Debates of April 8th, 2008

Opposition Motion—Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak before the House today to this important matter.

There are many reasons why Canada is in Afghanistan but they all come down to the same basic principle: we are there to help a people and a country in need. We are there because Canadians care about helping those affected by turmoil and upheaval. We are there because we can and must make a difference.

Canada is in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and at the invitation of a democratically elected Afghan government. We are part of a community of more than 60 nations and organizations that have united to help the Afghan government rebuild the country and restore freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, values that we cherish in our own country but that have been denied to the people of Afghanistan for far too long.

Canada's mission in Afghanistan is one of partnership. We are working closely, not only with the government of Afghanistan, but also with other allied nations and with trusted non-government partners. Partnership is the only viable strategy for bringing lasting peace and development to this troubled nation.

One aspect of this partnership is military. Canadian soldiers are doing absolutely critical work to bring stability to a country that has been torn apart by internal strife for decades. They are helping to create secure conditions in which development and reconstruction can flourish.

However, it is the development side of the mission that I would like to focus on today and, more particularly, the work of our dedicated partners on the ground, partners who have invested heavily in the future of Afghanistan and whose work is literally transforming lives. These partners include UNICEF, the World Health Organization and the World Food Programme, to name just a few. They are among the most highly experienced, most trusted and most accountable organizations in the world. They have proven records of delivering tangible results on the ground.

In 2007, for example, Canada's contribution to the World Food Programme helped feed more than 550,000 hungry people in the province of Kandahar alone. This aid targets those who are most vulnerable, including families displaced by conflict or affected by drought.

In addition to providing much needed emergency food assistance to the vulnerable, the World Food Programme also delivers aid through the food for work and food for education projects, helping individuals build essential skills and rehabilitate their community's infrastructure.

Last year, Canadian funds supported the construction or rehabilitation of more than 3,000 kilometres of canals and more than 250 kilometres of roads in Kandahar through the food for work initiatives.

In addition, more than 30,000 people in the province benefited from functional literacy training and more than 4,000 people received vocational skills training through the food for education initiative.

Canada's support for organizations working in the area of health also deserves special recognition. For example, our contributions to UNICEF have supported the delivery of a large scale measles and tetanus vaccination campaign in Kandahar. This program has reached more than 200,000 children and more than 175,000 women of childbearing age.

Also, as part of this project, UNICEF is providing essential non-food items, such as blankets and sweaters, to thousands of vulnerable families. Medical and nutritional supplies, including emergency health kits, are also being provided to those in need.

Canada is also a strong supporter of the World Health Organization's polio eradication efforts. Our contribution is helping to immunize more than 7 million children against polio, including approximately 350,000 children in Kandahar province.

Health and food aid are important aspects of our work in Afghanistan but we are also helping to rebuild institutions of government.

Reconstruction efforts will fail unless democratic institutions are established that can ensure security, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Canada's governance programs help ensure that laws are both just and arrived at democratically. We support independent, effective institutions that enforce those laws so that everyone can feel safe in their communities and homes. For example, with support from Canada, the International Development Law Organization has trained more than 70 prosecutors in financial and juvenile crime and more than 200 judges have been trained in civil, criminal and commercial law and procedure.

Also thanks to financial aid from Canada, Rights & Democracy has opened women's centres throughout Afghanistan, providing women with basic services, such as legal aid, and giving them a refuge in a place where they can feel safe and supported.

We are also supporting initiatives to strengthen human rights, including the deployment of a gender adviser to the minister of interior and support to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which promotes human rights and investigates violations with an emphasis on women and children.

My goal in coming here today was to underscore just how big a difference our contributions are making in Afghanistan, and this progress is all being achieved against long odds. Not only are we working in one of the most volatile and difficult environments in the world, we are also almost starting from scratch.

Emerging in 2001 from decades of violence and conflict, there is almost nothing left in Afghanistan. The country's infrastructure was grazed to the ground. Its landscape was contaminated by mines. Its people lived in abject poverty and the basic services, such as health care and education, were virtually non-existent. However, despite these challenges, real progress is being made.

Day to day, community by community, Afghans are laying the foundations for a brighter future. This speaks both to their fortitude and their resilience as people and to the sustained support and commitment of the international community.

I look forward to continuing to be part of these important discussions as we continue to support the people of Afghanistan in the years ahead.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful speech about all the things that are happening around Afghanistan, but having said that, I would like my colleague to comment on the important role that our brave men and women in the Canadian Forces play.

In his speech, he spoke of all the advances and how women were now able to be a part of society. He spoke of the many wonderful things that are happening in Afghanistan but if it were not for our dedicated, brave and courageous military men and women, this would not be happening. Could my colleague just comment on that?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I know I touched on a lot of the health issues and the reconstruction issues but none of this could be done without the security provided by our brave men and women in uniform.

We think of how hard it is to even institute some of these programs in a country as resource rich as Canada and in an environment as easy as the on in Canada, but to go to a country that is starting from scratch, where roads and bridges did not exist and where no infrastructure was left and having to rebuild from there is hard enough, but it is even harder when it has to be done under the fire of the Taliban and under the security situations that are there.

I have had the opportunity to speak to young men and women from the 31st Combat Engineers Regiment from my own riding in the Elgins. The engineers in this case are helping to rebuild parts of Afghanistan but they are also spending a great deal of time removing landmines. Imagine sending our kids out to play and not knowing where or what type of landmines there might be. Afghanistani is inundated with landmines and that is one of the other important jobs we do.

People ask why our forces there. They are there because security needs to be there so we can go about doing the good jobs for health, for rebuilding the economy and for putting kids back in school.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion of my colleague, the Liberal foreign affairs critic.

The purpose of this motion is to improve the motion adopted by Parliament on March 13, 2008. In seeking to create this special parliamentary committee, an idea already approved by the majority of members, including government members, we are acting in accordance with what has already been expressed as the will of Parliament.

What will be the purpose of this special committee? It will be a parliamentary committee to monitor—let me emphasize the word “monitor”—the current Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This special committee could keep Parliament better informed on the progress and setbacks of the mission, while ensuring that the government is as transparent and accountable as possible to the Canadian public.

This monitoring committee could have different facets, but in no way would it be involved in military operations. It would monitor the progress in the field until February 2009 with the unequivocal purpose of preparing for the post-2009 period, as expressed in the March 13 motion, in other words, changing the current combat mission into a reconstruction mission.

The Liberal Party has committed to post-February 2009, because of the essential, non-negotiable conditions to that end, including an additional 1,000 troops sent by another country, access to drones, and, in particular, making our presence in Afghanistan a reconstruction mission with the express goal of helping the Afghan people. The objective of current development and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan is to help build a stable, democratic and prosperous country that contributes to regional and global security. Guided by the Afghanistan millennium development goals, the Afghanistan interim national development strategy and the Afghanistan compact, the Afghan government is working with international partners to address the country’s immediate and long-term needs in areas as diverse as health, education, governance, policing, agriculture and infrastructure rehabilitation.

This committee should, as is done by all the other countries in Afghanistan, obtain clear and precise answers on various points and different aspects of what is currently being done and what will be done after February 2009.

Reconstruction is one aspect, if not the most important aspect. What does this word mean to the government? What does this word mean to CIDA? Who are these PRTs, the provincial reconstruction teams?

Operating in 25 provinces, PRTs are hosted and assembled by individual countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. They comprise military units, civilian political advisors and development advisors working in an integrated fashion to provide humanitarian assistance and to support development activities.

The priorities and configuration of each PRT are set out by the host country to reflect the conditions and needs in the particular province, but the overriding objective is to contribute to the stability, security and outreach of the central government's authority and to support local and provincial administrations. The primary mechanisms for achieving these objectives are regular interaction with the local authorities and the population, visibility, information-gathering with regard to security and stability, and support for the Afghan National Police. It is also important to note that, despite the internal integration of PRTs, their military components are part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force efforts.

But what will Canada do? Will Canada provide training for new reconstruction teams in Kandahar province?

How do we move forward? We must not ignore the fact that in Kandahar province, there are practically no reconstruction projects to speak of and, I dare say, this is primarily because of the flagrant lack of security for workers.

There are other factors. Are we talking about the reconstruction of roads, schools, clinics, access to water, irrigation? Who will our partners be? NGOs? Local communities?

We must decide and above all we must plan what we intend to do. Regarding NGOs, it seems that the Conservative government is allergic to the very idea of NGOs, an expression it has banished within the government, although NGOs are the very embodiment of Canadian civil society, that is, the multitudes of citizens who are interested, informed and engaged in ensuring that our country becomes more and more capable of assuming its global responsibilities.

Such scorn for the opinion of Canadian civil society, or, we might say, such deliberate disregard of the wishes of Canadians is quickly becoming the trademark of this government.

In fact, the report specifically called on the government to develop more frank reporting to Canadians. It is also a fact, however, that the culture of secrecy imposed and perpetuated by the Conservative government only shows that we are still a far cry from having a government that takes its responsibility seriously to be open and honest with Canadians.

This is not the Conservative government's mission. It is first and foremost Canada's mission and consequently emanates from all Canadians.

Does the reconstruction effort have an agricultural component? Without agriculture or markets for their crops, the local population cannot meet its basic needs. Hence, the clan leaders must turn to poppy crops with all the ensuing consequences.

What progress, if any, has been made in discussions with the Kabul authorities and also, more importantly, with Kandahar authorities? The committee will have to obtain answers to all these questions.

The mission in Afghanistan is definitely very important; however, as with any large mission involving armed forces, it will only be resolved by negotiations that engage not only Afghanistan, but also neighbouring countries, Pakistan and Iran in particular, and especially with the total involvement of the UN and the Security Council.

Canada, with its internationally recognized history of diplomacy, could play a leading role. In order to do that, the government must agree and be prepared to invest the requisite time and money.

In Canada, we have exceptional career diplomats and diplomats well-versed in conducting negotiations. For these reasons, among others, I am asking this House to vote in favour of this motion. The government should finally take appropriate action: that is what we are demanding, that is what Canadians are demanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, with me, and he has been quite an active member. Together we have been doing a very extensive study on the situation in Afghanistan. I hope that he gets elected as the vice-chair of the committee and that we will continue working together on that committee, collectively, as we have done in the past, and that we will address issues that are important to Canada.

I have a question for the hon. member. As he knows, we all agree about this committee. However, I think we must also look at the work we have done in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, for which a report is about to be prepared. He and I will work together to ensure that this new committee does not duplicate the work of that committee and that the work of that committee and all the witnesses we have heard before that committee are taken into account by this new committee.

I hope the hon. member can then tell his foreign affairs critic about all the efforts and all these things, because this morning when I was asking his foreign affairs critic a question I found a lack of knowledge on his part, and I can understand that because he is a new member.

My friend on the other side has been there for a very long time, so hopefully he will be able to tell his colleague this, and we can work together on that.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation, for his wishes, but before coming into the House I was elected vice-chair. I just wanted to let him know. I am very proud about it and very happy.

However, regarding the hon. member's question, I must say that the committee always has worked on consensus. We have worked on consensus before and have done a report on the issue of Afghanistan. I do not think the new committee will be a duplication of the current committee. I think this committee needs to do a follow-up on what is going on right now just to assure Canadians that we know exactly what to do.

Regarding the PRTs, I think they are very important. Right now in the committee we are studying mainly defence stuff to see where we are going with our armed forces, but we also want to study the reconstruction. As I stated in my speech, reconstruction also means agriculture, not just the water supply. It is all these things, because the worst thing that could happen is that if we do not win the hearts of the Afghan people, we will lose the war.

Also very important is Canada's involvement in diplomacy. We need to be with the United Nations and the Security Council, which are very much present over there, because any war will be solved not by arms but by diplomacy.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to discuss this important motion that is before the House. The mission in Afghanistan is of extreme importance to Canadians. It has caused a lot of discussion, some dissension and spirited public debate from coast to coast to coast. The House passed a motion a month ago that was supported by the government and by the official opposition, but the motion thus far has not been enacted.

I want to talk a little from a personal point of view as a member of Parliament from a community that has a large military population, that has a lot of veterans and that takes service very seriously.

I supported Canada's purpose in entering Afghanistan some six years ago. This is a NATO-led mission under the express authority of the United Nations at the invitation of the Afghan government. Our role, however, has evolved over the last six years. I would not be truthful if I did not say that it has caused me some concern over that period of time.

One of my own personal passions is Canada's place in the world, in Afghanistan certainly, but more particularly for me in international development and development assistance, and Canada's role in assisting the poorest of the poor. I have had a concern that Canada's international development assistance program has been largely gobbled up and dedicated to Afghanistan, possibly to the detriment of other places in the world. That causes me concern. There are a lot of places where Canada should play a role in the world, Darfur being a prime example, but there are others as well.

However, I also have heard from those who have been to Afghanistan, those who have served, those who have been there and those who understand the situation there, and they tell me that there are significant improvements in the way of life of the Afghan people.

As I say, I come from a military area and I have in my riding many serving members of the Canadian Forces and many veterans. The highlights of my constituency work include a lot of military events: the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of Britain, D-Day and Remembrance Day. These are all very important. When one lives in the community of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, as I do, one is constantly reminded of the sacrifice of those who have served and of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

For me, the mission hit home in a very profound way on March 2, 2006. On that day I flew home from Ottawa. When I arrived in Halifax along with other members of Parliament and turned on my BlackBerry, it was buzzing with the news of the death of Corporal Paul Davis, 2nd Battalion, Prince Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, one of the first deaths in Afghanistan.

It struck home for many of us because we knew his family. Jim Davis, his father, is a very good friend of mine. On the way in from the airport that day, I called Jim and expressed my condolences on the loss of his son. He was obviously distraught, but people who saw him that day and as he was interviewed on the news that night were struck by a number of things, most particularly by his belief that his son had died for a good cause and that before he had served overseas they had in fact talked about that.

On that same day, Master Corporal Timothy Wilson from Grande Prairie, Alberta was killed, and a number of Canadians were wounded. It was one of the first times that we had to deal with that as a nation: the shocking news that we had lost a serving member of the Canadian Forces.

Two months later, we had the vote in the House in May 2006. After some consideration, I supported the extension of the mission, and I believe still that it was the right thing to do. Over the past couple of years our troops have continued their work and the country has continued to debate the progress of the mission.

In January, the Manley panel issued its report and made a number of recommendations. Whether one agrees with the conclusions or not, I think Canadians should read this report. I think it lays out well not only its recommendations but how it comes to those conclusions, along with the history of the mission in Afghanistan and the reasons for being there. I think in some ways it has very frank recommendations for what should be done.

One of the things that struck me when I read it early on, because I think it is something that we need to be reminded about, is what the report states on page 8: “Informed and fair-minded Canadians can differ on the policy choices before us”.

One thing that has irritated me is the expressed belief by some members and by some Canadians in regard to those who have not supported the extension of the mission. I did support it, but I have friends in a number of political parties who did not. It offends me when they are referred to as friends of the Taliban or when they are told that they care more about the Taliban than they do about Canadian servicemen and servicewomen. That is not right. That allusion in the report to the fact that we can disagree and differ on these choices is I think very important.

The report makes a number of recommendations. It talks about the 1,000 more troops, the medium lift helicopters and the high performance UAVs. It also makes some other recommendations. On page 20, it states:

Important issues of Canadian diplomacy and aid in Afghanistan have scarcely been acknowledged and seldom asserted in public by ministers or officials responsible. Canada’s ambassadors in Kabul, NATO and other capitals have had limited authority to explain Canadian policy. The Panel believes that this information deficit needs to be redressed immediately in a comprehensive and more balanced communication strategy of open and continuous engagement with Canadians.

It also talks about the necessity of moving to reconstruction and development to better assess our progress. If we are going to have people serving overseas, we need to have very strict benchmarks and metrics for measuring how we are doing, as well as the franker reporting.

On February 8, the government tabled its motion on Afghanistan. The tabling of the motion itself in some ways did not follow a recommendation on page 34 of the Manley report, which states, “Parliament might wish to defer judgment on Canada’s future in Afghanistan until the NATO summit”, which is the one in April, “ is concluded”.

Nonetheless, it came before the House and we had a discussion here. People will recall the debate that happened and the amendment that was put forward by the Liberals, which bought the support of both the government and the official opposition. I continue to believe to this day that this motion, as amended, is something that sits very comfortably both in my head and in my heart as we try to deal with what is the right thing to do in Afghanistan and what Canada's role is supposed to be.

I think we need to improve communications with Canadians. We have heard that not just from the report of the Manley commission but from Canadians, who want to be informed about what is happening in the mission. That is not to say that there are not some occurrences or instances where they cannot, but I think we all understand that happens. However, as a matter of policy, as often as possible we need to communicate that and we need to have that debate also take place in the Parliament of Canada.

Decisions have to be made by the government, and we all accept that, but the discussion has to take place in Parliament. The motion that was put forward and passed by the House called for improved communication with Canadians, or in other words shedding more light on this mission, and for setting dates for our move to reconstruction and redevelopment.

There is a lot of work that should be done in Afghanistan. There is a lot of poverty, gender inequity and even issues of environment that could be dealt with in a more effective way. We need to make the transition to that work and then we need to exit. Tonight we vote again on a motion very similar to the last one that was passed by the House.

The mission in Afghanistan has consumed an awful lot of public debate. It has caused some good discussion to happen in this country and I suspect that it has caused some bad discussion to happen in this country, but that is the fact of life with most issues we deal with.

We should pass this motion tonight. I urge other parties to support it. Let us move on with this special committee and get the work done. Let us shed some light on what is happening in Afghanistan. Let us really understand how we are going to make this critical transition in 2009 and then how we are going to get out of Afghanistan and leave it a better place.

I do not believe that the solution in Afghanistan will be a military solution any more than it is in most places in a modern age. The solutions come from the people in these countries and there has to be political support. That can be enabled and helped by development. There needs to be military support for it, but we have to allow for a political solution in Afghanistan.

Let us move forward with respect for our troops and respect for each other as parliamentarians and Canadians, recognizing that nobody has a patent on patriotism. We all want to do the right thing for the Afghan people. Let us get on with it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, as always, to my colleague's dissertation in the House. I was very struck by how he spoke of the need for us to engage in a debate where we are not using cheap rhetoric toward each other.

I think by far the most important decision that any member of Parliament makes is the decision of whether or not to put someone else's life in danger. That is a decision each member in this House must make in good conscience, and they do make it in good conscience based on what they feel at the end of the day is in the best interests of the country and the people they represent.

That is a task we cannot give to anyone else. It is our task alone, it is why we are here, and I certainly appreciate his plea to make this debate about that.

I have listened to the debate today and I would say that everyone is trying to rise to the occasion. One would think honey would not melt in the mouths of anyone in the House today. Many other days in this House I have heard really vile personal attacks and attempts to make this a “Which side are you on?”.

As the hon. member pointed out, to say that any member in this House is in some way similar, supportive, like, or comparable to the Taliban is certainly disrespectful to why we are here as parliamentarians and disrespectful for what we are actually trying to accomplish, however we are going to vote on this.

I would like to thank the member. I am supposed to ask a question, I suppose, but I just wanted to let him know that I appreciated his comments.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is not one of the usual zingers we get from the member for Timmins—James Bay. I appreciate his comments.

I do recall when we voted in March 2006 discussing this with a colleague of his, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the day of the vote. He had some issues and he voted the way he felt was right. I voted the way I felt. It does not mean that we feel any less well toward our troops.

People know that his colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is a strong supporter of the troops as are the members over here. I should also say that, I agree, one of the biggest decisions we can make is to move troops into harm's way, move Canadian citizens into harm's way.

I also believe it is a huge decision for Canada to not put more money into international development in other parts of the world. There are millions of citizens in this world who are dying everyday because they do not get the assistance they deserve, frankly, from some of the richer nations. Those are the kinds of equations that I have wrestled with in my own head, as I am sure he and other members have as well.

It is an important motion and we need to move forward. This place works at its best and the great episodes in parliamentary history in Canada were done in a tone of civility, not in a tone of nastiness. We should do that as often as we can.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Timmins—James Bay, I listened with interest to the speech from my colleague. Obviously, my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour has the respect of everybody in this chamber. I have no doubt that he has similar respect from the constituents in his riding. I know how hard he works for the constituents in his riding.

On that point, I wonder if the member has had an opportunity to converse with any member of the armed forces who has actually been to Afghanistan and returned with any on-the-ground accounts of progress which have been made by our troops in Afghanistan.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will preface my comments by suggesting that the member for Brant, probably more than any other member I can think of in this House, is a person of civility and conducts himself in a way we should all aspire to.

As I have said, I come from a military riding. I have met with a number of people who have served in Afghanistan and with families who have lost beloved family members in Afghanistan. There have been a number from Nova Scotia. My colleague from Cape Breton—Canso would know that. I think we have eight or nine members from Nova Scotia.

It is a very sobering experience to talk to people who have lost family members. It is a very informative experience to talk to people who have served in Afghanistan and their learning must not be lost.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon. I want to indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster.

We are here basically debating a motion that is principally a procedural motion. It is not prescriptive, it is not proactive, and the guts of the motion, if I may put it that way, state that a special committee consisting of 12 members be appointed to consider the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

It is fairly unusual that the so-called official opposition would decide to use its opposition day to engage in such a procedural debate, but it has to be noted that the government had made a commitment, which has not been kept, to get on with creating this committee and so we too welcome the motion.

As my colleagues who have already participated in the debate this afternoon, the defence critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam and the foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre, have already indicated, we both welcome the creation of this committee and the opportunity in this brief debate to go beyond the procedural and take this occasion to address some of the more troublesome and substantive aspects of the Afghan mission debate.

We absolutely owe that. It is the very least we owe to the brave men and women in the armed forces, 82 of whom together with one outstanding Canadian diplomat have paid the ultimate price, but vast numbers of whom are continuing and many throughout their lifetime will continue to pay a very heavy price for the burden this has heaped upon them and the sacrifice that has been requested of them.

One needs only to see the many accounts of the horrendous damage to limbs and lives, and the statistics are really quite mind boggling about the psychological damage, the emotional damage that many of these veterans will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

We also owe it to the Afghan people. There have been a great number of voices that have tried to articulate back here in Canada, on behalf of many of the Afghan people, the concerns they have about how the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan, instead of creating greater security in their lives, has actually deepened the problems that plague them in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, the government has been unusually resistant to hearing and unwilling to hear the evidence that has been brought forward again and again.

Hopefully this committee will be an opportunity to air some of those concerns with a completely constructive intent and one hopes a constructive outcome because we have known from the very beginning that there is no military solution to the quagmire in Kandahar. That has been documented over and over again, and yet it continues to be the case that military strategies, more military troops, more military equipment remain the principal preoccupation, the principal response of the government.

I want to say, to be fair, that I have heard some encouraging words here this afternoon from both sides of the House. Members are recognizing more and more that there is no military solution. With short shrift being given, in terms of strategy and particularly in terms of the allocation of resources to development strategies and diplomatic engagement, the situation is not going to improve. That is being increasingly recognized.

I hope very much that what can be accomplished in this special committee on Afghanistan is the opportunity for the voices to be heard, the specific commitments and ideas based on experience to be heard, and what it means to engage in a political process that is the only way to create any kind of lasting peace and meaningful development in Afghanistan.

I hope the voice of Seddiq Weera will begin to be heeded.

I hope the voice of Seddiq Weera will begin to be heeded. Seddiq Weera has spoken before committee on many occasions about the fact that without a political process, without a meaningful commitment to building security and stability in people's lives, the investment will have been wasted. Let me quote briefly what he said:

--a counter-insurgency focus, and that focus is going to fail us. Even Manley's report is telling us how we can win the military intervention. It's a military track that we are focusing on only to achieve peace...you are fighting war on terror in Afghanistan in the wrong way. Isolate the terrorists and bring the Afghans to the political mainstream; for that there is no process.

He goes on to outline what it means to get on to a political track, and without it, it is not going to bring any peace and development to the people of Afghanistan.

I hope that the committee will listen and heed the voice of Oxfam's Matt Waldman, who sets out a positive agenda for community peacebuilding. He states:

Given that existing community peacebuilding has such a significant impact on peace and development, yet benefits only a fraction of the population, there is a powerful case for greater donor support for NGOs engaged in peacebuilding--

He goes on to talk about how there must be a framework for a national strategy for community peacebuilding not just for development. He advocates a national steering group followed by a series of parallel provincial conferences to elaborate local strategies.

I hope that the committee will listen to voices like that of Surendrini Wijeyaratne of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. She warns that even clear strategies to achieve peace and reconciliation, including transitional justice, will not just evolve on their own.

She warns that the prospect for peace grows more remote as violence continues unabated and no concerted efforts are made to engage the parties in a dialogue for peace. She urges Canada to be that voice advocating for peace, and very concretely she calls for a rebalancing of the diplomatic development in military strategies to place greater emphasis on building conditions necessary for an eventual peace process.

She also calls for encouraging the international community and the Afghan government to strengthen conditions for a future peace process and coordinate current efforts for peace. The lack of coordination was one of the things correctly identified by the Manley report. Unfortunately, the recommendations that followed seemed not to flow from the actual insights and analysis of the problems in the current counter-insurgency mission.

The spokesperson for CCIC also put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of supporting women's participation in ongoing peacebuilding efforts and identified the fact that without that there will not be any meaningful lasting peace come out of this.

We supposedly are signatories to the women, peace and security provisions of UN resolution 1325, but there is not an ounce of evidence that the government has taken the challenge of putting women front and centre in the peacebuilding process and has actually supported that in any meaningful way.

I commend to people the very concrete, wise recommendations of those who have been there on the ground and who understand what peacebuilding and robust diplomacy really needs to consist of because without it, this investment will have no prospect for success and no help to rebuild the lives of the beleaguered people of Afghanistan.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Brant, Agri-Food.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins--James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the speech of my hon. colleague was very profound. It speaks to the need for a broader picture here.

We have continually heard in this debate how great the mission is. I respect the efforts that our military is doing. It is doing the job we have asked it to do. What we see in military, Canada's is second to none.

The question of a broader strategy, of whether we can count on the success of the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan as a comprehensive road to peace, is still up for debate. In fact, I think more and more questions are being asked every day.

Last week in the Globe and Mail was a whole series on talks with the Taliban and why young people joined the Taliban. Two of the main issues raised were the fact that family members had been killed during air strikes and that the eradication programs against the poppy production had put people into situations of hunger. Therefore, they were joining the insurgency against the efforts in which even our soldiers were involved.

What does my hon. colleague think of the implications of Canada being alone in Kandahar now with what will be the U.S. marines? So many of our European allies are moving into other regions away from the counter-insurgency war, but we seem to be moving further and further into a counter-insurgency effort. What does she think the implications of that will be on long term peace in a very destabilized region?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make a brief response to my colleague's question.

It is something of a tragedy and a serious crisis for the credibility of NATO. What we have on the one hand is the overwhelming majority of NATO nations that will not go near the Kandahar counter-insurgency. It is not because they are wimps, not because they are not well trained, not because they do not have the courage of their conviction, but because they are not convinced that this is the way to peace or meaningful development.

Knowing all of that, NATO nevertheless at its top level of command and as a military alliance organization is pleading with all these countries to go in and do what Canada is doing alone, with four or five other countries, to supposedly create the winning conditions for people to rebuild their lives in Kandahar.

The member is quite right to point out that there continue to be serious reservations about this strategy and this flawed mission in Kandahar, which is causing untold damage to people's lives, to infrastructure and to the reputation of Canada, unfortunately.

This is not because our men and women in the Canadian armed forces are not serving extremely capably and conscientiously. It is because they have been assigned to a mission that is deeply flawed and recognized to be so by the vast majority of NATO countries, never mind those outside of that military alliance.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when we had pushed for a debate on Afghanistan just over a year ago and we were denounced as not supporting the mission. I remember very clearly the question the hon. member asked then. She asked where the allies were. I remember the vitriol we heard from the government benches that even asking such questions was tantamount to and a form of disloyalty and treason. Yet the question ever since then has been where are the allies? In fact, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have stood up and said that we will not continue the mission unless we understand where the allies are.

The member was asking those questions when it was clear Canada had been signed on to a counter-insurgency war under Operation Enduring Freedom. At the present time, Canada will once again be alone with the U.S. The rest of our allies, where are they? They are in other areas.

Does the hon. member feel that history has come full circle once again?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Halifax has five seconds to respond.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think sadly that the very questions that we raised on the front end of this in every debate, one was what are really the timetables and targets—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow the member for Halifax, who has brought her wealth of experience to the House of Commons. It is very clear from what she has said this afternoon that she has enormous wisdom to share with members of the House of Commons. Hopefully, members from all four corners of the House will have heard her words of wisdom and will act accordingly.

I rise to speak to the motion brought in by the Liberal Party, the Liberal opposition motion that moves to form a special committee to oversee the mission in Afghanistan. It is very clear that this corner of the House we will support it, but it is a procedural motion. It is something the government ought to have brought in and presumably would have brought in.

It is much more relevant and pertinent to raise concerns about the issue as a whole, rather than the procedural motion, which is very simple and straightforward and presumably will be adopted by this House later today.

Both the member for Halifax and the member for Timmins—James Bay, when he rose to ask a question a few moments ago, raised the importance of our mission in Afghanistan.

We have incredibly competent and dedicated members of the Canadian Forces who are serving overseas. They serve in respect to our democratic system under the command, essentially, of this democratic body, which is the House of Commons.

Both the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Halifax noted the importance of making appropriate decisions. We have tremendous power over members of the Canadian Forces. We have to ensure the decisions we make in the House of Commons are decisions that reflect the will of the Canadian people and also reflect what the experts, those who know these areas very well, have indicated to us should be the appropriate direction.

Over the next few minutes, I want to talk both about what Canadians have said as a whole and what individuals have said about the mission in Afghanistan and how Canada can play a role that will bring about peace and development in Afghanistan, which I believe in most minds of Canadians is the most appropriate role.

A recent poll indicated that 85% of Canadians did not believe the mission should continue past February 2009. Yet a few weeks ago in the House of Commons members of other parties voted to continue the mission. Very clearly, Canadians are speaking out and saying they have concerns about this mission as a whole. They do not have concerns about our Canadian Forces personnel and their dedication. They have concerns about the political direction the government has given, through the House of Commons, to the mission.

If 85% of Canadians do not believe the mission should continue past February 2009, then one must ask the question, why? I believe it is partly because Canadians believe profoundly that our role should be to stimulate development in Afghanistan. The fact that over 90% of the resources we are investing in Afghanistan are military in nature, not developmental in nature, I believe is a source of much concern to many Canadians.

As well, I think Canadians are reflecting misgivings about what they see happening in Afghanistan, and I will come back to this in a moment.

It is important to note, as we did in the House a few weeks ago, that a report from Oxfam indicated Afghanis living in Kandahar province were asked what their major sources of insecurity were. They did not indicate the Taliban or international forces, Canadian Forces, as being the source of insecurity. The Oxfam study showed that the top areas of concern for Afghani people living in Kandahar province were: first, the Afghani police and the Afghani army; and second, warlords. I think those are two sources of misgivings that Canadians have from coast to coast to coast over the direction of our mission.

Let us look then at those who may know better the whole issue of our mission in Afghanistan and the appropriateness of it. I will quote a number of individuals because I think it is apt and relevant that we do so.

Major-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, back in 2005 said very clearly, “every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you”.

Captain Leo Docherty, who is a British aide-de-camp, indicated in The Telegraph in 2006 that Afghanistan was:

—a textbook case of how to screw up a counterinsurgency...and all we are doing is surviving. It's completely, barking mad. It's a pretty clear equation—if people are losing homes and poppy fields they will go and fight. I know I would. We've been grotesquely clumsy.

André Flahaut, who is the Belgian defence minister, suggested that:

—we finally reflect on an exit strategy...The situation is deteriorating and, over time, NATO forces risk appearing like an army of occupation.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau indicated, “I don't think Canada is winning the war” and “This war is not winnable”.

Former head of the British armed forces indicated last summer that Afghanistan was facing “strategic failure” and “The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognize. We need to face up to that issue”.

The British House of Commons foreign affairs committee indicated:

—there has been a worrying deterioration in the security situation in Afghanistan, and that there are signs that the tactics that have brought such devastation to Iraq are being replicated in Afghanistan....negligible progress has been made reducing opium poppy cultivation.

Those who know first-hand and who ought to know about the mission in Afghanistan and its level of appropriateness say very clearly that it is not an appropriate mission. In this corner of the House, we believe, as do most Canadians, that the most appropriate use of Canadian skills and Canadian abilities is to put the emphasis on a developed Afghanistan, to put the emphasis on bringing about peace in Afghanistan.

It is important to note that, with the extension that the House considered a few weeks ago, in 2011 the mission in Afghanistan will have been a conflict that Canada has been involved with that will be two years longer than the Vietnam war. We are talking about an extensive period of time. We are talking about tremendous sacrifice in Canadian and Afghani lives. In fact, over 80 Canadians thus far have given their lives in this conflict. One can presume, with the extension to 2011, that many more will also give their lives.

In this corner of the House, we are saying that we do not believe this is the appropriate mission for Canada. We do not believe this is the appropriate mission for our very dedicated, skilled and competent armed forces. We believe there is another path to take. We believe in listening to the voices we have heard, voices from Afghanistan and also from other individuals around the world, that our approach on Afghanistan is the appropriate one for Canada and the appropriate one to bring about the peace and peaceful reconstruction, which we all want to see there.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fearmongering party sitting over there nitpicks little quotes here and there and tries to make a case for saying it does not want to be in Afghanistan. What is of interest is that all socialist parties around the world do not accept its view of this thing.

The BBC has just reported that 17 Afghan road workers were killed by militants. How do those members expect to provide security to development workers if militants keep killing people?

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

Mr. Speaker, this changes a bit the respectful tone that we have had in the House most of the day on this issue. It is sad that one member of the House is not adopting the respectful tone that other members in the House have adopted.

What the member contends is simply not true but he gives me the opportunity to read into the record a number of other quotations that I hope the House will take under advisement.

First, the former prime minister of Italy and former president of the European Union, Romano Prodi, said:

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

Let's be clear, no increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan will be able to resolve such an awful problem as this.

The former head of the UN mission in Afghanistan said:

You can't resolve it by killing the Taliban. You have to win people over. That is done with good governance, decent police, diplomacy with Pakistan, and development.

The NATO secretary general said:

...the final answer in Afghanistan will not be a military one and cannot be a military one.

The final answer in Afghanistan is called reconstruction, development and nation-building.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully ask the member how he would square up his comments that we are there for the wrong reasons or that we should not be conducting ourselves in a military way.

With the military, 83% of Afghans now have medical access. Without the military, only 9% had access. With the military, because of its protection of the Afghan people, the infant mortality rate is down 22% since 2001 and 40,000 more babies survive every year. With the protection of the Canadian army, 4,000 new medical facilities have opened nationwide since 2004. The number of tuberculosis cases resulting in death declined by 50% annually. Over 103 tuberculosis cases were diagnosed and treated between 2001 to 2006.

None of those things would have happened if there was no security. I wonder how he can possibly square the position of the NDP of pulling the military out when it is the military that provides the security which gives these results.

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

Mr. Speaker, NATO statistics indicate that insurgent attacks and security issues have climbed from 4,500 incidents in 2006 to about 7,400 in 2007. The percentage of girls going to school is one in five at the primary level and one in twenty at the secondary school level.

I have quoted a number of experts who have taken a look in a non-partisan way at the mission and raised real concerns around how we approach actually bringing about peaceful reconstruction in Afghanistan. I will quote one more.

The head of the British forces said:

...body counts are a corrupt way of measuring success... It is building civic society which is essential. Talking simply in terms of winning the war is meaningless.

The former adviser to the ISAF said--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage.