Debates of April 8th, 2008

The Environment

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows there are 1,760 boil water advisories in effect across the country. This is not over one year or even two years. This is 1,760 boil water advisories in effect across Canada and affecting Canadians today, including 530 in British Columbia and a whopping 679 in Ontario.

The government committed to a clean water strategy in the throne speech, but since then we have seen nothing. How much longer will Canadian families have to wait for this government to make a water law with real teeth?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty good question. Let me tell the member about some of the things we are doing.

We are bringing in regulations to ban the dumping of secondary raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and oceans. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is putting up to $8 billion to help municipalities build new waste water treatment facilities. We are finally beginning to clean up Lake Winnipeg. We are investing in cleaning up our Great Lakes. The most polluted site, Hamilton harbour, will be cleaned up.

We are taking real action. We are getting the job done.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not want an ad hoc list of projects. We want a law to protect drinking water.

The author of the Canadian Medical Association Journal report, Dr. Hrudey, says, “The fact that we have so many boil water advisories, and many of them have been in place for years, means we're not fixing the problem”. The author suggests that the current boil water advisories he found are “the minimum”. He says, “There's probably more than that”.

When will the government bring in national water standards?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking real action. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a plan on our first nations reserves, getting the job done.

When we brought forward funding for the Great Lakes, cleaning up Lake Winnipeg and finally taking real action on fighting bad water quality, the NDP could be counted on every single time to stand up and vote against clean water.

We need the NDP's help. I ask those members to please join us in our battle to clean up Canada's water.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, at the G-8 summit in Germany, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:

Canada has recently completed a nation-wide consultation process involving stakeholders with the Canadian extractive sector (mining, oil and gas) in developing countries. Implementation of the recommendations from this process will place Canada among the most active G8 countries in advancing international guidelines and principles on corporate social responsibility.

The Conservative government has been dragging its feet on this issue for over a year. When will we finally get an answer?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations throughout the industry and with stakeholders throughout the process. We are moving forward on this file. We believe we will have something very good to announce shortly to the Canadian people for the extractive sector.

Public Transit

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, public transit helps to cut commute times, reduces congestion on our roads and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Although responsibility for public transit is shared between local and provincial governments, addressing these needs in Canadian communities requires cooperation among all levels of government.

Can the Minister of Transport explain how our federal government has worked with the provinces and territories to improve public transit?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a timely and most appropriate question. Federal investment in public transit has reached $1 billion per year in this country, and that is thanks to the building Canada plan.

Addressing transit needs in Canadian communities requires cooperation among all levels of government. That is why in budget 2008 we set aside $500 million in support of capital investments to improve public transit over the next two years. That trust supports, of course, rapid transit, transit buses and high occupancy vehicles. We are getting the job done for Canadians.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Wayne Elhard, Minister of Highways and Infrastructure for Saskatchewan; the Honourable Norman Yakeleya, Minister of Transportation for the Northwest Territories; the Honourable Ron Lemieux, Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation for Manitoba; and the Honourable Kevin Falcon, Minister of Transportation for British Columbia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Remarks during Debate on Opposition Motion

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

I am not sure if this is a question of privilege or a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it relates to debate on the Liberal motion earlier. I rose to challenge the hon. member for Scarborough Centre on what I felt were some misrepresentations he made. In the course of my remarks, I said, “Our ministers have visited committees dozens of times”. His response to me was: “I say this publicly now: I will resign if he is correct, and let him resign if he is not correct on that statement...”.

For the record, ministers have visited committees related to Afghanistan roughly 29 times. I am not a math major, but I think that is dozens. However, I have great personal respect for the member for Scarborough Centre, so I will assume he misheard what I said and will not even ask for an apology. I have great respect for the great work that he does on the defence committee, so neither will I ask for his resignation, notwithstanding his kind and sincere offer to do so.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

That appears to dispose of the question. Whether it was a question of privilege or a point of order, I am not sure, but I do not think further intervention is required.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île had the floor. She has a little over three minutes left. I invite her to continue with her remarks now.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wrapping up. I was saying that all of the problems in Afghanistan, which the committee proposed in the motion would examine in order to make recommendations, are happening in a wartime context. No one can deny that.

The Bloc Québécois was against the motion to extend the military presence in Kandahar until 2011. The Bloc agreed to fulfill the commitment until February 2009, but the Bloc believes that Canada, Canadian soldiers, Quebeckers, and Quebec soldiers should be proud of what they have done.

We believed that other countries should step up, and we asked them to. Personally, I asked them to do so during two parliamentary assemblies overseas. That is what NATO should be. NATO should not be just a few countries taking on more difficult, dangerous and serious responsibilities than others.

This will not stop the Bloc from participating in the committee. On the contrary, we recognize that the soldiers are doing a good job, and now we have to protect them and get started on reconstruction and development. That is our position on the issue.

Some people say that this war should be ended diplomatically, that diplomacy would be easy. I invite them to read a text written by two young intellectuals, Marc-André Boivin and Lorraine Oades, who warn against believing in easy conflict resolution with the Taliban, as represented by who knows who. At the moment, members of the Taliban come from various backgrounds, have risen to power through violence, have made extreme demands and, above all, project the image of a confident organization on the road to victory.

Negotiating with the Taliban is not the way to safeguard the advantages gained and the progress achieved for women.

I hope that this motion will be passed, even though we were against extending our presence in Kandahar and against ongoing participation in this war, because we do not think that a military victory can resolve this situation. Yes, we have to ensure security. Yes, we have to resist the Taliban and send them back to Pakistan, but a war against a people that has already had enough is not the right way to make that happen.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will soon have been in this House for 15 years and, in my opinion, one of the issues that has been the most poorly handled by successive governments is that of Afghanistan.

Let us recall the debates in this House when the current Minister of National Revenue, who was then the Conservative Party defence critic, asked about 15 questions about the relevance of the mission, the objectives to be met and the consideration of an exit strategy. Yet, when the Conservative Party formed the government, this debate disappeared. They held a vote—a very rushed event—on extending the mission, which we initially opposed. It was agreed to respect Canada's commitment abroad.

Obviously we cannot rewrite history, but can my colleague tell me if this was not the right attitude to have from the beginning, before we first embarked on the war in Afghanistan and this international mission? The committee that will be put in place will perhaps be able to adopt this attitude after the fact, unfortunately. Taking a closer look at the outset would have been better.

So far, the western world has not necessarily shown the Afghans that our way of doing things is worth adopting for the future of development in this country. We have put too much emphasis on the military aspect instead of the two other aspects: diplomacy and development.

Is there not still a major change that must take place, given that Canada's mission should, in my opinion, end in February 2009?

In light of the decision made in this House, what actions should be taken to fix our mistaken intervention?

To start with, should we not respond to the questions asked earlier by the Conservative defence critic? Now that they are in power, they have not responded in any way that will allow us to get back on the right track.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a fountain of wisdom. I would point out that I think Canada's participation in this mission got sidetracked largely because this peacekeeping mission transformed into something else. We originally went to Afghanistan as part of a peacekeeping mission.

In my humble opinion, what got us sidetracked was that some military and non-military people took advantage of this opportunity in Kandahar to transform our army from an army of wimps—as I heard them called once— into an army of real soldiers.

Since there was a shortage of equipment, it also became an opportunity to purchase military equipment. Before thinking things through, as we should have done the second we headed off to Kandahar, some people had very different interests, which will leave a long-term mark on the Canada's armed forces and on Canada's international involvement.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have quite an extraordinary motion before the House today on an opposition day. We need to think about this for a moment. The official opposition has decided to use the opportunity of an opposition day to bring the government to a realization of the full impact of what it agreed to do more than a month ago.

A month ago the government agreed to accept the official opposition's suggestion of compromise and direction with a view to providing purpose to our position in Afghanistan. It is a position that has consumed the public attention for five and more years now but most particularly in this year, after we have seen the fatalities mount to 82 of our soldiers and after everyone is seized with the idea of ensuring that any Canadian participation value the lives of those men and women who offered themselves up for the purpose of ensuring that all those values that are Canadian be recognized, implemented and valued everywhere around the world. That is what has been at the basis of our debate and what has been on the foundation stones of all of our positions on what Canada will do, militarily or otherwise, in Afghanistan.

As we know, the government, using language that mothers might have thought differently, decided to extend the mission and ask for parliamentary approval. The government did that in 2006. What it really meant was that it wanted to turn the mission from one that it primarily was intended to be, a reconstruction and development mission, into one where there would be war fighting, and there were justifications. I am not here to revisit the history of that debate but suffice it to say that next year the mandate would have to be to either renew or abandon.

The government, to its credit, said that there would be a debate in the House of Commons and that debate did take place. The official opposition, as well as the other opposition parties, pointed out all of the requirements that needed to be satisfied in order to at least give the Canadian public a sense that it was participating in a real debate on the merits of being part of the Afghan mission.

We compromised a great deal. From a personal point of view, I gave a position that said no, but parties collectively came forward and, with the collective wisdom of their caucuses, they arrived at a position that was worthy of statesmanship for the country.

What did my party, the official opposition, do? It presented a motion that, happily, was absorbed, adopted and implemented by the government almost in its entirety. It said, and this is not usual in a parliamentary environment, that it preferred the official opposition's approach to our presence in Afghanistan and that it would present that position as its own in the House of Commons for all the parties to either accept or reject.

The result was that the official opposition accepted. However, the mainstay of that motion included a commitment by the government and this House that there would be the establishment of a committee of parliamentarians that would provide the oversight, an omission that has caused such great concern in the country.

All parliamentarians in the House agreed that the government would establish an all party committee that would provide oversight and cooperation with the three line departments most immediately implicated in the Canadian experience in Afghanistan, specifically the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department, the Minister of National Defence and his department, and the Minister of International Cooperation, CIDA.

Here we are a month later, decisions being made on Afghanistan, our role in the world being debated in Bucharest and elsewhere, our commitment to international development and reconstruction ongoing and our contribution militarily still being determined on an ad hoc basis and no committee.

One might take exception to the composition of a committee that would fall out of the normal practices of Parliament but one cannot take lightly the idea that the House, the government, the opposition would agree to a motion, asked for by the government itself, to create a committee that would provide the coordination, the oversight and one that would review the laws and procedures governing the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the courts and the Canadian people, with those responsible for administering those laws and procedures, and to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and the progress of the mission.

We should be outraged that the government has yet to move in the direction of implementing such a committee. Today's motion is there to offer the government an opportunity to do what it had committed to do on the floor of the House and with the support of opposition parties.

It was not something that was done willy-nilly. Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are listening very attentively to the reasons why we came to that position.

The government claimed that it needed to get the public on side on Afghanistan and our mission therein, so it commissioned a panel of experts. That panel suggested, among several other things, first, that we ensure the world recognizes our input and that it come forward with an additional 1,000 troops, otherwise we would not continue our mission. One thousand troops, a 40% increase in the number of troops that we have deployed in Afghanistan and specifically in Kandahar province.

The government accepted that recommendation and said that this was its line in the sand. If we cannot get the rest of the world to accept our contribution and recognize its value, then we shall opt out. That was part of the debate.

The Prime Minister and his ministers lauded left and right everywhere around the country the fact that a panel of experts said that we would make our mission contingent upon the contribution of an additional 1,000 troops.

It appears that we finally have them. I do not know whether that will solve all the problems but it is not for me to judge, at least not today. I am skeptical but the government said that was one of the conditions and, in accepting the motion, it also said that it would allow itself to be monitored by this parliamentary committee so that the achievements, the objectives and the goals that would be aimed at with this additional group that would buttress the Canadian presence militarily, that would always be present in the House, and that the Canadian public, through its elected representatives in situ and always in conjunction with those three line departments, would have an up to date view of the progress of the mission that very few in Canada applaud wholeheartedly.

They are not anti-military. They are not anti-troops. They are for the achievement of objectives that are clearly stated, clearly outlined and systematically put in place.

The second objective the government said had to be met in order for us to continue the extension of the mission was the achievement of greater operational lift, and that is helicopters to move our troops from point A to point B. It appears we have moved in some direction toward achieving that objective and to satisfying that condition. However, we still do not have an oversight committee of Parliament to ensure that be done, just as we cannot be sure it will achieve the other condition of securing the appropriate armoured vehicles to transport our troops in safety from point A to point B.

I have spoken only for a brief moment on the military component of the mission. It is a military component that very tragically has resulted, at least for Canada, in the highest rate of fatality of all countries, specifically of countries that continue to make a military contribution exceeding 2,000 armed personnel. The fatality rate is 3%. The other countries combined have 1.4%. Even the United States with all of its troops has a fatality rate of 1.7%.

What concerned us was the safety of our troops. We are putting them in the line of fire in a dangerous environment. We wanted to ensure that, at the very least, we could provide them with the technology they required in order to achieve an objective and also the technology necessary to provide them security in a dangerous environment. It has not happened. We are not sure. We do not have the parliamentary committee that the government promised on accepting that motion. It seems perhaps that it is unprepared to move in tandem with the goodwill of the House to achieve national objectives.

The other thing that concerned us was the presence of Canada in the greater Middle East. It is a part of the world so far away from Canada that it barely achieves the attention of those who hold Canadian values dear. The government, through the expert panel, pointed out that to date we had collectively spent, as citizens of this country, in excess of $6 billion through our military presence. Some people would say it would be money better spent if we wanted to change the world.

This is only our contribution and that amount of money increases on a yearly basis. In fact, there is an estimate, and I suspect it came from the government because it came through the usual unnamed sources for military writers, that by the time we end up in 2012, we will have spent about $18 billion in Afghanistan. Some might say that is a fantastic amount of money just for one country. That money is well worth it if it achieves the objective we have laid out for ourselves. It is an absolute waste if it achieves nothing.

To give some idea of how fabulous that amount of money would be, it is only $2 billion less than the entire GDP of Afghanistan. This is an enormous amount of money for one country to contribute militarily, for security purposes.

We are not there as a conquering nation. We are there, as the government has said, to provide security for our other approach. Our other approach is one of development. Unfortunately, according to the government, we have spent to date only $600 million on development aid and reconstruction. We are spending something like $12 on military and defence initiatives for Afghanistan for every $1 we spend in development aid. Yet I am sure all members on the government side would say that if we could achieve our objectives through development aid and reconstruction, then those dollars would be very well spent.

Members on this side agree we would spend more. Six hundred million dollars does not appear to be a fabulous sum when the objectives are as noble as those that we outlined for ourselves in Afghanistan. We wanted this committee to ensure those funds would achieve the objectives that we outlined for ourselves. Because 50¢ out of every one of those dollars, that is $300 million, goes to UN agencies. We do not spend it there. Another 35¢ out of every dollar goes directly to Afghan national institutions to ensure they begin to develop the culture of government servicing the people. Only 15¢ per dollar of contribution is left.

We on this side of the House asked for a committee to ensure there would be adequate coordination between our defence objectives and our development objectives, and that committee is not here yet. The government has perhaps thought that now the debate has spent its force, we do not need to look at what it should do. All we want to happen is for the government to respect the will of Parliament and ensure that this committee be in place, so all of those defence and development reconstruction efforts are coordinated, not just where Canada sits, but perhaps as well, according to the independent panel, that other countries move in a coordinated effort to transform a society that generates a lot of the concerns that have caused the fear and paranoia worldwide. Whether it has been justified is another story, but that is the basis for this.

The third reason why we wanted this committee, the third rationale, which was buttressed as well by that independent panel, was there had to be greater diplomatic efforts. Foreign affairs needed to be much more engaged in what was going on in Afghanistan, where our allies, and there are many, were operating on their own agenda. For example, there is a country adjacent to Afghanistan, a country whose cooperation is absolutely crucial for the success, however limited or however superior to any nation or combination of nations in Afghanistan, and that would be Pakistan.

Ten of the provinces in Afghanistan border Pakistan. There are twice as many Taliban operating in some of the border provinces of Afghanistan than there are operating in the rest of Afghanistan. A lot of the activities that we know are there are dependent on the cooperation that we get from Pakistan. Seventy per cent of our material and human resources go into Afghanistan through Pakistan.

It makes sense for a coordinated effort on the part of Canada of those three departments. All we asked for on this side of the House was cooperation by the government in instituting an all party committee, which it would chair, to ensure the coordination of all these issues and departments would reflect the intention of Canadians, as expressed through their members of Parliament in the House, and moved and accepted by the government.

All we want, through this motion today, is the transparency and the openness that the government opposite offered all members of Parliament a month ago when we gave it the okay to continue in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's remarks. He put a lot of passion into them and I am sure he puts a lot of passion into the issue.

To keep the record straight, since this government came into power. it has taken steps to ensure there has been full debate in the House of Commons about our mission in Afghanistan. The government brought in a panel, headed by the former Liberal deputy prime minister. The member was in the House when the panel's report and recommendations were presented. The foreign affairs committee has studied the whole issue over the last six months. Perhaps the member should have asked his fellow Liberal members about what was happening at the committee.

When the motion to extend the mission was brought forward in the House, we had two days of debate. The Liberal members were absent from the debate as soon as the clock hit 9 p.m. at night. If they were so passionate about this, they would have stayed and debated.

However, after saying all those things, we need to look ahead and move forward. The House passed the Canadian motion, a cooperative effort between both sides of the House. Part of the motion called for an additional 1,000 troops. It was important for the Prime Minister to ensure that the resources would be available, as was the will of the Parliament.

Once that has been done, we move on to the next stage, which is the committee about which he has talked. We must not forget the fact that during all this time the foreign affairs committee has been studying this.

We stated from the outset that we agreed with the motion because it was the will of Parliament. I do not see why he would keep complaining and talking about it. I would rather he talk about what we are to do in the future, now that Canada is in Afghanistan until 2011, to ensure the efforts and sacrifices of the Canadian soldiers, including the money invested in the war, do not go unnoticed. I recommend he look ahead rather than look back in the past and complain.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I deliberately moved away from ad hominem attacks or snide comments regarding political partisanship and organization. Why? Not because I am unable to do that, but because I think this is a topic and an issue that requires the appropriate gravitas from anyone who engages in it.

The issues, as I might remind the member opposite, are twofold. First, as I said, is the question of completing a commitment made in a motion that was accepted by the House, and it has not happened yet. We are asking for it to be done. Second, is to remind all people of the substance of the issue itself, without having taken a position. That position has already been determined by the House.

What we have done is present a motion that asks the government to recognize all the serious elements associated with the Canadian position in Afghanistan. If the member opposite would like me to review them for him, I shall be pleased to do so.

I caution that this is a serious topic. The only responsibility that members here ought to take is whether they will comply with the will of Parliament, which was expressed in a non-partisan fashion and, as both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition said, in a truly Canadian statesman like fashion. It is a Canadian position that needs to be committed to and fulfilled as per Parliament's request a month ago. We cannot wait much longer.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, and I am looking forward to his speech.

The question being asked is, why is Canada committed to continuing its mission in Afghanistan? Our mission in Afghanistan is a clear example of Canadian values in action. Our own experience in nation building, which serves as a model around the world, was sought out for Afghanistan.

Through our direct military engagement, diplomatic support and development assistance, Canada is committed to continuing to make a difference in the lives of men, women and children in Afghanistan. Just a few years ago, Afghan women and girls were unable to safely walk the streets of their own country, and were not allowed to go to school or to work.

Now, because of the intervention of the international community, Afghan children are going to school, to work, to the marketplaces and dreaming of a better life for their families. This is in sharp contrast to the Taliban, which can only promise more death and destruction. As Afghanistan emerges from its troubled past, Canada must continue to provide the support needed to finish the job.

At the centre of the Canadian mission is Kandahar province. We recognize that as the former seat of Taliban power and the heart of the insurgent presence in Afghanistan, Kandahar province is the keystone to the overall success of Afghanistan's transition. For exactly this reason, Canada has its troops in Kandahar. We understand that it is the province most in need of international support. Bringing together the best of what Canada can offer, we are making a meaningful contribution to international reconstruction and stabilization efforts there.

We should not underestimate just how much our participation is contributing to Canada's stand in the international community. There is a universal appreciation for the real threat posed by an unstable Afghanistan. Countries have taken notice of Canada's willingness to roll up its sleeves and get the job done.

Canada's continued leadership role will ensure the success of the mandate that the United Nations conferred on NATO, but Canada will not be intimidated. Our mission is clear and this government remains committed to seeing it through. We are making significant progress in implementing the motion adopted by the House. By focusing on our traditional strengths as a nation, we are helping to build the governance systems and institutions necessary so that we will be able to leave Afghanistan to the Afghan people.

One of the critical ways Canada will continue to achieve success in Afghanistan is through our provincial reconstruction team, PRT, in Kandahar province. This effort brings together 350 people, elements from the Canadian Forces, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Correctional Service Canada in a whole of government approach.

The PRT promotes the development of a stable and secure environment, helping build governance capacity and enabling security sector reform and reconstruction efforts to take place. Canada is not alone in establishing a PRT. Twenty-six provincial reconstruction teams have been established and supported by many countries throughout Afghanistan as part of larger concerted international efforts in Afghanistan.

By using non-military assets to address the causes of instability, PRTs are helping the government of Afghanistan extend its authority throughout the country. By maintaining a long term, sustained approach to our mission, there will be a progressive expansion of Afghan civilian capacities and a gradual transfer of roles and responsibilities to Afghan nationals, ultimately creating the conditions where a Canadian presence is no longer required.

Over the next years, it will be crucial to continue building on the leadership role we have played since assuming command of the Kandahar PRT in August 2005. The role and purpose of the PRT is to assist elected Afghan authorities in providing governance and security, as well as delivering basic services to its citizens.

By doing so, by helping the Afghan government extend its authority across the country, PRTs help create the environment in which reconstruction and development efforts can take place. This is entirely consistent with our values and our expertise. It is also a practical expression of a whole of government approach to achieving Canadian foreign policy objectives.

How do the different elements of the PRT set about achieving this? On the military side, security is the primary role. Because Canada is engaged in operations in a dangerous environment, the military is responsible for providing an enabling environment for the civilian elements of the PRT to allow them to pursue their development and reconstruction work.

Another element is our civilian police officers who have been deployed to the PRT to assist in building the capacity of the local Afghan police by establishing relationships, implementing training programs, and serving as the point of contact between the Afghan police and the PRT.

The role of reconstruction and development workers at the PRT is to implement programs that build the capacity of the government, create confidence in that government, and ultimately establish the conditions for long term development to succeed.

Diplomats are responsible for advocacy, influence, analysis and advice to help the Afghan government enhance its reach and legitimacy in Kandahar province. By working closely with local structures like the governor's office and the police, our diplomats are supporting security and governance reform.

Through advice, training and mentoring we are also working to support the development of sound judicial and corrections systems as called for by the motion adopted by this House.

The work being accomplished by the PRT in Kandahar alongside our international partners is leading to real results. With our help, Afghans have completed over 690 community development and infrastructure projects in Kandahar province alone during the past five years. This includes, for instance, over 1,200 wells and over 150 kilometres of irrigation canals that have been built or restored in Kandahar since 2003. Also, thanks to Canada's help, the highway between Kandahar and Spin Boldak, a key artery, is being rebuilt and paved.

We are staying on course.

Canadians should not be under any illusions. Our mission in Kandahar is complex, challenging and very dangerous. Our reconstruction work in Afghanistan is far from over. It takes years for nation building efforts to take root, and we must be prepared to stand up and make that commitment clear.

We must take pride in knowing that our civilian police will be working to ensure that Afghan police are patrolling the streets of Kandahar better trained and better equipped. We must take pride in knowing that the Canadian government will continue to provide expertise to ensure the Afghan government provides better service to its local population. We must take pride in knowing that Canadian efforts will help Afghan farmers turn their backs on the drug trade and learn new skills.

The road ahead will be fraught with many challenges, but Canada must make its commitment to Afghanistan very clear.

Much has been accomplished in Afghanistan over the past six years. With our help and support, the Afghan government is establishing the institutions that are needed for a vigorous democracy to take root. Afghans themselves are learning the skills they need to build roads and provide basic services, and they are building up their security forces so one day the democratically elected government of Afghanistan will be able to defend its sovereignty and keep the Taliban at bay.

These are accomplishments in which Canadians should take tremendous pride. Every day we see the difference we are making as Canadian soldiers and civilians work with Afghans to help them build a better society.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Oshawa's own Ontario regiment. We have had a number of volunteers go over to Afghanistan and they have told me personally about the wonderful things that they have seen. Standing here as their member of Parliament I could not be more proud of the brave men who have gone over to help expand Canadian values around the world.

As a Canadian, as a parliamentarian, I am so proud of our men and women who take up the role of not only defending our country, but moving out into the world to expand the knowledge of Canadian values. Where there is evil and corruption, where women's rights are being ignored and children's rights are being ignored, it is our Canadian soldiers who are taking a leading role in making a change in the world.

In closing, I want to thank the House for the opportunity to take part in this debate today. I want to thank the Liberal Party for bringing forth this motion and using one of its opposition days to support the government motion. I am looking forward to getting things done for the people of Afghanistan. I want to thank the people who sign up for the Canadian Forces to allow that to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his uplifting and insightful speech that outlined the wonderful things that Canada has contributed to Afghanistan.

A few weeks ago women members of Afghanistan's parliament came to Canada to share what it was like to be a member of parliament in Afghanistan and to share their delight for Canada's participation in Afghanistan.

Would the member take a few moments to outline some of their comments? Perhaps he could indicate why they felt it was so important that Canada continue to be in Afghanistan to help do all the things that the member outlined in his speech a few moments ago.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those women who came to Ottawa are my heroes.

I am standing here today as a parliamentarian in this wonderful House. We may get caught up in a few partisan battles, but they are nothing compared to the battles that those women face day in and day out. They are in a situation now where their lives are threatened. They look at the situation where in their own society under the Taliban, women were forced to stay at home unable to earn money for their families.

Canada is the number one supporter of the microfinance investment support facility which has enabled women, because mostly women take up these start up businesses, to become a successful part of their community, providing food and shelter for their children. It just melted my heart when I heard that. My understanding is that women are the major uptakers of this program.

Under the brutal Taliban regime, women had no voice in public life. Imagine a world where a woman was unable to stand up and give her opinions, unable to run for public office, unable to own property. This is the regime that they faced under the Taliban.

When these very brave parliamentarians made the trek here to Ottawa it really put into perspective why we are all here and why it is so vital and important that we as Canadian parliamentarians stand up and support our brave men and women who are over there right now, making a difference in women's lives, the rights of women and the rights of children.

I want to thank my colleague for that wonderful question and to let everyone in Canada know that these women are getting the job done for their constituents. I am very proud that Canada has a major part to play in that transformation.

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

Mr. Speaker, just now a report has come out on the BBC that militants have killed 17 Afghan workers. When we stand here and talk about development, there were 17 workers who were building Afghanistan and militants killed them. That is the kind of challenge being faced. That is why we want security there.

Perhaps the member could comment on this. When we talk about development, we cannot forget the security component, as this story has just indicated.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his hard work in this very important international commitment that Canada has brought forward. He brings home a very important point.

He is talking about development. The truth is for construction and development to occur, we need defence. We have heard calls from some factions that Canada should withdraw all its military troops from Afghanistan. This would be a tragedy.

I personally have had Afghans in my own community of Oshawa come forward and say to me, “God bless you. Please stay. Please continue your good job in Afghanistan”. They know the difference that we are making there.

To make that difference, our community workers and the community workers that we are training, that we are putting out there for the Afghan people, need to be protected.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for that very important question so I could make that distinction.