Debates of April 8th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the member's memory, but I will point out to the member that what we are talking about today is simply actualizing what was in those 30 hours of debate.

What we are doing today is putting forward a motion, which the government accepted on March 13, which establishes the special committee dealing with accountability and transparency on Afghanistan. What we are doing is putting forward the motion to say that this has to be established, so I am not sure what the member is saying.

The issue of the 30 hours of debate has absolutely nothing to do now with the fact that we passed a resolution. We now expect it to be acted upon. In order to act upon it, one of the provisions, and if the member's memory is a little unclear he can read it again, talks about the establishment of this committee. That is all we are doing, nothing more and nothing less.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that committees are sliding into partisan paralysis, the environment committee, the defence committee, all of the committees, and it is costing taxpayers quite a significant amount of money. We on this side of the House believe very strongly that we should hold the government accountable on the decisions to extend the mission with the same old traditional war-making approach.

My question to the member opposite it this. If none of the committees are working, or few of them, why would setting up yet another committee, where the Liberal Party is not holding the government accountable, be an effective measure?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it may depend on the committee. I am on the defence committee and after my first day there, it seems to be working fine. It is up to members to ensure that they work in a collaborative spirit.

With respect to the establishment of a special committee, this is what the House passed. Canadians expect us to work together effectively, to evaluate the mission, to demonstrate leadership with regard to the mission, and to call the appropriate ministers to the committee, so it will work.

We keep talking about how things do not work. Why are we not talking about working together? We should be talking about our men and women who are doing the work in the field. There is nothing more important than ensuring their safety. In order for us to understand what is going on and how we can be more effective in our support, the special committee which the majority of the House agreed to needs to go forward.

In the spirit of cooperation, I and my party intend to make the committee work when it is established. We want to make sure it is established as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East.

I want to welcome the member for Toronto Centre to this issue and to the House.

I would acknowledge as well the member for Richmond Hill, who is now the critic in this matter. He has indicated he is going to be making positive contributions to the defence committee. We certainly take him at his word and hope that is the case.

With respect to the amendment that has been moved and the motion itself, I can indicate on behalf of the government that we accept this. I understand discussions have taken place that have brought us to a consensus on this. The reality is that the government is completely in accordance with this issue. We had a motion before the House of Commons that was accepted and supported by members opposite that included a reference to this committee. Therefore, I say to the members opposite, welcome to a parade in progress. This is an issue on which we are obviously intending to move. It is as if they have gone to the window, seen that it is snowing and predicted that it will snow.

Moving to the substance of the issue itself, Canada certainly has a long and proud history in standing up for freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. That tradition, Mr. Speaker, as you know as a student of history, goes from Vimy to Normandy to Kandahar to Haiti. We will continue to take part in the great issues and causes of our time.

As Canadians this is something we proudly embrace, no more so than the men and women of the Canadian Forces who give effect to decisions that we take in this place, who very much respond appropriately, who bring glory to our country with their actions. They are at the very sharp end of the stick when it comes to the implementation and the export, so to speak, of the values that Canadians hold dear and share with other democratic countries. That demonstration of embracing these values was very much on display in Romania and Bucharest at the NATO summit last week.

We believe as well that the great advantages we enjoy as Canadians go very much hand in hand with great responsibilities. It is said that those who have much have great responsibility to share it. In fact, this is very much a sentiment that Canadians embrace.

We are seeing that goodwill extended to the people of Afghanistan in this UN backed, NATO led democratic government of Afghanistan's request for assistance in this mission. We are extending that helping hand to a government that requested Canada's assistance there and our continued presence, which is again implicit in the decision that was taken by this place.

Throughout the years, we have worked closely with friends and allies to live up to those responsibilities that we find implicit in our people and culture. Our participation in the UN mandated, NATO led Afghanistan mission is the latest chapter in this legacy.

It is the most important undertaking we have within the international community today, both on the humanitarian side, as well as the military contribution. It is hugely important to the Canadian Forces, to CIDA workers, to our diplomats and our embassy in Afghanistan that we continue in our efforts on development, the promotion of democracy and certainly the stability that flows from the presence of our military and that of our allies.

In light of this, it is also clear that the mission requires the most careful scrutiny by parliamentarians, which is again very much implicit in what we see presented here today by a consensus that is building. Parliamentarians on that committee will have an opportunity to access information, to hear from witnesses.

As was quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this process is well under way. I have calculated the number of times that I have appeared, as well as my predecessor, as well as ministers of CIDA and foreign affairs. We have appeared some 17 times before parliamentary committees since coming to office. We saw over 30 hours of debate just in the last presentation around Afghanistan.

There is no one who could suggest that we have not had opportunity on the floor of the House of Commons to discuss the issues around Afghanistan. That culminated in a vote, supported by the members opposite. There was a previous vote as well, I would remind members.

On two separate occasions there has been debate and a vote, something which, I am quick to add, and I remind the member for Toronto Centre, did not occur when the mission began. Granted that was a time when he was probably still contemplating his future with respect to coming here. I know that he was then a member, or at least philosophically a member of the party that he lashes out at now with vitriol. I happen to agree with his assessment, quite frankly, but this conversion has occurred and there is nothing like the vehemence and righteousness of a recent convert.

Now the member opposite is suggesting somehow upon his recent arrival that this will bring great light to this issue. We hope it will but the reality is this parade is very much in progress. This debate has been before Canadians and certainly been before the House of Commons for some time. I add to that, as I mentioned earlier, there was a vote. There was an actual consultation resulting in a vote. That did not occur under the member's new party, the Liberal Party opposite. When the Liberals were in government when the mission began, there was no vote. The Liberals can spare us the lectures, the condemnation and the feigned indignation that somehow they are holier than thou on the subject of consultation with the House. It did not occur.

In light of that fact, as I suggested the previous government, of which the member opposite who is yapping now was a member, did not have a vote in the House of Commons. I remind him that it warms the cockles of my heart to point out that hypocrisy. He can yap all he likes and light us up with his enlightened view but that member knows that he did not have the vote when he was in government.

During the past year, there have also been numerous other debates in the House of Commons about this mission. Last June, after an exhaustive study, the Standing Committee on National Defence produced a report on the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan.

In January of this year, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development tabled a preliminary report on the mission. The committee is continuing its study. It was also in January that the independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan tabled its long-awaited report.

The government has been paying close attention to the House, the debates, the reports, the questions and the deliberations. We are already acting on what has been put forward. We are acting on the recommendations. For example, we have established a new cabinet committee on Afghanistan to consider diplomatic, defence, development and security issues that relate to the mission. That is being led by the member from Vancouver.

We are requesting additional support with respect to troops and equipment. That was met in NATO. We continue to have discussions with respect to the necessary equipments, most important, the helicopters and UAVs.

There is no question that the mission is tremendously complex and faces enormous challenges still. We know there are no short term fixes or simple remedies as some would suggest. Last week in Romania, President Karzai himself described his country as not a country that was destitute or a country that was in rebuilding. He said that it was a country that was destroyed. It is a very telling commentary from the president of Afghanistan.

The steady progress that we have seen, however, is reason for hope. Since the start of the mission, and it has picked up pace and reaching a tipping point, we are seeing a continued commitment from ISAF nations, which was evidenced at the Bucharest summit.

Canada is one of 40 countries working together with the elected government of Afghanistan to bring about lasting stability and security. As I have said many times, we are there because this is a virtue for our country. It is an advantage to our country to see stability emerge and remain in that country.

Like the rest of the international community in Afghanistan, our engagement in the country is wide-ranging. It is development and security, which goes hand in hand. While it includes 2,500 men and women in uniform, Canada's presence there also includes diplomats, development workers, police officers and many others from other departments, including border officials. We have a battle group ready to provide security. We have a provincial reconstruction team to work on the development and reconstruction projects.

We are working closely with the Afghanistan government itself to address some of the internal governance problems that it continues to face. We have operational mentoring and liaison teams to work directly with the Afghan National Security Force and police to augment and continue to build the type of force, which will eventually lead to their ability to provide their own security.

We have a strategic advisory team in place in Kabul working with the Afghan government. We are responding to the recommendations of the independent panel, led by the former deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Manley, with greater transparency and disclosures to ensure that Canadians are informed and advised as to the developments as they occur.

I note again the sacrifice of the men and women who are there, the men and women in uniform who give effect to this mission. They cannot and should not be forgotten. We will accept today, in a repatriation service at CFB Trenton, the body of Terry John Street, the latest casualty. I will be there with the Governor General at that sombre occasion.

Canadians can never forget and will never cease to appreciate and to express the sincere gratitude of our nation for those tremendous contributions that are made today throughout Afghanistan. We should never stray from that fact. We can speak here, we can discuss in an open forum, in a diplomatic and democratic forum, only as a result of those contributions and that willingness of men and women to put on the uniform and stand strong for those very values that we hold so dear.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of reports over the last while. Most recently, in a statement by the head of the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, he said that he was convinced there was a substantial presence of al-Qaeda still in the border territory and that the support for the Taliban insurgency was both financial and military as well as ideological in Pakistan.

Could the minister keep the House up to date on that question?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will know that tremendous information sharing goes on between nations such as Canada. He will also be aware that there are certainly continued concerns about the support network that exists inside Pakistan, the recruiting that is going on, the supplying of equipment and, most notable, the materials that are being used to construct the IED's being placed on roads in places throughout the country, which are having a devastating effect in Kandahar province and in areas near Ma'sum Ghar, Panjwai and Zhari district.

There have to be even greater collaborative efforts to address this, and this has to include the government of Pakistan. We are waiting with anticipation, as is the international community, to see what effect the recent changes in government there will have on that country's ability to bring greater focus and greater effect to thwarting the efforts of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who operate within that country, most notable in the Hindu Kush area.

It is my hope that the member opposite will bring something to the table as far as his insights and perspectives on what we can do as a nation and what contributions we can make to try to do our level best to turn back those efforts and keep the Taliban and al-Qaeda impact from continuing to foil attempts at stability and peace inside Afghanistan.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, and certainly parliamentarians in the House, would be hard pressed to find an example of a greater global success than the respectful leadership that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence portrayed to the world in representing Canada at the recent NATO conference.

I want to congratulate the minister and the Prime Minister for what I found to be an extremely proud moment, which was under-reported in the media here at home. Internationally, we were praised for pretty much rewriting some of our NATO commitments and bringing that entire faction together.

We have heard calls from the NDP to basically cut and run and leave Afghan folks in the midst of these al-Qaeda terrorists. Are we getting close to the point where the security of that nation can be left to the nation of Afghanistan itself?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is the abiding question. At what point in time will the Afghans be able to defend their own borders, defend their sovereignty and have sufficient national security forces to protect their population?

There is something very incongruent about the position of the NDP and others who have suggested that by withdrawing our forces, by having the international mission abandoned, development could somehow continue.

I and others who have been to the country have witnessed first-hand the appearance of roads, bridges, irrigation systems and dams, which are able to generate electricity. Programs are in place for the vaccination of children. Education is beginning to flourish. Six million more children are at school today and a large portion of those are girls, who were forbidden from an education previously.

The disconnect that exists in the minds of some is hard to understand in this day and age, given the plethora of information available showing that security is the enabler for the development that is taking place in Afghanistan.

Yes, more work has to be done. We have seen a significant increase in the capacity of the Afghan army to recruit. It is now in excess of 60,000 and growing. We see the type of professionalism that will be required within its ranks to have a lasting impact. We see a commitment to democracy that Afghans themselves will never want to abandon. We see a certain pride and purpose develop within both the Afghan security forces and the people themselves that will bode very well for their future.

We hope to see a miraculous turnaround that will lead to what I think will be quite a historic accomplishment. Not many years ago Croatia was a recipient of NATO forces in an effort to bring peace and security to that country. It is now making contributions to an international mission like what we are seeing in Afghanistan. This is a shining example of what can happen and an example of the hope that exists in the country today.

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

Mr. Speaker, once more, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the issue of Afghanistan. I do not know how many times I have risen in the House to speak to it.

At this time, I want to take the opportunity say that current Minister of National Defence and former minister of foreign affairs has been very active on this file.

My colleague, the member for Richmond Hill, talked about selective memory and the transparency of this government. Contrary to what he has said, the current Minister of National Defence and former foreign minister appeared before the committee. The Minister of International Cooperation appeared before the committee. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Sport appeared before the committee. There has been openness and transparency.

I am a little concerned. I ask the foreign affairs critic for the Liberal Party to ensure that the committee to be formed does not duplicate the work the foreign affairs committee has done and continues to do. The foreign affairs committee is coming to the final stages of issuing a report, so much so that even General Hillier will be attending before the committee very soon to give his testimony to complete the hearing on the mission in Afghanistan.

We do not want the new committee to revisit what has already been done in foreign affairs committee. It is in the process of completing a report. When we go in camera to do that report, I hope the new foreign affairs critic of the Liberal Party will attend the foreign affairs committee and have input in the report. I hope he does not ignore the report. His attitude at the foreign affairs committee is that of a great knight who has come to save Canada. I do not think he will participate much in the foreign affairs committee because that is not the vehicle he would use for his leadership campaign.

I hope that is not his attitude as a member of the foreign affairs committee. I hope he will fulfill and take the opportunity presented to him to have input in the report, so the report will have some credibility.

The concern I have always had with the partisan politics in committee. The foreign affairs committee, with the Liberal support, brought an interim report forward to Parliament. Why it would want to do that, I do not know. It achieved nothing. We have these reports on the mission being pushed forward, but in the process, we are losing sight of what we have been hearing from people and witnesses. I hope this is taken into account by the proposed new committee.

As the Minister of National Defence has said, we will support the motion, but we will move forward and not backward, built on the basis of the report and recommendations to be submitted by the foreign affairs committee to the Parliament of Canada. I hope that is taken into account.

Today we are here to talk once more about Afghanistan and the great progress that has been made there. Since 2001, after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans came together to choose a new democratic system of government, and support of this system has been very strong.

Free and fair presidential elections were held in 2004. Over 10 million Afghans registered to vote in these elections. Under the Taliban, women were banned from public life. Now women hold 27% of the seats in the Parliament of Afghanistan.

We were honoured to host a visit to Canada by six Afghan women parliamentarians just a few months ago, and what an impression they made. All of us who had the opportunity to meet with them were taken aback by their dedication and determination to make Afghanistan a better place. If nothing else, it is a sign of hope.

Perhaps the concern most often expressed about progress in Afghanistan is the continuing issue of the security situation in some parts of the country. Sadly, Canada knows this all too well. Our engagement in Afghanistan has cost the lives of 82 soldiers and one diplomat, mainly in the Kandahar province. The Minister of National Defence said he would be attending a repatriation service for one of our soldiers who lost his life. I and all members in the House mourn his death and send condolences to his family.

Thankfully, however, Kandahar is very much the exception and not the rule in Afghanistan. Some recent statistics presented by ISAF at the recent NATO summit tell the story. In 2007, 70% of security incidents occurred in just 10% of Afghanistan's districts, which are home to less than 6% of the total population. Insofar as 2008 is concerned, 91% of insurgent activity is confined to just 8% of all districts in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the capacity of Afghan security forces grows daily. The Afghan national army is beginning to participate in joint operations with ISAF across the east and the south and is increasingly taking the lead. Canadian OMLTs, operational mentor liaison teams, continue their good work with the Afghan battalions in Kandahar.

Afghan national police training is also ramping up, both nationwide and in Kandahar. The international community has recognized the importance of this element and is dedicating new resources to the task. We all recognize that long term stability and security will come only when Afghan forces can do the job and international troops can be withdrawn.

Also, I should mention that there have been real signs of progress in Afghanistan on demining action. Through a combination of education and mine clearance, there has been a 55% reduction in the monthly victim levels in the last six years. Over 520,000 anti-personnel mines have been destroyed and over 1.3 billion square metres of land have been cleared, freeing them up for travel, agriculture and other productive purposes.

In this short time, I have been able to touch on a few signs of progress in Afghanistan. Of course, that country is not yet where it wants to be, and no one pretends that it is. The challenges that remain are surely significant. There is much work to be done in supporting and sustaining the development of Afghan capabilities in all areas. That is why the international community's assistance and presence will still be required in Afghanistan in the years to come, just as it has been in every other post-conflict society in the modern era.

My point, however, is that progress is most assuredly possible in Afghanistan. Afghanistan today is headed in the right direction. Canada will continue to stand by the people of Afghanistan on their road to progress.

In conclusion, I want to say, as I have stated, that I have been fortunate enough to participate in this debate in the capacity of parliamentary secretary on numerous occasions. I want to tell my hon. colleagues on the other side that it is not the case that there has been no transparency or no debate. There has been transparency and there has been debate and a lot of other issues have come forward. As the Prime Minister has said, now our main focus and job is to train the Afghan people so the Afghan people can take their country to the destiny they envision for their own land. Canada is there just to help.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

This is a pretty simple motion, Mr. Speaker. It is exceedingly simple. The real question for the parliamentary secretary is whether he supports the creation of the committee as contemplated in the March motion that was passed by a majority of this House. It is not complex. Does he or does he not support the motion?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not hear my speech. I said in my speech that, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defence said, we would be supporting the intent of this motion, and we will be supporting the amendment that has come forward because we believe in transparency, as the Prime Minister has said.

We believe in accountability. The motion, as passed, talks about it. However, my concern, and this is what I said at the beginning of my speech, is that we must build on what has been done by the foreign affairs committee and by the extensive study over there. I hope this committee will not duplicate the work of that committee, because then we would have not achieved that.

As for transparency, debate and everything, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence have been very clear. We will be continuing to do so. Again, if the member needs to know, yes, we will be supporting this motion.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position on Afghanistan has been crudely misrepresented by the minister and earlier by the member for Toronto Centre.

We believe that Canada has a very important role in building peace in Afghanistan, and not up to an arbitrary date, but for as long as it will take. What the NDP is asking for, though, is for a UN-led rather than a NATO-led process. Unlike NATO, the UN's explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security.

Therefore, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. In his opinion, are UN agencies, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Development Programme and the Peacebuilding Commission, involved presently? Has the government involved them presently in helping to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for this question, because as I see it, the question makes the point about where the NDP stands, which is confusing for everyone in Canada. One moment the NDP members want a withdrawal. One moment they want to continue working there. One moment they want to talk to the Taliban. In the next moment they want to talk with some other peacekeeping forces out there, but we do not know who they are.

Perhaps the member could look at it this way. This is a UN mandated mission. This is not a NATO mandated mission. This is a UN mandated mission and the UN has given this authority to NATO, but it is sanctioned by the UN, by the world community. Under the UN banner, there are over 60 nations working there. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appointed a UN envoy to Afghanistan to ensure that the UN presence over there is giving legitimacy to this operation to ensure that the people of Afghanistan are successful.

Yes, in response to the question of the hon. member, I hope she will understand that this is not a NATO mission. This is a UN mandated mission carried out by NATO at the request of the UN.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we clearly understand that the mission is under a UN mandate. My question was not about whether it is under a UN mandate. It was about the fact that we in the NDP believe that it should be a UN-led mission, not a NATO-led one, and the hon. member did not answer my question.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Security Council has passed a resolution. If the Security Council wants to lead this mission, it is for the Security Council and the UN, not the NDP, to decide how this will happen.

However, since it is a UN decision on who will lead the mission, then I do not understand what problem the NDP has about whether or not it is a UN-led mission. It is a mission driven by the UN. It is for the UN to decide how it wants to carry out this mission. Canada will abide by that decision.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will surprise anyone in this House if, from the outset, I say that the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of the motion and the amendment we are discussing.

It is very simple. The Bloc Québécois has always believed that an empty-chair policy is quite possibly the worst of all policies. We also feel that we are the voice of Quebeckers in this debate. Therefore, it is important to occupy the chairs that we have been given in order to try and have an impact on what is happening in Afghanistan. As you know, the Bloc Québécois has always taken part in this debate, since the beginning, and has always tried to represent the views of Quebeckers accurately.

The other day, I heard the Prime Minister say that there was support for the mission in Afghanistan. I can state that, in terms of Quebec, that is definitely not the case. The Prime Minister needs to know that. I do not know what survey he can cite. However, I can say that in Quebec, the mission in Afghanistan is not at all popular, and we are here to express that opinion.

I do not want to go through everything that has happened; I do that every time we have a debate on Afghanistan. I just want to say that we have always been consistent in this debate. At first we supported this mission because we supported the three D policy: diplomacy, development and defence, or the military aspect. Unfortunately, this policy has not been respected.

It has even been said that the mission in Afghanistan has been diverted to the military aspect. Everyone is now saying that this conflict cannot be won militarily, but can be won with the two other Ds, namely diplomacy and development. This will be the focus of my discussion this morning with the hon. members of the House of Commons and with you, Mr. Speaker.

I also hear my Conservative colleagues say that the Conservative government is an example of transparency. I would say it is quite the contrary and we have a lot of examples to back that claim. It is really too bad that this debate did not take place among the Conservative ranks. Why is no one standing up and saying that as parliamentarians we have the right to be fully informed? Having all the facts would greatly help the type of debate we are having today. But we do not. This government has a culture of secrecy. It hides absolutely everything from parliamentarians.

And yet—and I have always said this—the 308 parliamentarians in this House all have one thing in common: they have been democratically elected by the electorate. Every member of Parliament has received the majority of votes to represent one of the parties of Canada and Quebec. We should therefore be treated fairly equally. That is not what is happening. I maintain there is a lack of transparency and I have some examples. The case of the detainees in Afghanistan is probably the best example.

Is it right to learn through the Globe and Mail or La Presse that the government stopped transferring detainees weeks earlier? No, it is not right. Faced with the evidence, the government or the minister responsible should have made a ministerial statement at least to say that detainees were no longer being transferred. However, that is not what happened. Again, we learned this through the media. There are many more examples.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs returned from Bucharest last week. He invited journalists to a briefing. Members of the Bloc and our research service asked if parliamentarians could attend. The answer was no. We constantly have to speak out about the importance of information to Canadian parliamentarians. This is what has always worried me: we have to wonder how much control Parliament has over the important files we have to deal with nowadays—not just the war in Afghanistan, but all of the issues.

Afghanistan is certainly one of those issues. And it does not make sense to me that members of Parliament are left in the dark while others are given the opportunity to attend these briefings.

Transparency is an even bigger problem on the institutional side of things. There is a big problem between the House of Commons and National Defence. Things are different elsewhere. Things might be different if we were in the United States. We may not always be on the same wavelength as the Americans, but things work differently in their committees. For example, the defence committee, the Armed Services Committee, in both the Senate and Congress, influences the national defence budget. Unfortunately, we here do not get to put in our two cents' worth. We are told that a budget will be tabled on such-and-such a date, but nobody knows what is in it, and that might just be the way it is. The minister announces what is in the budget, and as a committee, we do not really have a say in the matter.

There is also a problem with transparency within the department. We fought tooth and nail on the Standing Committee on National Defence—and I was made critic—to ask for briefings, which were refused by the previous minister. Only when the minister was brought before the committee was he convinced that we did not wish to know the operational plans for the coming weeks. We knew that would be dangerous for the military. All we wanted was to have an overview of what had been done in the weeks before the briefing.

Thus, a general would meet with us once per month and would tell us all kinds of nonsense. I lost my temper with him in committee. We were shown photographs of C-17 aircraft landing at Kandahar. Is that what we want to know? No. We wanted to know what military operations had taken place, if schools, wells, roads and other infrastructure were being built and if diplomacy was working in Afghanistan. For the time being, all of that is being kept from us.

It is important that we have this information. I would even say that sometimes, as is the case with American or British defence committees, classified information may be required. We know the implications of classified information. Even if a pack of journalists is waiting for the members at the door, we are not about to say what classified information was divulged to the committee. However, at certain times, this would be appropriate. Some thought should be given to this.

When we have a debate on the terms of reference of the committee and the mandate it wants, the Bloc Québécois may consider the possibility of using classified information for certain presentations to the committee. I have already tried and had my knuckles rapped. It was out of the question. If we want to obtain real information then we should consider doing it. We have some time to think about it before the committee is convened.

As everyone knows, our party line has been consistent from the beginning. We have been asking and continue to ask that the mission in Afghanistan end in 2009, unlike the Liberals, who had been calling for the same thing and then at the last minute decided to jump on the Conservative bandwagon and extend the mission until 2011. This is extremely unpopular in Quebec, and probably in Canada.

Why did Canada not consider the basic solution of rotation? Canada currently has the highest mortality rate among soldiers there, because our soldiers are located in southern Afghanistan. The cardinal points are indeed extremely important in Afghanistan. I have been there twice, once in the north with NATO officials from Germany and once in Kandahar with the Standing Committee on National Defence. The state of affairs is completely different in the north than it is in the south. In the north, the Germans told us that at 8 p.m., everyone must return to camp. Their government requires them to return to their camp when illegal activities begin at 8 p.m. The opposite is true in the south. Our Canadian soldiers go out at night to try to stop the illegal activities of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Thus, it is very different.

Why did Canada not tell NATO that, since we have been there for quite some time, it is now time for another country to relieve us? We have paid a heavy price, in terms of both the lives of Canadian soldiers lost and monetary costs.

I believe that the war in Afghanistan is costing the public treasury $3 million per day. Now the mission has been extended until 2011. That is going to be a huge bill, and that is not counting all of the military purchases the government is making because of its position and presence in Afghanistan.

Yet all is not doom and gloom for the Canadian government. The fact is that NATO has to discuss these issues and has not yet done so, especially when it comes to its strategic framework and its approach to intervention.

Before the fall of the Berlin wall, it was clear that we had to take on the people on the east side of the wall—Russia and all of its satellite countries. Now that is no longer the case. I go to NATO regularly, and I can tell that NATO is looking for a mission. It is not easy, because every time someone talks about a strategic framework or bringing in a new member, there has to be consensus.

Today, NATO has 26 member countries, but in the beginning, there were just 10 or so. It is not easy for 26 countries to achieve consensus. What is Canada's position in NATO? What is Canada's position on the new European Security and Defence Policy?

There seems to be some indecision. Indecisive officials go to Bucharest or other European capitals for NATO meetings, but they are reluctant to take a stand. Yet there is a fundamental problem: there is a growing rift, and this may not always be a bad thing.

There are just as many NATO forces in North America as there are in Europe. This is a bridge, a transatlantic relationship. There have been problems: Americans and Canadians have often been called on to intervene in Europe, and not just during the last world war. Think of Bosnia and Kosovo, for example. Canada and the United States were involved in those places, in those theatres of operation.

In a way, we do not really have a problem with countries wanting to come up with their own policies to resolve problems in Europe. However, we do have a problem with people wanting to divide NATO into two separate blocs. Some in NATO want that to happen. During NATO deliberations, I have often said that if Canada was asked which side of the ocean it is on, I get the sense that because Canada cannot be geographically relocated, we would have no choice but to stay with the Americans. We are not about to side with the Europeans on the other side of the pond.

In Canada's defence, I must say there is a problem. For instance, we do not like bilateralism with the Americans. I see Canada aligning itself only with the Americans and it seems to me that the reigning philosophy of this war is militaristic in nature.

Let us look at the conditions needed to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan. It was a question of another 1,000 soldiers. Incidentally, based on simple, mathematical calculations, in the end, it would mean 2,200 fewer soldiers because another 3,200 American soldiers will soon be leaving. They will leave 1,000 soldiers on the ground. However, from our perspective, our 1,000 soldiers would be added to the 3,200 soldiers. More pressure should have been put on the U.S. Secretary of Defence to keep them there, but that was not done.

The approach is therefore military in nature: soldiers, helicopters, UAVs—that is, unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones—and we hear almost nothing about reconstruction or diplomacy. Yet that is what is needed.

From our perspective, there is no way we in the Bloc Québécois can sit here like statues, right now and after 2009, letting the government do as it pleases. We will continue to demand that the mission be rebalanced. It is unacceptable to want to resolve this on the American side or the Canadian side. As I have often said, the Canadian dove is long gone. We now have a Canadian eagle perched on the same branch as the American eagle.

This government is proposing a militaristic approach and we do not agree with it. Many people are saying that it does not make sense, that this cannot be resolved through military action and that the other two Ds in the three D policy must be developed more, for they are crucial.

Is it acceptable that nine dollars are spent on the military aspect for every dollar invested in development? It is acceptable that there are about a dozen diplomats in Afghanistan and 2,500 soldiers? Where is diplomacy in all this? When will anyone begin to imagine that a Taliban group might be ready to lay down their weapons and that negotiations might be possible?

But if we try to negotiate with bazookas, if we try to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people with 45-tonne tanks, and if we try to gain their confidence by bombing their towns as part of the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom, we will not succeed. The Bloc Québécois and I are not the only ones to say this. The international community is questioning it as well.

Unfortunately, Canada is taking the same position as the Americans and adopting the American attitude in Afghanistan—the same attitude they have taken in Iraq. We are on the wrong track. The Bloc will continue to work on this, to ask for more money for development and to ask the minister for CIDA to ensure there is accountability.

It is not right that when someone comes to tell CIDA workers in Afghanistan that he wants to dig a well in his town, he is told “Yes, that is a good idea. How much would you like for your well?” The person replies, “We want $15,000.” So he is told, “Great. Here is a cheque. Go ahead.”

No one goes to see whether the well has been dug. Furthermore, it is clear that digging a well in Afghanistan does not cost $15,000. It costs from $1,000 to $2,000. The same thing happens with roads. We are building roads; when buying gravel we pay ridiculously high prices, and the people there are getting it for a fraction of the price that we pay. So there is a problem with CIDA. People are not being held accountable, and they need to be.

There is not enough diplomacy. It needs to be present. We have called for an international conference. The Afghanistan compact was signed in 2006. Perhaps it is time to sit down with the 60 countries that are active in Afghanistan, and not just militarily. Many countries that are not part of NATO are nonetheless on the ground, although they are not active militarily. There are even countries like Japan, which is the second largest provider of funds, after the United States. Yet Japan is not promoting military action, but development and diplomacy. This is the path we must take, starting now.

There are many other problems in Afghanistan. Poppy growing is another terrible problem. Once again, the American approach is to do away with poppy cultivation. This is not a workable solution. Eradicating opium in Afghanistan drives the Afghans into the arms of the Taliban, who give them protection and offer to buy what they produce. NATO and the European Union have begun discussing how to solve this problem. The solution is simple: have the farmers grow different crops.

Some people will say that Afghans cannot grow cucumbers and tomatoes because their market is not large enough and they lack the road infrastructure to ship produce all over the country. Discussions are under way about reserving markets. Why does Canada not take the lead on this? Why does Canada not take the bull by the horns and say to the European Union, “Reserve a market for them. Take the market for Afghan cucumbers or tomatoes, encourage them and open up part of your market.” This would be more difficult for us in North America because of the distances involved, but it would be feasible in Europe. Discussions are under way.

This is a much better solution than eradication. When you tell a farmer and his family to stop growing opium and start growing something else that you are going to buy, you are on the right track.

What are opium and poppies doing? They are causing incredible corruption within the government. They are the main factors fuelling the insurgency in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are financed by poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This problem cannot be solved directly.

In conclusion, it is also important to bring the countries in the region into the picture. Everyone knows that the border with Pakistan is too porous. There are major players that must also be involved. The Bloc will pay close attention to developments in this committee and will continue to represent Quebeckers' values and interests in this debate. We support the motion, and I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of the motion and the amendment.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and I will be standing in favour of the special committee proposed in a motion that was passed by this House previously on our role in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister said, it was a Canadian motion, not a Conservative motion, a Liberal motion or any other party's motion. It was one for all Canadians in the very important role we are playing in Afghanistan.

I appreciated the member's comments. I do not agree with many of them, but that is fair. That is part of why we are in debate, but I want to correct the member's comments particularly on transparency and accountability of this government.

This government has had over 16 technical briefings in the two years that we have been government. Under the Liberals there was one. We have had two votes in this House of Commons, one with 30 hours of debate. We did not have any under the Liberal government. Our ministers of defence have been at committee, with over 17 appearances, and have been accountable and transparent on what we are doing. My understanding is that this may have happened once or twice with the previous government.

My point, and I will be happy to hear the comments back from the hon. member from the Bloc, is that this government is taking transparency and accountability very seriously, not on just this issue but on all issues. In particular, on this issue since the member brought it up. We have been much more transparent and much more accountable than the previous government. We think it is important to Canadians.

In my newsletters to my constituents I have put in an article about Afghanistan at least three times of the six “Upfronts” that I have sent out. It is very important to us. We are doing the job and I would appreciate any comments that the member may have on the work that this government is doing to make sure that Canadians are informed of what we are doing in Afghanistan.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for the way he spoke. Instead of his rhetoric that we are used to hearing, he was informative. I will respond to him in the same way that he asked me his question.

I would like my colleague to ask himself, as an individual who is proud to have been elected in one of the 308 Canadian ridings, if he has all of the necessary information to exercise parliamentary oversight of this operation. I think that he will say no. He will most likely reply that there are briefings—and I especially liked that he mentioned the number of briefings that have taken place. However, it depends on what type of information is being given during these briefings. That is the problem.

In my opinion, the Conservative Party itself is realizing the problem in how their message is being delivered to Canadians. I read recently that they want to change their approach and avoid saying that we are at war with the Taliban. They want to move towards a more positive approach. That is proof that this kind of debate needs to take place and we need the relevant information when we have the debate. The government must offer as much relevant information as possible to the people who will be part of this committee so that they can exercise oversight.

I believe that parliamentary oversight is important in a country. Parliaments exist for a reason. The people trust their representatives there, and we must defend the people. Access to relevant information remains our principal tool in doing that. Otherwise, the impression is that we are being manipulated or that public opinion is being manipulated, things gets out of hand, and then citizens are not satisfied with the information they are getting from their parliament. Hence it is important to have parliamentary oversight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague from Saint-Jean. We sit on the defence committee together and often have very pertinent questions to ask the witnesses who appear at committee.

In fact, it was my colleague from Saint-Jean who presented a motion to the standing committee that we have the monthly briefings from the Department of National Defence on the mission in Afghanistan. I share with him the frustration, although he has expressed it much more colourfully in committee than I have, with the lack of information that we receive.

Often what we get is information that can be picked up on the DND website. I think members of Parliament deserve more thoughtful and informative presentations than we receive on an issue so important as this war in Afghanistan.

My specific question for the member for Saint-Jean deals with the increased number of American forces that will now be reinforcing the Canadian contingent in Kandahar province. I have raised concerns at committee about the 13,000 American troops that operate outside the ISAF mandate, the 13,000 Americans who are operating in Afghanistan and more specifically in southern Afghanistan through Operation Enduring Freedom.

I would like to hear from the member for Saint-Jean his opinion of those two missions that operate concurrently, although not together, and whether he shares my concerns about the situation in Kandahar escalating when there will be probably more aerial bombings and more loss of civilian live. How does that feed into the growing insurgency in southern Afghanistan?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who is a very active participant on the Standing Committee on National Defence. We are both concerned by developments in the military operations in Afghanistan.

During NATO meetings, I posed this same question to General McNeil, who was responsible for all NATO forces in Afghanistan. I told him that, from my perspective, there was the risk that the NATO-led mission would diverge from the American “Operation Enduring Freedom”. Several times, villages were bombed and NATO was unaware that the bombings were going to take place.

We know that a large number of Americans are stationed in the east where “Operation Enduring Freedom” is underway. we will have to see the reaction in Kandahar when the Canadian soldiers arrive. Will the Canadian command retain control? Will it ensure that its command philosophy is actually followed by the American GIs? We must ask ourselves these questions.

I agree with my colleague: this may lead to a rift and uncertainty that may in turn lead to unwarranted bombings that will turn the Afghan people against NATO forces. When a village is bombed and people are killed, the Canadian soldiers who arrive the next day offering chocolate bars are not well received. Once again, this leads to uprisings. People who have lost family members or friends do not look favourably on armed forces that they consider to be occupation forces.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member who asked the first question invited the member to discuss the government's transparency and accountability, not only in this committee which he addressed but in other forums in Parliament. I would like the member to accept that invitation and answer.

In particular, it is very hard to take when the Conservatives have written a book on how to thwart democracy in committees and how to thwart transparency.

The Conservatives have been shutting down all sorts of committees lately. A good example is the justice committee where the Bloc has a motion and the chair has walked out three or four times simply because the Conservatives do not want to study something that may have an effect on the Conservative Party.

I would like the member to answer that invitation regarding the Conservative Party and its lack of accountability and transparency in other forums other than defence.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The fundamental problem with the Conservative Party is that it has not accepted its minority situation. The Conservatives must realize that they are a minority government. This usually means that when the opposition parties get together, the power changes sides. I think that the public likes this situation. In the past, they have experienced arrogant majority governments that stall work for four years and do not listen because they know that they have a majority and that all their members will vote as directed by the minister or prime minister.

This is a good example. The Conservative government must accept that it is in the minority and stop stalling committee work. Because who is stalling committee work? It is not the opposition. Who systematically blocks committee work? Who monopolizes the time and makes never-ending outrageous speeches? The government.

I urge the government to recognize that it is in a minority situation and that it must abide by the democratic decision of the people. This is how the people want it, and they want the opposition parties to run the show, in committee and in the House, if they are able to work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

New Democrats will be voting in favour of this motion, but clearly, this is not a motion about Afghanistan or about Canada's role in the world. This motion does not speak to the 82 soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, nor to the one diplomat who died in service to Canada in Afghanistan. It does not speak to the hundreds of people who have been wounded, nor to those who may lose their lives in the future in Afghanistan. This is a motion about House affairs and the constitution of a special committee of the House of Commons. However, we do support the creation of a special committee of the House. We want the committee to look carefully into the mission. I hope that it can begin meeting very soon.

One of the main objectives of this committee will be to attempt to gather information and views on what is actually happening in Afghanistan today. Since the last election, I and members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and many others have attempted to get accurate information about the mission in Afghanistan, but we have been told over and over again that we cannot receive this information because of the requirements of national security.

My colleague from Saint-Jean moved a motion in committee in 2006 requesting that the Department of National Defence provide the standing committee with regular briefings on the status of the mission in Afghanistan. Some of the information from those briefings has been useful, but more often than not, the information was simply taken off the department's website.

Of course, it should go without saying that we do not want information to be disseminated by either the government or members of the House that would endanger the safety of the Canadian Forces or soldiers of allied states. That is not something anyone in the House wants to see happen and yet that is the answer we often get when we ask for information about the mission in Afghanistan. We do not want that risk taken. No one in the House wants that kind of risk to be taken.

What Canadians and members of Parliament in the House want is frank, clear and accurate information about the mission. This Parliament voted for the mission and, therefore, this Parliament should be responsible for evaluating whether or not progress is being made.

We need independent information to fairly evaluate the mission. Already, through public sources, we know that things are not going very well. From the UN 2007 fall assessment, and I will read some quotes from it, rates of insurgent and terrorist violence are at least 20% higher than they were in 2006.

Humanitarian access has become a growing challenge. At least 78 districts have been rated by the United Nations as extremely risky and, therefore, inaccessible to UN agencies. The delivery of humanitarian assistance has also become increasingly dangerous. Access to food has actually decreased, owing to the deteriorating security situation and poor infrastructure.

We need independent information to be able to evaluate claims that are made by the government. We have called for and continue to support increasing transparency and the ability to report on this mission. Hopefully, this committee will fulfill that role and the government will be able to share with committee members and, therefore, all Canadians accurate information on the mission in Kandahar. What we do not support is the government pouring millions more dollars into a deceptive advertising or PR campaign.

There is more independent analysis available in the public realm. In December 2007 the UN calculated that in the nine months previous, violent incidents in the south had risen by 30%, with over 5,000 local deaths in the region. In February 2008 Canadian Major-General Marc Lessard, the NATO commander in the south, stated that violent incidents in the six southern provinces increased by 50% in 2007. In February 2008, NATO statistics revealed insurgent attacks had risen 64% in the past year, from about 4,500 incidents in 2006 to about 7,400 in 2007.

If the government wishes to call these conclusions into doubt, it should introduce information in the House or in committee that can be fairly evaluated. That has not been happening over the course of the two years that I have been involved here or on the national defence committee. When I have asked for information at the Standing Committee on National Defence or through orders of the House, it has been withheld because of section 15 of the Access to Information Act which deals with international affairs and defence.

According to the Access to Information Act, the government can “withhold information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the context of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention, or suppression of subversive or hostile activities”.

The Information Commissioner of Canada made findings and recommendations on this section of the act in his annual reports of 1995, 1996, 1997 and 2000, and yet no changes have been made to the law. Mr. Bryden, who was both a Liberal and a Conservative MP, proposed changes to section 15 through a private member's bill which would have allowed that exemption only for current operations.

The Access to Information Act has not been amended since 1985. Since that time, technology has changed, the handling of information has changed, and even the types of threats that we face have change dramatically. It is well past time that the act be brought up to date.

There are a couple of procedures existing right now to challenge the exemptions. An individual can appeal to the Information Commissioner and if that appeal is unsuccessful, the individual can appeal to the Federal Court.

The Information Commissioner has stated that because of systematic underfunding of the access to information office and a rise in the use of exemptions by the heads of government institutions, his office is totally backlogged.

My own experience is that it can take up to a year to receive incomplete information released by a department and then another full year for the commissioner to make a determination on it. Once the Information Commissioner has spent a year looking at a complaint, if the government agency decides not to follow the recommendations of the commissioner, the only route then is to appeal to the Federal Court and then to higher courts. All in all, just trying to get information could conceivably take four years or more.

Is that how we really want information about the mission in Afghanistan to be handled? Do we have to tear every bit of information from the government through the courts? Is that the only avenue open to us? If so, it is totally unacceptable and this has to be remedied.

If the Prime Minister is really serious about the promise he made in the last election about having Parliament meaningfully involved in foreign policy and military questions, then there must be a greater culture of openness.

Today I received from the Department of National Defence a response to an ATI request that I made. The department is asking for another extension of 300 days, almost a year. It tells me that I can expect to receive a response to my request on or before January 23, 2009. And half the time, the answer is incomplete.

The committee on the Afghanistan mission should be investigating the lack of access to information from the government. I hope the committee will take on that challenge.

All of us in the House need to work together to make this committee work. I sincerely hope that once the committee is formed, it will be a venue which Parliament is intended to be, where open dialogue and debate will take place. It is incumbent upon all members to allow views to be expressed in a respectful manner even if one view does not conform with another. Half of the Canadian population has very serious concerns about this mission in Afghanistan.

I call upon members of the committee to ensure that there is productive debate that will serve well the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her intervention as a defence critic. However, her speech gives this false idea to the Canadian public that her party is in favour of the mission in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NDP voted against the motion. The NDP voted against everything about Afghanistan. That party is now talking as if its members are the ones who were responsible for passing the motion. Let us make it very clear what the NDP position is. The NDP's position is that it is opposed to this motion and, therefore, to this whole idea.

In talking about transparency and parliamentary oversight, maybe she should talk to her party's critic, who is sitting behind her. There is a parliamentary committee looking into the issue of Afghanistan and her foreign affairs critic has the right in the parliamentary committee to call all the witnesses that party wants to hear from. We have not stopped the witnesses from coming in front of the committee to give testimony. There is parliamentary oversight. There is a committee right now undergoing a study of Afghanistan, with full participation of all members of Parliament.

At the same time, there has been full debate and the NDP has been very vocal. I must say that contrary to the Bloc and the Liberals who never showed up for those two nights of debate, the NDP members were here and they expressed their point of view, with which we do not agree and will never agree, but they were here to put forward their point of view, as opposed to the other two parties.

I want to tell them that there has been a debate. There has been transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by some of the comments that my colleague has made. We have been very clear, and at the beginning of my comments this afternoon, I said that we would be supporting the motion that is before the House of Commons right now.

However, he is correct in saying that the NDP members have been consistent in their opposition to this counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar province. We have been consistent on that. We have been opposed to a counter-insurgency combat mission from the very beginning. We continue to be opposed to that kind of a military mission in southern Afghanistan because of many of the comments I cited in my speech. It is not winning the hearts and minds of the people of southern Afghanistan. In fact, we believe it is fuelling the insurgency, by the aerial bombings, by the deaths of innocent civilians, by the forced eradication of poppy cultivation. These are the very things that are fuelling the counter-insurgency mission.

We believe there is a better way to work in Afghanistan, to bring help to the people of Afghanistan. We have articulated that consistently for the last many years in this House. That continues to be our position.