House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was national.

Topics

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, in my discussion I talked about where we are now in terms of where the parties have moved.

I want the general public to understand what has happened here because that kind of knowledge is useful. We have had many speakers speak to the issues in this conflict but I want people to understand the process. I want people to understand the way that the decision making has occurred, which is simply what I have done today.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, when the House is this quiet on this kind of issue I feel like there can almost be an understanding of what peace might be. Every party in the House wants Canada to help Afghanistan achieve a just and lasting peace.

This evening we are deciding whether this peace can happen using a war fighting combat mission ending in 2011. Yesterday I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence suggest that there are members in the House who want to abandon Afghanistan. For the record, I personally believe that Canada should play a role in peace-building in Afghanistan for as long as it takes, even beyond 2011. I also want to say that I am proud of the courage and loyalty to our country displayed by our brave soldiers in carrying out the mission set by Parliament.

However, I find it very difficult to believe that the current mission and the role that the Liberals and Conservatives are asking our Canadian Forces to play is the best path toward a lasting peace, nor am I convinced that this mission has been well thought out with the support that our soldiers need to succeed there.

The fundamental flaw of the mission, I believe, is the absence of a comprehensive strategy of conflict resolution. I will explain a little more what I mean later, but without it I believe we are dooming our troops to a war without end against an enemy that we create more of every day.

We know that DND has overrun its annual budget by $1 billion again, for a total of $3.6 billion in overrun since 2001. Even that amount has not stemmed the violence or the tide of newly recruited insurgents fighting back. In terms of troop numbers, the Manley report calls for 1,000 more troops and the U.S. army general, Dan McNeill, said last June that NATO was about 5,000 troops short.

If this counter-insurgency mission were to follow U.S. policy in troop levels, as it has in other respects, according to its own counter-insurgency manual for missions of Afghanistan's type, we would need some 480,000 troops on the ground.

Rather than commit billions of dollars and 2,500 Canadian troops to a poorly designed mission of war, I have come to believe that it would be preferable to consider a different approach that includes an act of diplomatic process run by the United Nations toward conflict resolution and a sustainable peace.

The resolutions to many modern conflicts over the past couple of decades have come about through a parallel peace process that genuinely addresses the political causes and issues of the conflict and, in doing so, isolates the criminal elements.

I know the government has a rare allergy to research, especially in the social sciences, but I would like to raise something that the Liberal-Conservative alliance has apparently not yet considered, that is, how to resolve conflicts without reliance on absolute military victories. In conflict resolution theory, it is understood that demonizing and dehumanizing an assigned enemy group is directly counterproductive to achieving peace.

In Canada, we have and continue to dismiss the Taliban as criminals and fanatics, without acknowledging the legitimate issues of political exclusion at play. Without a process to incorporate the legitimate political objectives of all sides in a structure of collaborative governance, we cannot claim to ourselves or to those whose hearts and souls we seek to win to be truly seeking peace. Sustainable peace is not possible so long as political exclusion continues and yet we continue to exclude a large segment of Afghan society from the national government.

Recently, the independent journalist and historian, Gwynne Dyer, wrote that the original U.S. mission in Afghanistan threw out all the prominent Pashtun political and religious leaders who had dealings with the Taliban. He continues:

Six years after the invasion that wasn't, the Pashtuns are still largely frozen out. That is why the Taliban are coming back.

Afghanistan...is also a country where the biggest minority has been largely excluded from power by foreign invaders who sided with the smaller minorities, and then blocked the process of accommodation by which the various Afghan ethnic groups normally make power-sharing deals.

The Taliban are still the main political vehicle of the Pashtuns, because there has been no time to build another. It doesn't mean that all Pashtuns are fanatics or terrorists. Indeed, not all the Taliban are fanatics (though many of them are), and hardly any of them nurse the desire to carry out terrorist acts in other countries. That was the specialty of their...Arab guests, who fled across the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan almost six years ago. The current fighting in the south, the Pashtun heartland, which is causing a steady dribble of American, British and Canadian casualties, will continue until the Western countries pull out.

No one knows for sure the political answer for Afghanistan. The problem, however, is that at the moment we are not looking for it. We are stuck with the simplistic answer that turns all the Taliban into the enemy, without acknowledging the legitimate political motivations behind the insurgency.

I am not saying that the path to peace will be easy. There will undoubtedly be broken deals and ceasefires before the criminal element can be identified and isolated. Until there is a political process to address the legitimate political issues, we cannot rightfully identify a group as the enemy of peace without being the enemy of peace ourselves.

In other words, we are told by our government that the Taliban do not compromise, and the Taliban tell their new recruits that we do not compromise. This is how wars continue without resolution, and this is how we are fighting the war in Afghanistan.

The path to peace is a long and challenging one. It is a path that requires patience, restraint, and both physical and emotional courage. However, it is a path that will cost fewer lives and fewer dollars, and most importantly, will truly and sustainably resolve the conflict in the long run.

It is for this reason that I have long opposed the current counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan and I have argued for a new approach. As columnist James Travers recently wrote:

Talking to the enemy isn't sleeping with the enemy...By demonizing enemies and diminishing their importance to local solutions, the Prime Minister gravitated to the wrong side of potentially positive trends...But talking is a prelude to peace and peace is made between enemies--

What the NDP is asking for is a UN-led, rather than a NATO-led, process. Unlike NATO, the UN's explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security. UN agencies, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme and the Peacebuilding Commission, tasked with carrying out this mandate, have a vital role to play in meeting the challenges in Afghanistan.

We believe that Canada should be leading the way on the path to peace, that we should be using the considerable skills and expertise Canadians bring to the table on Afghanistan.

This Liberal-Conservative motion is asking us to vote on a continuation of the same failed approach without the dimension that I consider crucial to a successful mission in Afghanistan, for Afghans and for Canadians.

I and my NDP colleagues understand the gravity of this vote as the most solemn task with which a parliamentarian is faced. We refuse to abandon Afghanistan.

We also refuse to accept the same futile approach that is making things worse. And most of all, we refuse to ask our troops to risk their lives for a mission of war when the option of peace has been neither explored nor exhausted.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill ConservativeSecretary of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin with this particular colleague and her speech.

First, let me state that she said at the outset of her remarks that there was no party in this place that wanted to abandon Afghanistan. Yet, I clearly remember the NDP bringing forward a motion not that long ago to do exactly that, to pull our soldiers out of Afghanistan immediately, with no contingency plan of who would replace them, and who would protect the Afghans from the resurging Taliban. To stand here tonight and suggest that the NDP did not do that and somehow rewrite history is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

Near the end of her remarks, she said that the NDP refused to abandon Afghanistan, except that is exactly what it advocates doing: to abandon the Afghan people and leave them to their own devices. This naiveté persists with the NDP, that if we all hold our hands and sing Kumbaya, somehow everybody is going to be peaceful and join together in song and the world will be a better place. It is ridiculous.

In order to have a peace process that she spent most of her time talking about, both sides must want peace. That is what we have to start with. If we look at the history of the Taliban, that is not what it wants. It wants to reinstall its evil regime in Afghanistan and use it as a base for worldwide terrorism. That is what it wants and what it was doing before the allies, the UN-sanctioned mission, moved in and pushed them out.

She talks about a path to peace. Both sides must want peace for there to be peace.

She talks about the simplicity of the present mission. I do not think it is simple at all or that anybody believes it is simple. It is a complicated situation.

If NDP members learned nothing else from the six female Afghan members of parliament who were here just last week, if they were listening to their message at all, they would understand that those people have a price on their heads and that if we abandon them, they will be the first--

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The hon. government whip took up half the time, so the remaining half is for the member for Victoria.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin with those comments.

Certainly, naiveté is dividing the world into good and evil. I did listen and found very moving some of the comments of the female Afghan MPs. What I heard on national radio in fact additionally was that one of the things they valued about Canada was the humanitarian aid.

I certainly do not think that what is happening in Afghanistan can be achieved without measures of security. Clearly, I recognize that, as do all of my colleagues, but there is a very clear difference between establishing measures of security and even having forces there to maintain security under, for example, a UN chapter VII and having a war fighting mission, as the government has nurtured and encouraged in the past years.

I want to be very clear. We would signify to our allies that Canada would withdraw in a safe and orderly way. That has always been the language that we in the NDP have used. The hon. colleague chooses to twist it to match his own belief, but the wording of “a safe and orderly withdrawal” is not leaving without options.

I do not know if he calls leaving no options the NDP's suggestion that we not be involved in the UN agencies, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme and the Peacebuilding Commission. These are examples of where using the combined effort of these agencies could be very useful in at least beginning the path toward peace.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian men and women in the military, police and those working in development or with NGOs deserve our full support. I support them and so does our party.

The problem we have is that the government is not being upfront with Canadians. Canadians need facts about what we are doing, how we are doing it, and why we are doing it. That is the problem with the government. It refuses to tell Canadians all the facts.

Time and time again, parliamentarians, whether members of Parliament or Senators, have gone to Afghanistan on fact-finding missions only to be disappointed by the lack of transparency the government has shown them on development in that region.

Upon arriving in Afghanistan, these parliamentarians are restricted to certain areas and given the government's promotional material. We all realize that we cannot just go into any country that is war-torn, but these parliamentarians just want to be able to see first-hand how aid money is being spent, who is receiving it, and what are the results.

Time and time again, they come back to Canada not knowing the full picture of progress or non-progress of development in Afghanistan.

If development efforts are successful, why are the Conservatives not showing parliamentarians and all Canadians the results that have been achieved? This could go a long way in reassuring Canadians that the assistance being provided to the Afghan people is done in the best ways possible.

Because of the failure of the government's communication, we have no choice. The only source of information comes from NGOs working in the area. Disturbing reports we have been receiving over the past year have been coming from the Senlis Council.

Here are some of the observations that the Senlis Council has reported to us. One of the biggest problems in the south is the poppy growing business. As long as Afghanistan remains the world's number one supplier of heroin, the Taliban will remain well financed. Afghanistan produces 80% to 90% of the heroin supply in the world and its production is increasing every year. Most of that heroin is going to the European Union and mostly European countries.

The Senlis Council is calling for a village-based poppy for medicine program. This type of program can put money in the pockets of poor farmers and provide a cheap source of pain killing medication throughout the third world. As long as the Taliban and other insurgents have access to this kind of money in Kandahar, we will never have a safe place for development.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I worked in underdeveloped countries helping farmers become productive. We helped them with their irrigation and growing techniques. We introduced new varieties and better fertilizer management.

We helped build greenhouses to grow their transplants and to keep the farmers from working the fields in the rainy season so they could protect their seedlings in these greenhouses. We installed refrigeration systems to improve the quality of their produce and we implemented cooperative marketing to maximize their returns for their crops.

The results of these new practices made these farmers proud and prosperous. Canadians not only have to get rid of the heroin from the Taliban leaders, we also have to help these farmers have a better future with other crops. We have great farmers and organizations right here in this country who could greatly help these farmers in Afghanistan by growing these new crops to help replace the poppy production.

The Senlis Council has many other recommendations and I strongly urge the government to listen to it because its members are on the ground seeing what is going on. I will mention a few more recommendations coming from the Senlis Council.

It says we should appoint a special envoy to coordinate Canada's efforts in Afghanistan. The appointment of a special envoy will help the war zone coordination and optimization of Canada's development, diplomatic and military, and optimize civilian volunteer resources to achieve Canada's main objective.

We should also increase spending to reflect the importance of Afghanistan as Canada's top foreign policy. Optimizing Canada's development efforts in support of its military efforts will require significant increase in delivery of humanitarian aid and development.

Canada must raise its annual development spending from $139 million and provide the Canadian embassy with the resources necessary to reflect the top priority Afghanistan represents in Canada's foreign policy. It has to empower Canadians to assist in bringing prosperity to Afghanistan.

The Canadian government should facilitate the deployment of Canadian volunteer experts to bring sustainable prosperity to Afghanistan, similar to what I mentioned about farmers going over there to help. It should enable assistance programs and professional exchanges between Canadians and Afghans. It will not only increase mutual understanding, but it will also empower Canadians to provide direct support to communities in Kandahar, and enhance Afghanistan's potential for prosperity.

As everybody in the House knows, Mr. Manley and his panel has released a report with some recommendations for aid and developments in Afghanistan. Under the section titled “Government of Canada International Assistance to Afghanistan”, it states:

—the Canadian aid program in Afghanistan has been impeded not only by the dangerous security environment in Kandahar but by CIDA’s own administrative constraints. More than half of CIDA funding in Afghanistan flows through multilateral agencies, and another 35 per cent is chanelled through national programs administered by the central government in Kabul. This leaves little for locally managed quick-action projects that bring immediate improvements to everyday life for Afghans, or for “signature” projects readily identifiable as supported by Canada. Funding allocations aside, CIDA staffers in Kandahar do not often venture beyond their base, in part, we were told, because of restrictive security regulations maintained by CIDA’s headquarters in Canada. While it is undeniably difficult to place civilians in a conflict zone, CIDA should delegate decisions about security of movement to civilian and military officials on the ground who are best placed to make such assessments. It makes little sense to post brave and talented professional staff to Kandahar only to restrict them from making regular contact with the people they are expected to help.

It goes on to say:

While we acknowledge the courage and professionalism of the civilians posted to Kandahar, the Canadian-led PRT in Kandahar also displays signs of the fragmentation and uncoordinated effort that prevail throughout the programming of international development aid in Afghanistan. Effectiveness would be enhanced by aligning national and departmental priorities and operations more closely...

I hope the government will take note of these recommendations and follow through with them.

I have spoken to representatives from the NATO countries over the last few months. As already was recognized in the debate over the last few days, countries from NATO and Europe are not contributing enough on the military side. However, we can learn a lot from these countries on what they do on the aid side. Many of these countries, such as Norway, Denmark, Holland and Britain have better systems in delivering aid, with better results.

The main reason for the results, as mentioned before in the report, is the military and aid people on the ground in the countries delivering aid are working close together. They are able to make decisions and disburse funds faster and more effectively. The Afghan people can see it and they can associate with the countries that are not there to protect them but are there to deliver aid.

NATO representatives told me the most positive result is that the Afghan people see the benefits of the aid almost immediately after the arrival of the military personnel in their villages. As soon as the Taliban have been chased out, automatically the aid goes in, whether it is water or help to build schools. All of a sudden the villagers see that positive results are happening. Their success is two-fold, protection and development, working hand in hand.

As the Senlis Council report has stated, Canada's incoherent development strategy is failing to address even the basic needs of Kandahar's people. This failure is increasing the support of insurgency. It states that a complete overhaul of development infrastructure is also necessary. As well, a new strategy and structure is needed to ensure Canada's development efforts complement those of its military.

I will repeat, again, that they have to work together. They have to be on the ground. There have to be results quickly or the Afghans will lose any faith in the country that takes over in a military exercise. The failure to address the extreme poverty, hunger and mortality rates as well as to boost economic development has caused local Afghan support to decrease and has compromised the entire Canadian mission.

The focus has to be more on development. The Prime Minister recently announced a guaranteed defence spending increase. No one is disputing that. Our military needs the best equipment and training, without question. However, if we are to increase defence spending, why not go in tandem and increase aid and development and deliver it in the proper manner? Most important, as I previously stated, we need to change the administration, how it is dealt with and the way this aid is delivered.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Health

Mr. Speaker, I note that at the start of the member's intervention, he talked about communication. I cannot help but reflect back on how this mission started in Afghanistan. We went to Kabul. Then without debate, without warning, the Liberal prime minister of the day announced that Canadian troops would go into Kandahar, the most dangerous part of Afghanistan.

The Liberal approach to the Conservative approach is in sharp contrast. Our Prime Minister has brought the mission to Parliament for a vote, not once but twice. We have had debates in Parliament. Under the Liberal Party there were none. We have had a non-partisan panel, which the member is fond of quoting. Under the previous regime, there were no non-partisan panels. It was only a dictatorial decision.

I do not want to get into how the Liberals have left the military under-equipped and so on. However, I will ask the member a fundamental question. Why does he think the former Liberal prime minister sent Canadian troops into Kandahar?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member realizes, and I am sure everybody in the House does, something terrible happened on September 11. We were not going to shy away from the problems that were happening on the world scene. We knew we had an obligation to deal with it. We knew we had to do some kind of a mission in Asia to find out where the terrorists were coming from and how they were being funded.

We worked with the UN. We did not go in tandem with the United States. We worked with the UN and NATO. We said that would help and go to Afghanistan. It was a good decision.

We are in tough area. Canadians are not scared to do the heavy lifting and take on the tough areas, especially when some of the other countries in NATO were holding back. Therefore, we had to show some leadership, and we did it.

That is not the issue today. The issue is not why we are in Kabul and why we are in Afghanistan. We know why we are there. We are not like the NDP. We know we have to do our duty on the international scene, so we stepped up to the plate and sent our men and women over there.

My entire speech today dealt with aid. We would have been a lot more successful in Afghanistan if when the military went in, the aid immediately followed and was disbursed quickly. Then we would have seen results. The people of Afghanistan would then have seen what Canada was all about.

Why are we debating this? Because the Conservatives took over as government. The next thing we knew no time lines were in place and no results from the aid were provided.

The Conservative government is fortunate that the Liberals are open-minded and flexible enough to work out an agreement. Our caucus put forward some concrete proposals. The wisdom of the Conservative government has taken most of them into consideration. It also had to get a former Liberal minister to make recommendations.

We have bailed out the Conservatives again and we are willing to work with them in Afghanistan. However, we also have to put the government's feet to the fire on issues like aid and others. We do not believe in running and hiding. We want time lines and we want to see results. That is what we are pushing for today.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to my hon. colleague that we did in fact go into Afghanistan with the Americans as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

We have already accepted the Manley report, commissioned by this government. He had a lot of good information in it.

The member puts a lot of stock in reports of NGOs, like Senlis. He apparently does not put any stock in reports by the Canadian Forces, which I find remarkable, particularly since Senlis, as an NGO, misled the defence committee so blatantly that it could not have been accidental. It stretches the credibility of an outfit like Senlis when it has been so misleading in the past.

On the specific issue of poppies, there is no question that it is a big problem. There is no short term solution. A lot of things need to be done, such as altering the crops, as was mentioned, to potentially a medicine program.

I would like my hon. colleague's assessment on having a legitimate poppies for medicine program in that country or any other country. To have that, however, there needs to be a basic law and order and justice structure that will allow that kind of business to go on without being unduly influenced by drug lords and crime. I suggest we are not there yet and that it will be some time before we get there. Could he comment on that?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member, but it is not that simple. I was the CIDA critic and I realize it is not that simple to change a country like Afghanistan, which has almost as many people as Canada but in the space of maybe Manitoba, and make it as prosperous and have all the laws, rules, regulations and prosperity as a country likes ours.

Yes, he is right. There has to be a multifaceted approach. Law and order and its parliamentary system have to be dealt with. Unless people can see change happen in security and some sort of prosperity, they will go back to the system they had. That is the whole issue. If we are to stop the poor farmers and citizens from relying on the Taliban, we need to have alternatives in place for them. We have to show them another way. If not, it will go backward.

I appreciate his comments. It is not a simple matter. We need to have time lines in place as to how long we will be there. We have to hold CIDA and many other organizations' feet to the fire to get results. Sometimes we have no choice because of the tight-lipped government and the lack of transparency of what happens in Afghanistan. We have to rely on reports from NGOs to get news about what happens over there, and that is unfortunate.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the previous speech. I certainly want to compliment the member for the quotes that he did pull out of the Manley report, but I also want to read a quote for him and get his interpretation of it. He has quoted the former minister on a number of occasions, both in his speech and in his responses, at great length.

Mr. Manley says in his opening letter:

To achieve these objectives, much still needs to be done.

Institutions that are respected need to be built and the Afghan National Army and Police need to be further recruited and trained.

Agricultural districts need to be reclaimed from land mines and poppy fields, so that traditional crops can once again flourish where they have in the past.

Both the reality and the perception of corruption in the Government of Afghanistan must be rooted out. They are undermining not only the hope for an Afghan solution but also support for the Western forces sacrificing their lives to help secure the situation.

What Mr. Manley says in his report is very clear. He says that our work there is not done. It is not done with respect to the three things that we stand for: defence, diplomacy, and development assistance. We cannot have two without having the third.

I think what the member has suggested is that there is the potential to do this without defence. I want to get a very clear understanding, based on the report authored by Mr. Manley, of what the member is suggesting with respect to that issue.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this has been brought up, because I am not saying for one minute here that we can succeed in Afghanistan without defence. To the contrary, we cannot succeed in defence, in the military operations, unless we have the proper aid and the proper development aid, the aid that is happening on the ground, so that if one is a soldier there protecting the people, the people also have to see the aid coming into their villages. It has to go in tandem. We must have both working together. We cannot have just the aid working without the defence helping it, without the military side by side.

That is why we have not been as successful there as we could have been over the last two years. If we would have had both working in tandem, our results would have been better. They would have been at a better place right now.

That is the whole premise of my speech here tonight: the military has to be there, but the aid has to be there with the military. If both are working together, we are going to see results. We are going to see the Afghan people looking at Canadians doing the right job for them and helping them to go from being a poor and very stressed country to being a prosperous country. But they have to be working together.

I am not saying for one minute that defence should not be there over the next year. It should be, but the defence is not going to be able to do its job unless the aid is coming in there with it and going in tandem.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Health

Mr. Speaker, it is humbling to be here today to speak on Canada's mission in Afghanistan. This is probably one of the most important issues we will deal with as parliamentarians.

In my riding of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, I have 17 Wing, which is located at CFB Winnipeg, an integral part of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

In addition to CFB Winnipeg, in Manitoba we also have CFB Shilo, both of which provide logistics and manpower for the current mission.

Moreover, my riding has very strong connections to the military. For example, Charleswood and St. James were settled largely by World War II veterans. We have the Royal Canadian Legion Nos. 4 and 100 nearby, as well as Army, Navy and Air Force Branch 183, all within the confines of my riding.

I would like to highlight the concentration of the military presence in my riding, both past and present, because it underscores the importance of this mission to the people of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

The people in my riding have deep roots in the military. The chances are better than not that if we meet someone from my constituency, he or she has served or fought for Canada, or at the very least has relatives or descendants who did. Since 2004, 17 Wing has sent almost 400 personnel to aid the mission in Afghanistan.

I should say at this time that I am splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines.

In addition to the 4,000 personnel who were sent to Afghanistan, three of the five chaplains are included. I can tell members that 17 Wing has been at the centre of the mission to rebuild Afghanistan, whether it has been in helping men and women embark from Shilo to provide an in theatre support element or in providing essential chaplain services. It is for these reasons that no one underestimates the seriousness of this debate in my riding.

I have met with a number of men and women who have been to Afghanistan, and they all, without exception, believe strongly in the usefulness of their mission.

I have also visited several soldiers who have been wounded in Afghanistan, including amputees and spinal cord injury victims. What has struck me deeply is the fact that each one of these injured individuals wanted to rejoin his regiment. They wanted to go back. If they could not go back, they still wanted to serve the military.

I want to share the story of a corporal, a remarkable young man I met two summers ago just after he got a bullet in his spine. It left him a C6 quadriplegic, so he has the use of his arms but not his hands. It is a pretty serious injury.

I talked to him on the phone this afternoon in preparation for this speech and asked him how he felt today. With his permission, here is what was said by Corporal Chris Klodts, who on July 8, 2006, got a bullet in the spine: “Freedom requires sacrifice, and for freedom, I am happy to have sacrificed”. He went on to say, “I would go right back if I could”.

That is the best that Canada has to offer. If there is any doubt from anyone on the merits of our mission, we just need to look at the people coming back and hear their words.

From Facebook, I have another quote from the friend of a person I will not name. Again, I have been given permission to share this with Parliament:

Most of the anti-war crowd have currently attached themselves to a limited pragmatic argument; that no matter how moral our continuing presence may or may not be, they claim that it is not practical to stay here as we have no chance of success and that the expense in terms of money or Canadian lives is not worth any possible benefit.

Most soldiers I know feel that we have a realistic chance of success, even when constrained to fight in a moral manner...even though our enemies are under no such constraints. As I've written extensively on that subject before, I won't get into it again. However, we as a society have not investigated that benefit of our action in practical terms, and less so the heavy costs of not continuing to support the people of Afghanistan....

He is in Afghanistan today as we speak. He goes on:

--most of the soldiers I know understand what's at stake in our fight. Maybe they all haven't verbalized it to the same degree as I just have, but there is a general perception that Canadians don't quite realize just how much is at stake. We fear that they will throw away our gains and sacrifice our future security for immediate comfort and smug self-righteousness. To be honest, that fickleness scares the...out of us more than the Taliban do....

That is pretty heavy stuff and is from a fellow in Afghanistan today. I now have met hundreds of people who have gone to Afghanistan, and I can say that without exception I hear the same sentiments.

Although the families of these soldiers are sad that their loved ones have been injured, they are very proud of them.

It is hard to imagine anything more Canadian than these families, who gather to help those in need, whether it is their own families or people on the other side of the world.

I can tell the House that the people of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia support the soldiers and the mission. They understand that freedom must be earned and not taken for granted. They understand that the price of freedom is sometimes paid in blood. They understand that in order for Canadian values to be shared with the world we may need to fight against those who wish to see them destroyed.

I want the members of the House to imagine a place where it is a crime to create music, where dancing is illegal, where creating art and freedom of expression is illegal and where 1,000 year old historical monuments are not cherished but blasted to rubble in the blink of an eye. I want members to imagine a place where being female automatically makes one an inferior person, not worthy of education, without any legal rights, let alone a voice of one's own, and where putting on nail polish is punishable by cutting of a person's fingers.

With those images in mind, I think we can understand why we are in Afghanistan.

The United Nations and NATO have recognized this. Canada is part of a world effort. This is not a Canada-U.S. effort or a U.S.-led effort. This is a NATO-led effort, with the support of the United Nations.Those people, if those who refuse to accept the realities of this world get their way, will, unfortunately, experience the realities in which many people live.

We are so fortunate to live in this great country. May the people of Canada and our armed forces keep our land glorious and free.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague has had a lot of contact with soldiers, with people who have been there and done it, and the sentiments that they expressed are obviously very meaningful and very touching.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on his impressions from those people or from his own studies about what would happen if in fact we did do what the NDP would have us do and pull out prematurely.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the people of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia support the soldiers and the mission.

The people of my riding of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia support the mission because they know and understand that without western security there will be atrocity after atrocity on a scale the world has rarely seen. I do not want that to happen and I do not think the people around the world want that to happen. That is why we must stand firm and support our troops, support the mission and support the Afghan people.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would also like the member to answer a question having to do with the prospect of humanitarian aid and development occurring in the absence of security.

The member has been very articulate in voicing his support for a mission in Afghanistan and he knows that Canada is involved in providing a lot of humanitarian aid through CIDA and through many of the Canadian NGOs, like the Mennonite Economic Development Associates and many others that are doing excellent work there.

The NDP and the Bloc seem to think that we can somehow pull the security out of Kandahar, the most dangerous part of Afghanistan, and yet continue to deliver humanitarian aid and rebuild that country. Does the member agree with the NDP and the Bloc that that is possible?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Bloc are either not being intellectually honest with themselves or they are, as the government whip has said, living in Kumbaya land.

The reality of the world is that not everyone is a nice person, not everyone shares the values that we have in Canada and in the west. The fact is that if the west and Canada, Canada being the leading country in the west, were to remove its support, there would be atrocities and murder, perhaps even worse than what we saw in Rwanda.

The people of my riding and, I think, the people of Canada understand that helping people, either in their own country or strangers in a far off land, is a Canadian value. In fact, I cannot think of something more Canadian than helping strangers in need, and that is what we are doing in Afghanistan.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this motion and to follow the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, especially his response to the last question, which certainly hits home for all of us who understand what it is and recognize what our responsibilities are as Canadians.

The government motion makes a simple but serious request. It asks the House to say that our country is one that recognizes and honours the obligations that we owe to our allies and the international community. It asks the House to say that Canada keeps its word. I am proud to stand in my place today and speak in its favour.

Our work in Afghanistan is just. We are there to uphold and preserve the rule of law in the global arena. Canada is in Afghanistan at the invitation of its democratically elected government. We are there as part of an international contingent, working side by side with 37 other countries, among them our oldest and truest friends. Our presence was requested and is sanctioned by the United Nations, and our presence was requested and is sanctioned by NATO.

I will quote John Manley from the forward of the independent panel report. He states:

But our presence in that distant land does matter.

Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan matters because it concerns global and Canadian security, Canada’s international reputation, and the well-being of some of the world’s most impoverished and vulnerable people. Our commitment is important because it has already involved the sacrifice of Canadian lives.

Our commitment in Afghanistan has not and will not be easy but if everything important were easy, it would have already been accomplished.

When we look down the road, we see the potential potholes and, yes, the work will be hard, but we should not let the challenges ahead conceal how far we have actually come. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, girls and women were forbidden from working or attending school after the age of eight. Stadiums, once used for soccer, played host to public executions.

This is a rough list from the New York Times of some of the things banned under the Taliban: anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, any equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, tapes, computers, VCRs, televisions, anything that talks about music, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogues, pictures and even Christmas cards.

For five long years the Taliban waged systematic war on Afghanistan society, destroying its social, economical and physical capital in pursuit of a perverted utopia. It is not easy to fix a society so thoroughly dismantled but great strides have been made. Twentieth century conflicts were measured in yards and miles. In the 21st century, the metrics are different: hospitals and wells, roads and bridges, ballots, ballot boxes and book bags.

Since 2002, more than five million refugees have returned to Afghanistan eager to begin rebuilding the shattered lives that they have left behind. That is progress. In the last five years, Afghanistan's economy has grown at a rate of 10% per year. The average income has doubled. That is progress.

Four million children are enrolled in school for the first time and more than 40% of these newly enrolled students are female. In total, there are now six million children in school in Afghanistan. That is progress.

Ten million Afghans are registered to vote. In fact, in the parliamentary elections of 2005, 28% of those elected to govern were women. Here in Canada it is only 21%. In its first elected Parliament, it has 7% more than we have here in Canada.

These are victories in progress in a developing democracy. The progress we have made is substantial. The victories we have won are real. If we refuse to consolidate that progress, if we refuse to defend our gains, then all of our sacrifices will indeed have been in vain.

Our mission in Afghanistan rests on three Ds, which are in the introduction of the Manley report: defence, diplomacy and development assistance. Like a stool, it requires three legs to stand, and like a stool, the mission will collapse if we remove one of any of the three.

Security and development must proceed in tandem. Canadian troops must defend what Canadian development funds have built. That is not to say that Canada must shoulder this burden alone. The government motion asks that Canada extend its commitment to 2011, but we will only extend that commitment if we can secure a partner that will expand the ISAF's capacity by 1,000 troops by the end of February 2009.

Canada's allies share our stake in Afghanistan's success. They should share more fairly in the cost of that success. But no one has a greater stake in Afghanistan's success than its own people. It is only right, therefore, that responsibility for security is increasingly transferred to the Afghan national security forces as their capabilities steadily increase.

Today, the Afghan national army is approximately 50,000 strong. By the end of 2010, it is projected to reach 70,000, the target identified by the Afghanistan Compact. Its members are becoming better trained and they are gaining more discipline.

As the capabilities of these NATO forces expand, they will depend less and less on foreign support. Together with our allies, we in time will achieve our aim: an Afghanistan secured and governed by Afghans.

I would like to conclude with a word about the sacrifices made by our brave Canadian soldiers. In 2007 we lost 12 soldiers to improvised explosive devices. We lost 11 soldiers to roadside bombs and landmines. We saw deaths from suicide bombings, truck and helicopter crashes. Each was, is and remains a terrible tragedy, but in 2007 we did not lose a single soldier in the combat component of this mission. The last combat deaths came in September 2006, in the last days of Operation Medusa.

In conventional combat the Taliban is impotent in the face of Canadian might. When we take the fight to our enemy, we win. As long as we are in Afghanistan in any capacity, Canadian lives will be at risk, but it is, quite frankly, sophistry of the lowest kind to suggest that an end to the combat component of this mission and a retreat to our bunkers would somehow make Canadians safer. This motion recognizes that reality.

When the cold war ended, the world forgot about Afghanistan and the price for the people living there was immediate: civil war followed by tyrannical rule. In September 2001 the west learned that we, too, could be endangered by the failure of a state half a world away.

The lesson is clear. We owe it to ourselves and to the people of Afghanistan to finish the job that we have started and leave behind a stable, functioning state that threatens neither its citizens nor ours. I believe the policy laid out by this government will in fact do just that. In less than 48 hours we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the motion.

I can only submit, I can only suggest and I can only hope that all members of the House, regardless of party affiliation, will see that the support for our soldiers, for our mission, for our country and the outcomes that it provides for us and for the Afghan people will indeed be followed and supported.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight I was listening to the member for Western Arctic. He said many things but there was one thing he was very critical of. He said that day by day the Liberals have moved closer to the Conservative position. He was bashing the two parties for coming together on this.

I am wondering if the member could talk about how important it is, on an issue as important as this one, that we achieve some form of consensus in Parliament.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very important, considering that this is only the second time with respect to the Afghanistan mission that we have actually had a vote here in the House of Commons.

This is a minority Parliament. It is unwieldy and not easy to work with at best, but there have been times in the two years that I have been here where I have seen diplomacy and partisanship separated. Diplomacy and doing what is right in this country become two common themes.

I would submit that it is not what was suggested by the member from the NDP, that there has been some sort of collusion. That makes no sense. Quite frankly, what we have seen is a consensus on an issue that impacts us as a country and impacts Afghanistan. Therefore, the issue has come before the members of the House on behalf of people of this country. Indeed we can say, as we have said in the number of wars that we have been involved in, that we have come together in support of our soldiers. We will support those who need our assistance. We will support a motion that is built on consensus, and that is a motion that will carry the day in this House.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, people talk about what this mission is about. One of the things people forget is that it is actually about Canada's national interests. It is about many things, but people think that what happens in Afghanistan, whether we get it right or wrong, will not affect us in Canada.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments on this little hypothesis. We saw what happened to our markets and economy after 9/11. We saw what happened to our ability to travel freely across borders and have commerce move freely across borders. I would suggest to my colleague that what happens to our allies, most specifically what happens to the United States, has a direct impact on our economy, our prosperity, our security and our quality of life.

I would like his comments on that with respect to the meaning of the mission to Canada's national interests.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a pointed one in the sense that sometimes we do forget after time the purpose of the mission.

As recommended in the Manley report itself, we indeed must continue with a much stronger and more open style of communication within our country so that people understand and know why we are in Afghanistan.

Perhaps we did not even think about this, but while nations slept, we hoped that Afghanistan would simply take care of itself and that if we ignored the issues with respect to the tyranny that the Taliban brought to that country, or let it pass us by, that somehow it would have no impact. We saw the impact. We see the impact that it has today.

The member mentioned the issues around travel. I cannot think of an airport in North America where there has not been heightened security, heightened inspection, heightened investigation. Every person who gets on a plane to travel anywhere in North America or the world is subjected to a different type of security check than they were prior to 9/11.

We think about that event which happened years ago. I cannot think of anyone who does not understand clearly that the world is a large place, but no matter where events such as that occur, everyone is impacted. I cannot think of any other reason than what happened on 9/11 that we as Canadians would not have taken up our responsibilities, not just for those people who were in the twin towers in the United States, not just on behalf of our good friends to the south, but on behalf of Afghanistan, and certainly on behalf of Canadians. We have been impacted by that devastation.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Oxford Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the government's motion on Afghanistan. I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Cambridge.

As I was reading a newspaper from my riding yesterday, I happened upon a thoughtful and insightful letter written by one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Claus, and with his permission, I would like to share some of his words. He commented that there is a growing attitude from some quarters that we do not belong in Afghanistan, that by being there we are morally bankrupting ourselves fighting an American war. He followed this by stating that the question he would like to ask the critics is if our military does not belong there, where does it belong? Indeed. It seems there are some people who have short and selective memories.

The military has and continues to be a fundamental part of our country, leading and shaping its very formation, protecting its interests, and projecting our values. This country was founded on the principles of freedom and justice, and many times over the years we have fought for these principles abroad. Before Canada was known as a peacekeeping nation, it had a long and distinguished military history stretching from our participation in the Boer War through two world wars and Korea. Our involvement in these world conflicts helped develop our credibility on the world stage, allowing us to punch above our weight in international relations.

Afghanistan is the latest manifestation of our commitment to encourage the growth of democratic values abroad. Canada is in Afghanistan because its democratically elected government requested our aid. However, we are also there for the protection of our own Canadian citizens.

In the past, Afghanistan and the surrounding areas have been a breeding ground for fanaticism and a launching pad for global extremism. Those involved want to snuff out our fundamental principles of freedom and justice, and they want to kill the people who support these elemental beliefs. In 2001 they were cowardly unsuccessful, but since our commitment to fighting them on their own ground, they have been less so.

As Dr. Sima Samar, a member of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, affirmed:

If Afghanistan is not safe, Canada is not safe. Stability here will help security throughout the world. Security here means law enforcement and a decrease in training camps for terrorists.... These are problems for everyone in the world, not specifically Afghans.

Canada, alongside our international allies, is committed to helping the people of Afghanistan build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient country. The work of Canada and the international community is guided by the January 2006 Afghanistan Compact, a framework for coordinating the work and resources of the Afghan government and its international partners in three priority areas: security, development, and good government. The job is divided into two separate but interconnected categories: a combat mission to fight the Taliban; and a humanitarian one to rebuild damaged infrastructure in the villages, bring medical help, and ask what the villagers need.

Let us pause for a moment to reflect on this last aspect, ask what the villagers need. How long has it been since anyone asked ordinary Afghans what they needed? Certainly not the Taliban, who murdered their critics, kept their population in abject poverty, refused their right to education, especially for women, and revised history in the relentless effort of fanaticism.

Canada is playing a key role in the NATO led and UN sanctioned International Security Assistance Force whose role is to help restore security to allow the rebuilding of Afghanistan to continue. Human security is a basic requirement for everything else. Development and reconstruction work, the building of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals, for example, can only take place when civilian workers and the projects they are working on are themselves safe from harm. This is a secure space that Canada's military and our international partners are there to provide.

I am immensely proud of our men and women in uniform. My son-in-law as well as several of my constituents have served in Afghanistan as part of the military and reconstruction efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank them for their service.

According to one of the Manley report recommendations embodied in the government's Afghanistan motion, it was recognized that Canada should continue a military presence and have responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009. In a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate in Afghanistan, this mission should consist of an increasing emphasis on training the Afghan national security forces expeditiously to take a lead responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole.

Canada is sharing its expertise with the Afghan national army through a team of Canadian Forces mentors who work closely with ANA units in Kandahar province through the Canadian operational mentor liaison team. The approximately 150 Canadian Forces members involved have helped to train more than 35,000 graduates of the Canadian Afghan National Army Training Center. They are helping the ANA reach a level where it can plan, carry out and sustain security operations in the province on its own.

Through these efforts, the national Afghan army, along with its Canadian partners, is creating a country where refugees who fled the country during the Taliban reign are venturing back, wanting to be a part of this energetic and optimistic rebuilding. Since 2002, more than five million have returned, including more than 365,000 in 2007. Within six months of their return, 90% have found jobs in the fledgling Afghan economy.

A viable economy is critical to a stable country. Canada has the distinction of being the top micro finance program donor. More than 418,000 people are accessing small loans and savings services in 23 provinces, including Kandahar, with more two-thirds of them being women.

Hand in hand with the developing economy is support for community development and infrastructure. Canada directly supports the national solidarity program which, led by the Afghan government, is providing more than two-thirds of rural Afghans, including women, with the opportunity to have a voice in the development process.

One project at a time, they help to identify community needs, such as safe drinking water and sanitation, transport, irrigation, electricity, education, health, public buildings and improvements in agriculture. There are more than 33,600 local infrastructure projects approved, with over 16,500 completed.

Canada leads the provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar, helping Afghans to rebuild their daily lives in a number of key areas. Paved roads are something that we take for granted but they are essential to everyday life.

One of the priority infrastructure projects has been the rebuilding of the Kandahar-Spin Boldak highway and construction of several bridges. The highway will help farmers move produce to bigger markets, assist urban doctors to reach villages without medical services, and increase the speed with which police can respond to emergencies.

We are working to strengthen the Afghan national police and improve the prison system, so the new Afghanistan can effectively police its own population and bring law and order back to the country. It is time for the people to feel safe in their communities.

Canada's internationally recognized excellence in policing has been put to good use. Over 600 ANP have received training from a complement of 16 civilian and over 30 military police trainers and mentors. Our investment in police reform has not only encompassed training but has included funding salaries, providing uniforms and equipment, and building police facilities in and around Kandahar City. These police officers are there to support the Afghan rule of law in their own country.

International support to the government of Afghanistan is aimed at building its ability to govern, not doing the job for it. Canada's success may be measured in a self-sustaining government that promotes human rights and a justice system that allows for better protection of its citizens. Canada's contributions to Afghanistan have always been with the ultimate aim of establishing a country that will be better governed, more peaceful, and more secure than before our presence there.

Afghans need assistance to have properly trained and equipped citizens to allow them to facilitate their own peaceful and political solution to the conflict. We need to continue to support their fight for this aim until a more stable and secure Afghanistan emerges.

A young soldier, when speaking about his recently completed tour in Afghanistan, said that he could not wait to get back there; it was the most worthwhile thing that he had ever done.

He is a shining example of our men and women in uniform who continue to serve with courage, with commitment, with integrity and with loyalty. Our national commitment to them should be no less. They deserve to be valued and respected for their contributions to protecting Canadians in Afghanistan.

It is morally wrong to send soldiers to fight if they are not supported and there is no commitment to get the job done.

This motion acknowledges what is required for Canada's mission to succeed. I urge the hon. members that we have an ethical obligation to give it our full support.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Oxford for his comments and for the support that he has given, not just on this side of the House as the Conservative government but speaking as he passionately has for Canadians.

The Bloc and the NDP quite honestly are basically saying that what we need to do is lay down our guns and just go in and build the infrastructure.

Having been in the enforcement business for a number of years prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I wonder if the member would have some comments with regard to how that might actually benefit Canada and how that might actually help us without losing the number of people that may be protected by just going in and doing the reconstruction without having the security.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for such an intelligent question. We cannot be in Afghanistan to help the Afghani people rebuild their country without being prepared to take up arms to defend them in doing it.

I think anyone who listened to my colleague from St. Catharines heard him illustrate very clearly what is happening in Afghanistan. Our people who are there now and have been there for the last four years have faced tremendous danger with respect to not military fighting in the normal sense but the roadside bombs and suicide bombers. That also impacts the Afghani people. They are also affected by those things.

Therefore, without our military there to provide that assistance, the aid that is truly needed in Afghanistan will not happen. Quite frankly, this is a very principled position. It is neither a Liberal position nor a Conservative position. It is a Canadian position. It is one that we should all embrace. It is for the good of Canada, but it is also for the good of Afghanistan.