the government should provide effective and transparent development assistance under civilian direction consistent with the Afghanistan Compact.

In the 20 minutes I have been granted in the House tonight, I intend to respond to three questions that I believe we should all be looking at as members of the House of Commons. First, is the mission in Afghanistan working? Second, if it is not working, why is it not working? Third, what should we be doing in Afghanistan?

I will start with the first question because it is of fundamental importance as we debate in the House tonight, and mourn the death of the 80th member of the Canadian Forces. We must evaluate how the mission has gone so far and whether the mission is working with the objectives that were set originally.

A graph was done by the Globe and Mail last weekend on the issue of the military mission in Afghanistan. It showed that back in 2003, there were five Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan and about 500 serious security incidents across the country. In 2005 the number of Canadian casualties had gone from 5 to 10 and the number of security incidents from 500 to nearly 2,000. In 2006 the total security incidents had risen to over 5,000 from 500 just 3 years before and the total number of Canadian casualties was 300. In 2007 the total number of security incidents went from 5,000 to nearly 7,000 and the Canadian casualties had grown to 412.

What is projected in 2008 is a substantial increase again in the number of security incidents. One can presume as well, given the rapid escalation from five Canadian casualties to ten, to three hundred to four hundred and twelve, that the number of Canadian Forces casualties, under our direction with a democratically elected government, will increase as well.

One has to ask if the mission is working when one sees the steady increase in the number of security incidents, but also the dramatic increase in the number of Canadian casualties.

Let us look at some of the other evaluations that have been done on the same issue. The United Nations had an assessment in the fall of 2007. It indicated that the rates of insurgent and terrorist violence are at least 20% higher than they were in 2006. Christian Aid in late 2006 indicated that famine and drought are driving people to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The British House of Commons defence committee warned in July 2007 that civilian casualties, war damage and U.S. poppy eradication are turning ordinary people toward the Taliban.

There are other evaluations. The drug trade is thriving, up 60% this year. More than one million Afghans are addicted to drugs, of which 60,000 are children. Violence against women is growing. Fifty per cent of women face domestic violence. Authorities rarely investigate complaints of violence against women.

There are other quotes evaluating whether this mission is working. Major General Andrew Leslie said in the summer of 2005, “Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you”.

Leo Docherty, British aide-de-camp, in The Telegraph indicated that “Afghanistan is a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency”. He went on to say, “all we are doing is surviving. It's completely barking mad. It's a pretty clear equation if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I know I would. We've been grotesquely clumsy”.

Colonel Michel Drapeau in July 2007 said, “I don't think Canada is winning the war”, and “This war is not winnable”.

The evidence from reports, from quotations from those who would know this situation best and from what is actually happening on the ground clearly indicate that the mission is not working. That is undeniable.

I have listened attentively to the Conservatives who have spoken this evening. They seem to indicate, though they cannot prove, aside from some anecdotal evidence, that the mission is working. Their intent is to say that essentially more of the same will produce different results.

It is foolhardy to think that more of the same somehow will lead to a different result than what we have seen over the last five years. What we have seen in the last five years is clearly an increase in security concerns, an increase in the types of conditions, whether it is famine or poverty, that lead to the insecurity that one finds in Afghanistan.

The next question I would like to ask is, why is it not working? If the mission is not working, if the preponderance of the evidence is that very clearly, aside from anecdotal evidence that the Conservatives will provide, but on the basis of fact that very clearly the mission is not working, why is it not working?

I would like to answer that in part by citing Malalai Joya, the youngest member elected to the Afghani parliament and what she said in the Independent newspaper on January 31, 2008 about the situation in Afghanistan. She should know this best being a member of the Afghani parliament, although I will come back to her treatment by the warlords in the parliament of Afghanistan. She said the following:

After six years in control, this government has proved itself to be as bad as the Taliban — in fact, it is little more than a photocopy of the Taliban. The situation in Afghanistan is getting progressively worse — and not just for women, but for all Afghans.

She went on to say:

The government was not democratically elected, and it is now trying to use the country's Islamic law as a tool with which to limit women's rights.

In 2007 more women killed themselves in Afghanistan than ever before--

I will repeat that:

In 2007 more women killed themselves in Afghanistan than ever before--that shows that the situation hasn't got any better. The murder of women in Afghanistan is like the killing of birds, because this government is anti-women. Women are vulnerable--recently a 22-year-old woman was raped in front of her children by 15 local commanders of a fundamentalist party, closely connected to the government.

I utterly condemn this undemocratic act of those in power against Sayed Pervez Kambaksh. This situation has exposed the corruption of the government, which is inherently undemocratic, which does not believe in women's rights and which is willing to go to extreme lengths to prevent freedom of speech. Mr. Kambaksh has not broken any law, but he is a “real” journalist, one who is not afraid to write articles exposing the corruption of the fundamentalists in power. This has been a bloody year for journalists in Afghanistan, and they are now in a lot of danger.

The country's parliament is like a zoo, it is corrupt and chaotic. It is run by warlords who should be tried for their crimes. As the people running our country were not democratically elected, it should be no surprise that they are imposing these undemocratic sentences.

There are countless examples of human rights abuses--from rapes to imprisonments and killings. I want to raise international awareness of these issues but I have been forced to stay in Kabul after my passport was seized by the government.

Speaking out on this and other issues, she was suspended from the country's parliament. In an article that was written just last week, she talked about the situation of poverty, death, cold and famine taking place in Afghanistan. She said, “The situation continues because of the billions of dollars that Afghanistan has received from the international community. Most of the money has gone into the pockets of the warlords and drug lords that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on our country”.

I think there are very clear indications why the mission is failing when there is a government that essentially is not acting in the interests of the citizens of Afghanistan.

I will go on to raise another issue why this mission is failing. An article in The Vancouver Sun last weekend talked about the largest humanitarian aid operation undertaken since the Taliban was removed from power in 2001. This was an aid operation that went to the community of Zhari Dasht in the northern part of Kandahar. There are 50,000 refugees in this camp. Many of the people in this camp are Pashtuns who are unable to return to their homes in other parts of Afghanistan. The article quotes Muhammad Rasal Haidari, who is a Pashtun prevented from returning to his home in northern Afghanistan by warlords from other tribal groups. He is unable to leave the south because of warlords from other groups, groups that are affiliated with the government.

The villages in this region have had no water for crops. There are no jobs of any kind. This largest humanitarian aid operation since the Taliban was removed delivered a sum total for those 50,000 people of a dollar's worth of rice. Those people in that part of Afghanistan have been waiting for seven years and the aid operation that was undertaken by the United States provided a dollar's worth of rice, perhaps 1,200 calories, perhaps half a day's food, to each one of those 50,000 refugees.

I would submit that when the aid actually delivered is that small in nature and when the Pashtuns are unable to leave their region because of warlords, it is understandable that our mission may well not be working.

I will now come to the Oxfam report, “Community Peacebuilding in Afghanistan”, which was issued a few weeks ago.

Oxfam extensively surveyed the Afghani population. The results from Kandahar are particularly interesting, perhaps saddening to all of us in this House. When the Afghanis in Kandahar were asked who the greatest threats to security were, they replied in the following way.

The fourth greatest threat was the Taliban, identified by 18% of those in Kandahar who were questioned. The international forces were identified by 21% as the third greatest threat to security. The second greatest threat to security, as indicated in the Oxfam report, were the warlords, identified by 24%. This has been a constant theme among those who are concerned about the situation in Afghanistan: 24% identified the warlords as the second greatest threat in the province of Kandahar and 29% identified the first greatest threat as the Afghani army, police and the government.

This is a fundamental reason why the mission is not working. When there are those great difficulties with warlords and the Afghani army and police, it is very clear that it is difficult to establish on the ground the type of conditions that the mission originally called for.

We have, as well, our situation of investing more than 90% of Canadian resources in Afghanistan to military means, not to development which is sorely needed according to all of the quotes and reports that we have been citing in this corner of the House. Very clearly, that is where the accent needs to be.

According to a report in La Presse this morning, in the next year we are looking at having spent a total of $7.5 billion in Afghanistan. There have been substantial cost overruns and yet that money is going to military operations when it needs to go toward providing the developmental support that very clearly is needed.

The Guardian newspaper in December 2007 estimated that the amount of money intended for reconstruction that has disappeared into corrupt back pockets is $18 billion a year.

There is the situation. What do we need to do? We need to learn the lessons, I would agree with my Conservative colleagues, of the second world war and the period right afterward. That was a time of the greatest civil strife and terrorism in European history, the period right after the war when the Nazis were defeated. After their military defeat by regular forces, the occupied population produced terrorists who engaged in bombings, sniper attacks, poisonings, other attacks on occupation forces and the civilian population. They operated as regulars in small terror units armed with automatic weapons and bazookas.

Faced with that terror, what happened was the profound Marshall plan, which actually led to substantial investments never before seen and never seen since. It actually allowed for the development work that changed the economy of Europe and provided the essentials to the population of Europe. The terrorists were there. The economic development and support was put in place.

That has not been the case in Afghanistan. That is what reduced the most substantive terrorist threats of the past 100 years. That is very clearly what needs to be done, a new Marshall plan for Afghanistan.

More than that, we also need to have a substantial peace plan. A report which came out yesterday from the CCIC said very clearly that the Canadian government must:

--advocate for peace in Afghanistan by encouraging the international community and Afghan government to strengthen conditions for a future peace process and coordinate current efforts for peace. Canada's approach to Afghanistan must also be re-balanced to better support diplomatic efforts and development priorities.

That is exactly what we have called for.

There is no doubt that we have to change our approach in Afghanistan. The mission has not worked. We have identified the reasons why it has not worked and we have pointed the way to a solution in Afghanistan that would produce results.

I would like to end with two quotes that are important. The NATO Secretary General in May 2007 said:

There is no military solution for Afghanistan. Security alone is not enough. [Afghans] also want a job. They want to see reconstruction and development across the country.

Finally, Romano Prodi, the former president of the EU, said:

The military solution in Afghanistan will not succeed in getting a result, the problem must have a political solution.

That is the position of our party. That is what we hope will be the position of this House of Commons.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear the NDP member talk about this mission as failing. We will never build anything if we have NDP logic. Those members nitpick what is not right and what has gone wrong. They never dwell on what has been achieved in Afghanistan and they never talk about it.

When the British defence committee was visiting here, and I met its members, I asked them one question: “Do you have any party in your parliament calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?” I asked them that question and they said no. I asked the Germans and they said no. There was a German NGO here that was a left-leaning NGO with the same ideology as the NDP. She had come here to tell the NDP members not to abandon Afghanistan.

If their international cousins do not want to leave Afghanistan, and want to rebuild Afghanistan to provide security, why are they the only party among all the alliances that are there that is advocating to leave tomorrow? Why are they different from all their own ideology partners from around the world? Perhaps if they were to go and visit Afghanistan, they would join them.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, he is wrong. It is simply not true that these kinds of discussions are not taking place in other parts of the world. The reports and the quotes very clearly indicated that the same discussions are taking place in other democratic venues for the simple reason that people can read the facts.

They can read the facts, they can draw their conclusions, and we need to look at alternatives of how to accomplish the ends that I think all of us seek in Afghanistan.

He cited the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom defence minister said in July 2007, “The solutions to narcotics, security and establishing the rule of law are political, not military”.

I believe he cited the Dutch. Lieutenant Colonel Tak, who is the Dutch commander in Uruzgan said, “Talking to the Taliban is essential”.

I have quoted the president of the European Union and the NATO secretary general as well. I can cite quotations that go exactly in the same direction as what the NDP has proposed for the rest of this evening.

It is simply untrue to say that other countries are not having these same discussions and other countries are not having these same proposals. We are having these discussions and proposals in various parts of the world. That is the reality and that is our goal as democratic legislators, to have that kind of debate.

I hope the evidence I presented convinces the parliamentary secretary to understand that this is not just a debate taking place with the NDP but in various democratic bodies around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments and his remarks. While I fundamentally disagree with much of what he said, and he quoted quite selectively from a number of individuals and statistics that point to what he describes as a failure in Afghanistan, he seems to be overlooking a tremendous amount of mounting evidence of positive progress that is there.

I have to ask him to at least acknowledge the six million children in school, a third of them being girls, the tumbling infant mortality rate, and the increasing GDP. There is enormous statistical evidence that points to the positive change that we have seen in the last six years.

I would point as well to his reference to the casualties as being in some way a benchmark to support his case. While tragedy in each and every instance of loss of life is undeniable, there is a reality that we are now in Kandahar province where the battle or the insurgency is fiercest. So there are some statistics that when glossed over really do not paint a proper picture.

The member quoted from a number of individuals in his remarks.

It is good to see you in the chair this evening and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are following this debate intently. I enjoyed being at a legion in your riding at one time and meeting with some veterans.

Allow me to quote the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who only last month, when posed the question of what would happen if countries were to make an about face or rescind the Security Council resolution which is what empowers nations to in fact be in Afghanistan participating in this international mission, said, “To do so, to leave, would be a misjudgment of historic proportions”.

This is coming from the UN Secretary General, and again, this is often absent from the speeches and the remarks from members of the NDP.

The person I really want to quote is an Afghan and that is Dr. Sima Samar who is the head of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. She has commented of course from I would suggest an important vantage point as the head of that important body in Afghanistan, a body that we work with quite closely, as do our international partners. Her advice was simple on the discussion of what Canadians and others should do. That was “finish the job you started”. She went on to say:

It's not just for protecting Afghanistan, or protecting Canadians. It is about the protection of humanity. This is a human responsibility. It isn't possible to escape this kind of responsibility.

I guess my questions then flowing from that quote are: How can the NDP deny the responsibility that Canadians have, having commenced this important effort, to rebuild this country, to offer humanitarian aid, all provided under the security of the Canadian Forces and the international security forces who are there working with the Afghans themselves, to build that capacity in their own country? How can the member possibly deny the reality that this cannot happen without the protection of Canadian Forces and if those Canadian Forces were to leave, as his party and his leader and he himself is suggesting, what would happen to the humanitarian effort and more importantly, what would happen to the Afghan people, the men, women and children who are protected by those military forces?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for his good words and now the floor belongs to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.