Debates of April 8th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I know the NDP is interested in the aid part of the mission to Afghanistan. Canada has put a substantial amount of money into that. I wonder if the member could reply as to the effectiveness of information that she has been able to receive on what that aid has been used for, how effectively it has been used, an analysis of the aid, if it has been put to good use and if it has been used accountably.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon is right. The New Democrats have raised in the House, at the defence committee and at the foreign affairs committee over and over again the issue of aid to the people of Afghanistan and the imbalance of our commitment militarily where it is 10 to 1 in terms of the aid to Afghanistan. We find that to be out of whack and we need to look at ways of getting that aid effectively to the people of Afghanistan.

Right now, in Kandahar province, the increase in the insurgency, in the IEDs and in the deaths is preventing any aid from getting through at this point. All of the aid agencies have left that province. They are not able to operate because of the increased insecurity in opposition to what many government members would have us believe, which is that Canada is improving security for the people in Kandahar province. Actually, the opposite is taking place. The insurgency has grown. There are more IEDs and more suicide bomb attacks are going on in that province now than there were even a year or two years ago.

I know Sarah Chayes, who was a national public radio reporter in Afghanistan, was there right after the fall of the Taliban and has continued to stay there with a small development group that is producing soap in Kandahar province. She said that when she was first there she could drive on the road from Kandahar to Kabul, even though it was a dirt road, bumpy and a terrible road. She now says that she can no longer drive from Kandahar to Kabul on a paved road because security has deteriorated so badly that she is not safe.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise, as my colleague from B.C. has risen, to support the motion before the House. I understand an amendment is pending as well.

I agree with my colleague that the motion before us is a procedural motion that essentially says that the House should take on and do what it has agreed to do through the motion that was passed. It is important for Canadians to know that we are essentially debating whether or not we should do what the House said it would do. There is no controversy there from us.

In the amendment we put forward to extend the war in Afghanistan, we kept this part of the motion. We have been calling for more oversight.

When we look at the trajectory of this war and the previous and present governments' handling of it, reporting to Parliament, the involvement of Parliament and to actually have Parliament engaged in the debate from the point of view of information sharing has been problematic.

My colleague from B.C. noted that the access to information has been more than problematic. I look at the file on detainees. We have a bizarre situation where the American process and procedure is much more transparent than the Canadian process. The Americans put up on their website who has been detained and why. They do not try to play the card that somehow they will be giving the enemy, the Taliban, information that they will use against them. Clearly not because, as I said, the Americans put it on public portals and on the web.

We have had problems with information sharing. Therefore, we need an understanding from the government about what the problems are with the mission, because it is too focused on restricting information, not sharing it. I would argue that in a responsible Parliament, particularly on issues of war, when we share information, we share responsibility. Canadians know and understand that. However, when a government restricts information and does not share knowledge, it is hard for anyone to take the overtures of the government seriously when it says that it is being transparent and accountable.

I have mentioned the detainee issue, but let us look at the issue of aid. Time and again the government's mantra has been that it is building schools, bridges and roads and yet when asked to provide exact details, it has had problems.

Some of the problems have to do with the way aid has been distributed. We heard from a witness at the foreign affairs committee that a lot of the aid was tied up in administration. We see a tendency toward bilateral aid, where money is handed over to institutions like the World Bank and then it kind of disappears. There are no tags on the money, seemingly, and therefore there is no understanding and no accountability as to Canadians' investments, notwithstanding that there is a disproportionate amount of money being allocated for aid. Even the little bit that we are tagging for aid is lost. There is not sufficient oversight so obviously a committee is important.

Some of the other facets that need more oversight and inclusion with the committee have to do with the reasons we are in the war in Afghanistan, because many Canadians, quite rightly, are confused as to the fundamental question of why we are there.

I would cite a recent paper that was delivered by John Foster called “Afghanistan and the New Great Energy Game”. It was a paper that was presented on January 29, 2008, to the group of 78. In his paper, he examines the whole issue of energy and the proposed pipeline to go through Afghanistan, which has not been debated.

The pipeline has been debated at NATO and in Europe and Asia, although more in Asia than in Europe, but what is the role of energy in the whole debate around Afghanistan? We know there have been discussions at NATO about the energy security. We know that in August of 2001 the American administration, which would be of interest to my friends in the Conservative Party, was actually in talks with the Taliban government. The Americans were trying to get the Taliban government to form a government of national unity, believe it or not, to ensure stability so a pipeline could be built from Turkmenistan, which has the fourth largest natural gas resource, through Afghanistan and out, to provide energy security for other parts of the world.

It is not something that has been debated, nor has it been brought forward to committee. However, if we are to have an honest debate in this country about why we are in Afghanistan, the whole issue of Afghanistan, which is what John Foster calls an energy bridge, needs to be laid out.

Is this something that the government is committing us to, the combat mission in the south, because of commitments on energy security?

The other facet that is important for the committee and Parliament to be seized with, which is not only the issue of energy supply and what was happening before 9/11 regarding negotiations with the then Taliban government and the United States on this energy bridge, but it is how the whole issue of peace and reconciliation fits into the government's plan.

I do not need tell members that every expert who came before the foreign affairs committee, the defence committee and who has spoken in public agreed that this war cannot be won militarily. It is not a controversy. It is something everyone agrees on. Therefore, logic would then lead us to ask: If this is not a mission and a war that can be won militarily, what should happen?

We put forward a proposal stating that we should be engaged in a peace and reconciliation process. This is not something we dreamed up. This was after hearing from people in the field. Oxfam, for instance, will be in front of the foreign affairs committee explaining what they think needs to be done.

However, let us hear what a retired Canadian diplomat had to say at committee. He said:

From this moment, from right now, we need to begin the pre-negotiations and support them with inter-ethnic and inter-group dialogue at the local and national level. Capacity, mediation, negotiation, and conflict resolution have to be developed at all levels. Afghan civil society, in particular Afghan women's groups, will have an integral role to play in this whole process at the national level, but at the village level as well.

Saddique Wera, who is someone who actually advises the Afghan government, said the following at committee:

...Afghanistan cannot be won without a peace track, a political track. Why? Because there is a big political component in the conflict in Afghanistan, and a political component cannot be resolved through war alone.

If we are actually going to deal with the issues that everyone knows are critical to the war in Afghanistan, we need to look beyond this focus of the counter-insurgency. We see the Americans providing 1,000 troops. Their focus is clear. It is counter-insurgency. We will have more civilian deaths, more recruitment of the Taliban and this vicious cycle will carry on.

I am not sure at this point if the official opposition has buyer's remorse for joining the government in its motion, but let me be clear that we support the idea of having more accountability so Canadians can actually understand the problems with this mission and so we can propose what to do better in the future.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little strange to me that we are debating for a number of hours today this motion, when there seems to be all party agreement that this is something that should happen. We are talking about a procedural motion in effect that could have easily been worked out and done much more expeditiously than spending a full day of the House's valuable time to discuss a procedural kind of motion.

That being said, we are now into this discussion and a number of comments have been made today that are very important to follow up on. There seems to be an ongoing confusion on part of members of the government who do not seem to appreciate that there is a difference between a mission in Afghanistan that is led by NATO and how that might differ if the United Nations were actually leading that mission.

Conservatives do not seem to appreciate that the United Nations' mandate has been given to NATO to lead this mission, but that it is the United Nations with its considerable resources, its civilian resources, and its different attitude than a military organization like NATO might bring to the leadership of the situation in Afghanistan.

I wonder if the member for Ottawa Centre might comment specifically on what difference it would make to have a United Nations-led mission in Afghanistan as opposed to the mission led by the military organization NATO.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give a concrete example to underline the importance of having the UN involved and maybe demonstrate to the House and hopefully to Canadians that we do have other choices than the ones in front of us and the one that the government has taken.

Consider that the UN right now has, and it was instituted in 2005, the UN Peacebuilding Commission, headed by a Canadian, hired on merit, not because the Canadian government was able to provide the resources so that she could be hired. She was hired on merit. The interesting thing, and my colleague from Burnaby is absolutely correct, is that we need the UN to provide leadership here and one of the institutions would be the Peacebuilding Commission.

Consider this, Canada does not have a seat on the Peacebuilding Commission at the UN. We do not have a seat. Many would note this around the world the one country that people look to when we say “peacekeeping and peacebuilding” as having been responsible for that, the Pearsonian tradition, yet we do not have a seat on the Peacebuilding Commission. Why? The criteria for being on the Peacebuilding Commission is the following: a country needs to have sufficient peacekeepers in the field. We do not. The Security Council has a rotation. Finally, a country has to make sufficient contributions to the UN and we do not. Alas, we are not on the Peacebuilding Commission.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas mentioned that the UN had substantial resources. If it did, I wish it would put them into Darfur.

I have two questions for the member. First, does he not find it strange that one of the greatest assets the government says of this mission is to enhance the equality of women and yet in Canada it thwarts that by removing the ability to fight for that by women's groups?

Second, the member mentioned pipelines which are important around the world. We both have an interest in Burma where there is a huge pipeline planned that will be funded by the Chinese going through Burma that would then provide revenues for that horrendous dictatorship in Burma.

I wonder if the member could comment on that because this afternoon the foreign affairs committee is going to be dealing with Burma and I hope members of the public and Parliament attend that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question on women, yes, it is pretty stark to have our government on the one hand advocating for more rights for women abroad and yet at home undermining their rights seemingly through lack of support.

On the question of Burma and the pipeline and the points I made, we have not debated the whole issue of the pipeline that is proposed through Afghanistan in this debate. No one has been talking about it. We have been bringing it forward from our side, but no one else has vis-à-vis how it relates to Burma.

Yes, we need to examine Canadian companies which are investing there and I think of Total Oil which has Canadian membership on its board. We need to hold it to account when it is making money and profits off of what I would consider misery and human rights abuses. It has to be held to account on that.

I know there are members of multinational corporations from Canada sitting on the board of Total Oil and--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I participate in this debate, and before I go into it, I would like to read for the record the motion brought forward by the member for Toronto Centre, so that all of us here clearly understand what we are debating.

The motion reads:

That a special committee, consisting of 12 members, be appointed to consider the Canadian mission in Afghanistan as referred to in the motion adopted by the House on March 13, 2008 (Government Business No. 5); that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party's members of the committee, providing that each party shall have the same number of members on the committee as it now has on the standing committees and provided that the said lists shall be deposited with the Clerk no later than April 10, 2008.

I emphasize the date. That is the suggestion and the motion brought forward by the member for Toronto Centre.

I have referred to the member for Toronto Centre and this is my first opportunity to congratulate him on his election and return to the House of Commons where he served many years ago. He brings with him a wealth of not only experience but more so of knowledge.

He thought about this, observing for many months and even years what was happening in this honourable chamber. In our discussions outside this chamber before he was elected, and even now that he has returned, I sense the frustration that he was experiencing, that we are experiencing and all Canadians are experiencing, something that the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam referred to earlier, that it is very difficult to get information from the government.

The member did not want to simply come here and say, “Here I am and here is an idea”. No, this is all predicated by the frustration that we are all experiencing.

I have stated before and I will say it again, I had the honour of serving as chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Today I am privileged to vice-chair the committee as well and I too experience firsthand what exactly is going on.

When the NDP member talks about waiting 300 days to get a response. That is unacceptable. That is why I stressed the April 10, 2008 deadline.

I would like to also correct the record, if I may. As I followed this debate, the member for Calgary East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, rebutted in a way that I guess the parliamentary language was acceptable. He referred to the Liberals not being in the chamber when all these debates were unfolding. It is improper to say that someone lied, so I will say that he misled the House. He put forward a false statement.

I know that I spoke on government business No. 5. I know the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore spoke on it and other members as well. When he made that statement, it was showing to me and to Canadians that as much as we are in a bipartisan way supporting our troops, yet again he is politicizing it.

Am I supposed to say that he is not even in the House right now? I would not say that. If he had an interest, he would be here. Nevertheless, I will go beyond that.

The member for Saint-Jean, who also sits on the committee, expressed his frustration earlier today. I will give an example. In the previous cabinet the former minister of national defence did come to the committee once and gave us a report.

It has been quite some time since the new Minister of National Defence assumed his responsibilities. It is like pulling teeth to try and get the minister to come before the committee and give us a report.

We do get reports from the military people. They brief us in terms of an update of what is happening in a generic way. For example, I made a comment in committee the other day that I see on television in the reports from Afghanistan scenes that are a year and a half or two years old.

We are today in committee addressing the post traumatic stress syndrome issue in terms of the health and well-being of our men and women when they return.

Let me go back to the parliamentary secretary. He said this is not necessary and there is a parliamentary committee looking into the study on Afghanistan. That really irked me and I will say why.

The defence committee worked very hard for many months when I chaired the committee and put 13 recommendations together. This was before the Manley report was even thought about.

The parliamentary secretary, on behalf of his minister and the government, has the audacity to say that there is a parliamentary committee. There really is no parliamentary committee because we know very well a booklet is put out by the government which talks about transparency, openness and open access, and yet, in a premeditated and deliberate way, before the members come to committee, the government has a plan. It asks how it is going to address the committee and it becomes very frustrating.

No wonder the committee cannot get the minister to come before the committee. One would have thought that a couple of months after the appointment to his new role, he would come before committee.

What is also very frustrating is that the committee has been trying for well over a year and a half to visit Afghanistan, so members can get a firsthand view of what is going on. The chairman of the committee went to the liaison committee and lobbied to get the support and funding to visit Afghanistan and the budget was approved.

The next thing we know, there is this obstacle and that obstacle is either a timing problem, a security problem, et cetera, but every time we turn on the tube when Parliament is not in session, lo and behold, there is a visit to Afghanistan by the Minister of National Defence. I am glad he is over there because we can never make enough visits to show our men and women there, who are putting their lives on the line, that we stand with them.

I do not criticize that, on the contrary, but it is really funny how anybody from the government can show up any time and the committee has all sorts of obstacles put before it and can never visit Afghanistan. Maybe some day it will get an answer. I am very frustrated with that.

It is frustrating when we ask for information, as the member from the NDP has asked. As was pointed out, 300 days really stuck in my mind, not for us but for Canadians.

One would say today that the member for Toronto Centre is trying to showcase. That is furthest from the truth. I have known this gentleman for many years. I have heard him speak on a one to one basis in Toronto, outside Toronto, and on television. His commentary to this very day has been nothing but, first and foremost, support for our men and women in uniform, support for our military, and ensuring that we in Canada are on the right track.

I believe we are on the right track, but there are elements within this mission that make me very uncomfortable. I have discussed them before and I will touch upon them again.

There are over 37 or 38 nations participating in this most disastrous mission. I say disastrous only because 82 Canadians have lost their lives and we pay full respect to the families and appreciate what sacrifices have been made. Other military men and women have lost their lives from other nations as well.

I say other nations. Some time ago we met with the defence committee from Germany and pointed out to it that Canada has never taken a step back to anybody. Canada, in its rich history, traditionally has stepped forward, has brought tremendous results, stood proud no matter what front it has faced, what mission it has been on, whether peacekeeping or at the front, no matter where.

We have not hesitated to do our share here. What is unacceptable to Canadians, as I am hearing, is why Canada is taking this hit. The government is trying to soften this by saying that we have the French, for example. One day France is saying that it is going to commit so many soldiers and the next day it is thinking about it. The next thing we know, we will be here next year--hopefully--a year from now will see that most likely these soldiers will never show up.

The Manley report said that we need an additional 1,000 soldiers. What Mr. Manley really said was that it would help, but that is not really the answer and the solution to the Afghanistan mission, even though we knew that the Americans had already committed about 2,500 soldiers anyway, prior to the Manley report.

One thousand soldiers will not help us address this issue, because we have heard all the United States military commanders, when they come before a media briefing, talk about the number being in the thousands. I think one statement was that 100,000 soldiers are needed to address this issue.

What are an additional 1,000 soldiers going to do for this? Absolutely nothing.

There is also something else that I have found unacceptable. I heard the other day that one of the representatives from the government of Afghanistan said Afghans are so happy because the Japanese are going to be building a new airport.

I do not know why the parliamentary secretary is winding his hands, but I am glad he has come back to the chamber to respond to the challenge I put to him. Now that he is here, I will remind him that the Liberal members were in this hon. chamber and were debating this issue. Maybe he was not here at that time to see us when we were on our feet, and I will accept that if that is going to be his response.

I remember that when these conflicts were breaking out in Afghanistan and Iraq there was a notion that all the nations that were going to participate were also going to be involved in the reconstruction. Canadians are spending billions of dollars to help build schools, roads, water wells and infrastructure and to help with training and so on.

We are doing our share, but I find it unacceptable that other nations that are not even there putting their people's lives on the line are getting these contracts to build this infrastructure. Why do we not put in a caveat as they have put a caveat on us? Why are we not putting in a caveat and saying that as for the moneys we are putting into building this infrastructure we will make sure that they go to Canadian companies?

We are seeing a sudden downturn in the Canadian economy, which is not to my liking, and I am sure not to the liking of most Canadians, especially when I read the news in my neck of the woods in Scarborough. I am really upset to learn that 72 nurses are going to be laid off from the Scarborough hospital system and over 200 employees are going to be disappearing.

I know it does not relate directly, but how it relates, if I may tie it together for members, is that if these Canadian companies are successful in getting these construction jobs, for example, or redevelopment opportunities in that country, they would then be hiring their employees in Toronto, Scarborough or elsewhere, thus generating revenue for Canada and for the provinces so that 72 nursing jobs will not be lost.

We Canadians are a very fair people. We have reached out and we have shed blood all over the globe . As I have said, we have not taken a back seat to anyone, but at the same time I do believe there is an obligation to make sure that our backyard is well looked after as well.

That is how the member for Toronto Centre always referred to this mission. We have to do it in a balanced way. We have to do it the right way.

In closing, as my time is just about up, there is one thing I would like to see from the government and that is for it to keep to its word: transparency and openness, which is really what the Manley report said, and the government committed to that. We want openness. We do not want these cue cards, as we read about in the paper, that are prepared for the Conservative members to read before they even talk to anyone or to the media. For God's sake, the member for Calgary East and all of us as members were elected democratically by our constituents.

I recall that in 1993 the Reform Party members came here with the notion that we are here to speak on behalf of our people. I would like to remind members that people send us here to be their voice. Yes, there are times when members take positions favouring their own party, but in the past on both sides of the House I have seen members stand up independently to vote against or with the government. All of us have done that. I say that proudly.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who will tell us at first hand that when we sit in committee there are no stripes, and we try to do the best we can for our men and women in our military. There is the odd time when we might have a difference of opinion, but at the end of the day we find a way to move forward positively.

All I am asking for, and what this motion is asking for, first, is that date so we can deliver. Second, I am asking the government to keep to the recommendations of the Manley report. Third, I am asking the government to maybe take a look at the 13 recommendations put together by the defence committee and tie them together. I will tell the parliamentary secretary again that yes, there is a committee, he is right, and that committee did bring forward recommendations for his information.

At the end of the day, what are we here to do? We are here first and foremost to make sure that our men and women in Afghanistan are properly equipped, properly prepared and doing the right thing so Canada once again can maintain its proud history and tradition in terms of its initiatives.

I would suggest to the government that it do what other countries do. I will use the United States of America as an example. It consistently is at the podium. Today there is a hearing in the United States. General Petraeus is doing a full presentation before a committee. General Hillier has appeared only once before committee. It is not that the man will not come. He would be glad to come any time and visit with us. I give full marks to General Hillier, but I am asking the parliamentary secretary to do whatever he can to get the Minister of National Defence before our committee so we can be briefed.

In closing, I am also suggesting that a representative, whether it be the parliamentary secretary or the minister, give everybody an update on an ongoing basis on what is happening, in the press room or wherever. The government should give an update not just to us in the House but to all Canadians because it is they who are footing the bill. I am concerned. I end with the dollars only because we budgeted so much.

I was pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of National Defence talk about new equipment, but he did say one thing that really upset me. He said that finally after 13 years of doing nothing we are now purchasing new equipment. He knows that was not an accurate statement, as does every member in this House. I asked the question in committee. When the Conservatives were talking about the $14 billion in their 2007 budget, I asked if it was new money or the money that the Liberals put in our 2005 budget. After two questions, I must say that the response was that it was the $14 billion allocated in the Liberal budget of 2005.

However, I must compliment the Conservative government. At that time, the Conservatives added a few more needed dollars. So when the minister yesterday talked about how finally after 13 years of nothing being done we are now purchasing new equipment, and I believe he said helicopters, we fully support that.

In order to show our unified support to our men and women, none of us here should being playing politics with this issue. Nobody has anything to gain from that, from our side anyway. There can only be losses. I encourage the government and the members on our side to keep the tone at that level.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, I want to remind the hon. member for Scarborough Centre that it is unparliamentary to point out the absence of members. I think there were a couple of times in his speech when he might have been skating close to that.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Thank you. We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you mentioned that. I am pleased, in fact, to have the member mention my presence. I think people who read Hansard will see who was here and who was not here for the 30 hours of debate. I will just leave that to the folks who want to read Hansard.

The member is right. We try not to misrepresent things. When we are in committee, we try to work together, and by and large we do a pretty good job. I am disappointed that he has not carried that over into the House, because in fact he misrepresented many things. I will point out a number of them.

The Manley report said that we needed a minimum of 1,000 soldiers in the south of Afghanistan, specifically in Kandahar, to allow the Canadian Forces to focus more effort on training, reconstruction and development. That is what Manley asked for. That is what is in fact happening.

He talked about ministerial visits to committees. Our ministers have visited committees dozens of times. There is no occasion when this current minister has been asked to come that he has not come. It is simply misleading to suggest that he is somehow holding out. There have been I think 17 technical briefings on the mission in Afghanistan, all but one by this government.

The member talked about parliamentary travel. The defence committee travelled to Afghanistan in January 2007. We have had travel approved. There is no issue of delay in travel at all. It is happening according to the process that normally takes place in this House. To represent otherwise is simply misleading.

He talked about debate. We are the only government that has debated the mission in Afghanistan in this House--twice. It is very misleading to suggest that we have not had fulsome debate in this House. I was disappointed to see the member misrepresent that.

He talked about contracts, saying that we should have contracts to Canadian companies. Canadian companies can bid on any contracts they want. Nothing is stopping them.

We do not go into a mission like Afghanistan to benefit Canadian companies or to benefit anybody financially. We go into a mission like Afghanistan to do the right thing.

Responsibility to protect cannot be just words. It has to be actions. We are taking those actions. We are doing it for the right reason. We would all work better if we did not misrepresent, on either side, what is going on. I would ask the member to stop that.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he said dozens of times, that we had the minister before committee dozens of times. I say this publicly now: I will resign if he is correct, and let him resign if he is not correct on that statement that we have had the minister before committee dozens of times. That is the public challenge. I was not going to do this because I have great respect for the member, but he resigns if I am correct, and I resign if he is correct.

Now, on the contracts, I was forced to talk about the committee simply because the parliamentary secretary instigated that when he said there is a committee looking into it. We did look into it. If the Prime Minister indeed committed to and executed what he said during the election, he would have respected the committee's work. He would have looked at the committee's report and he would have not had a need to go to an independent committee, the Manley committee.

The Prime Minister and that party have no respect for democracy and no respect for committee. I had no intention of raising my voice to this pitch, but unfortunately the parliamentary secretary chose to take me in this direction. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I took note of when my colleague from Scarborough was speaking. The first was that he pointed out a fact put forward by my colleague, the defence critic for the NDP, which is that in this country at this time there is a freedom of information chill associated with the Afghan war.

There is a saying that freedom of information is the oxygen democracy breathes. If that is the case, we are having a smog day in Ottawa in everything associated with the Afghan mission, and my colleague was right to point this out. If for no other reason, it is justified to create this committee. Perhaps that committee will be able to pry free the information that is otherwise being denied to people through the ordinary system. My colleague received just today a letter stating that it will be another 300 days to answer a fairly straightforward access to information request submitted months ago. That is one thing I would ask my colleague to comment on.

Second, he stood and started talking about the contracts associated with the Afghan war and a chill ran up and down my spine, because there is always a business case for war. If we look at the Hansard debates during the second world war and the Korean war, we will see that a great deal of time was spent worrying about who was getting these lucrative, juicy contracts associated with profiteering from the war. I was disappointed to hear my colleague start talking about “me too, we want some of those juicy contracts associated with killing--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am of the race of Solon. Solon was the founder of democracy in ancient Greece. I believe in openness and transparency, and I like to believe the House functions in a democratic way. However, when it takes 300 days to get a response, then maybe democracy is being eroded.

On the contracts, I simply said it from the point of view of the so-called caveats within the system, or within our participation, that these other nations involved in the mission cannot go and participate because of this and because of that.

We had the opportunity in 2008 to address these caveats. In Bucharest, for example, the Prime Minister simply had to say, “We voted in Parliament. We will commit upon condition that these caveats are lifted”. He abdicated his responsibilities.

Regarding the contracts, just like George Bush said, those who participate will benefit. We need to ensure that only Canadian companies will participate in these contracts, so the Canadians and nurses do not get laid off.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member coming from the cradle of democracy. He talked about a lack of transparency, and I will give him a chance to elaborate more.

I know one thing Canadians are very proud of is democracy. How can they be proud of a government that is stymying committees every time they want to look into something the government could be doing wrong? They are breaking the House rules. In justice, for instance, the chair has walked out four times, breaking the House rules. Could he comment further on that?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important debate and it would do our House well if members asked questions about the debate at hand. I would question the relevance of the intervention of the person who spoke before me.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a document written by the Conservatives to thwart committee. I was responding to his comments on lack of transparency of the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Maybe the hon. member for Scarborough Centre could briefly respond to the question in a relevant way to the motion at hand.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will tie it together. I only touched upon it because we have seen, not just in our committee but in other committees, how the procedures within committee are disrupted and at the end of the day we are unable to ask the questions of witnesses properly. We are unable to get information.

The reason I brought it up was I kept touching upon the report that we put together as a committee. To get to the end of that report, there were always roadblocks and roadblocks to the point that we became very frustrated at the end of the day. I was referring to that.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, would the member care to comment on the fact that the government tried and tried, unsuccessfully, to get the Liberals and the other opposition parties to have committee hearings leading up to the actual vote in the House? It was deeply regrettable, in my judgment and certainly in the judgment of the Prime Minister, that the Liberals, in particular, were unwilling to take information before we actually got to a vote.

Would he care to comment on that?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was no specific strategy behind that. If we go back and look at what happened at that time—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Why am I not surprised?