Debates of April 8th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Canadian Mission in Afghanistan

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

There is no strategy, and I said it earlier, when it comes to addressing this most sensitive issue in a bipartisan way. If Conservatives believe in what they say regarding support for our military, the other day I read an article about veterans who were involved in nuclear testing. They were promised by the former minister during the election that they would be compensated, that it was all done. A year or two later, that compensation was not there. I do not want to go in that direction because it is really not the issue. However, they were promised burial expenses. Supposedly a letter was sent and everything was done, but nothing was done until the family came here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the House. I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot.

Afghanistan tops the government's foreign policy agenda, that is clear. Canada's whole mission is part of a UN sanctioned, NATO-led coalition that is helping Afghans rebuild security, governance and prosperity.

This is a complex, multi-faceted mission. It is certainly the most dangerous operation Canada has undertaken in a generation and arguably the most difficult. However, Canada has risen to the challenge and we are playing a leadership role.

In addition to diplomats, police, corrections officers and aid workers, among others, Canada currently has some 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel deployed in support of the mission. We have assumed responsibility for the security in Kandahar province, but know that success can only be achieved with progress in areas such as governance, development and reconstruction.

With a mission this challenging, the work of parliamentary committees is particularly valuable. Committees can provide thoughtful and constructive recommendations to the government. They also play an important role in informing Canadians about the Afghan mission.

The government appreciates the work of parliamentary committees that have examined Canada's mission in Afghanistan. In particular, the Standing Committee on National Defence, on which I sit, the Senate Standing Committee on Security and Defence and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

The value that the government places on the work of the committees is evident in the support that we give them. We have had government ministers and senior officials appear before committees to answer questions. We have organized committee business to Afghanistan so members can see first-hand the outstanding work that Canadians are doing there.

I would like to pay tribute to the fine work that parliamentary committees have done in relation to Afghanistan.

The Standing Committee on National Defence has studied the Canadian mission in Afghanistan closely. The most recent committee report was tabled in June 2007.

In the period before the report was released, a number of government ministers appeared before the committee to discuss the challenges in Afghanistan. The ministers who appeared before the committee include: the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of International Cooperation. The committee also heard from a number of other Canadian officials including the Deputy Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff.

Two Canadians who hold important positions within international organizations also appeared before the committee: General Henault, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and Christopher Alexander, the Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Afghanistan.

To support the work of the committee, National Defence also provides regular briefings on Afghanistan. Since March 2007, the committee has received no less than six official operational briefings from DND. Eight members of the committee visited Afghanistan in early 2007 and met with members of the Canadian mission who have been working non stop to bring stability and hope to the Afghan people.

The committee has spoken with representatives of the Canadian Forces, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the RCMP. They have been briefed about the Canada's whole of government approach, which ties together development, reconstruction, governance and safety initiatives to help Afghans build a better future.

Without a doubt, the committee's work has contributed to the informed debates that have recently taken place in this House.

The Standing Committee on National Security and Defence has also done wide-ranging and thoughtful work in relation to Afghanistan. The Senate committee's most recent report on Afghanistan was published in February 2007. The committee has subsequently heard testimony on Afghanistan from a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations, including National Defence, the RAND Corporation and others.

A week ago, six members of the Senate company visited Afghanistan as part of their ongoing examination of Canada's role in this mission by the international community. While in Kandahar, committee members were able to see the development initiatives. They also visited the provincial reconstruction team, went to a Canadian forward operating base and toured the provincial operations centre.

The committee members also had the opportunity to meet with Canadian officials working in Afghanistan, including representatives from Foreign Affairs, National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and Correctional Service Canada. Committee members also spoke with local Afghans and members of the international community.

The Senate committee's efforts to explain the challenges that Canada faces in Afghanistan have no doubt contributed to public understanding of this complex mission.

I should note that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is also working on a study of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. As with the other committees examining Afghanistan, the government will be supporting their efforts.

The hon. members of this House know that all the parliamentary committees studying the mission in Afghanistan are doing important work. They have issued a number of sensible and constructive recommendations.

Canadians are also benefiting from the work of the parliamentary committees. Their meetings and reports help explain the complex security challenges at play in Afghanistan and often underscore the dedication of the official Canadian representatives on the ground.

Less than a month ago, the House voted to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan until 2011. Included in that motion is a passage which reads:

that the House of Commons should strike a special parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and senior officials, and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan;

Parliamentary committees are important, and that is why it is vital that we get it right when we establish a new committee. We must be mindful that committees need to work effectively and serve the interests of Canadians.

For the new committee to fully serve Parliament and the Canadian people, it must operate in a non-partisan manner. There is a natural tendency for members of all parties to emphasize aspects of our mission in Afghanistan that serve their partisan purposes. This can give an inaccurate and misleading picture of what has really happened and results in a misinformed Canadian public.

Special interest groups have capitalized on the situation in an attempt to shape public opinion. The media also has an important role to play in this area. I do not expect that either interest groups or the media will change their approaches just because we have struck a special committee. That will make it more important than ever for committee members, to the extent possible, to keep open minds to all the information that they will receive.

As the Manley panel has pointed out, there are many challenges to our mission and many things that need to be done better. As the panel also points out, there has been progress in many areas and that the cause is noble and worth pursuing. The new committee needs to be able to hear and accept good news and bad news with equal scrutiny and not simply discard one or the other because it does not fit a certain party's position.

Afghanistan is the most complex mission that Canada has undertaken in a generation. The operation is following a whole of government approach, combining Canadian diplomats, police, aid workers and military personnel, among others. The mission has been examined by both the House and Senate committees with responsibility for defence issues.

These committees have made important contributions. Their recommendations have been thoughtful, while their meetings and reports have helped inform Canadians. The government recognizes the value of these committees and has supported their work.

The motion that extended Canada's mission in Afghanistan included a reference to the establishment of a new parliamentary committee on Afghanistan. We must ensure that any new committee is meaningful and doing work that benefits Canadians. With the motion and amendments as presented, I am confident the committee will get the job done.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives in Afghanistan is training the police and army so they can take over. Could the member update us on how we are doing on that front?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The focus of the mission of the Canadian Forces is to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police to the point where they can look after their own affairs. We are responsible for parts of that in the province of Kandahar. Other countries like Germany and the U.S. are responsible for other aspects.

The Afghan National Army is progressing very well. We have six kandaks that have been organized and are operating various levels of efficiency. A kandak, by Canadian terms, is a small sized battalion. There are three infantry battalions, two support battalions and a headquarters battalion. They are operating side by side with Canadians. They are more and more leading the missions that Canadians are helping them to plan, but the Afghans are doing a lot more of the planning and execution with our support.

The Afghan National Police is a little slower to come along. There are more challenges in that area, but we are making progress. The army is well on its way to achieving its goal of about 80,000, I believe the number is. There is no specific date to that. We are working toward that as quickly as we can. The Afghan National Police, as I said, is more of a challenge, but that is where the Correctional Service Canada people, the RCMP trainers and military police trainers come in.

We are expending a lot of effort in that area. With the additional 1,000 troops that will be coming, we are going to be able to put more emphasis in that area to accomplish the aims of the Manley panel and, in fact, the Government of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we now know the additional 1,000 troops that will go in to Kandahar to assist the Canadians will be American troops. We know the Americans have 13,000 troops still involved in Operation Enduring Freedom, which is operated separately from the ISAF mission that Canada is a part of.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain to us if there will be a clear separation of the American troops involved with Canadian troops in Kandahar from Operation Enduring Freedom and how that will be accomplished?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a good one and a logical one. Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF mission are two separate missions. Obviously they have the same general aim in the country of Afghanistan. The command and control structure is separate. The forces under ISAF and specifically the Canadian Forces and allied forces in Kandahar are under NATO command. It is not a matter of U.S. command or Canadian command, it is a matter of NATO command.

At this point in RC south where those soldiers will be operating alongside Canadians, the commander happens to be a Canadian. In the next rotation it could easily be an American, Dutch, British or perhaps someone else. The command and control is separate for the two missions. The control of the forces that will be operating side by side the Canadians as requested by the Manley panel and accomplished in NATO recently will be under NATO command.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have an opportunity to give a speech, but I would like to commend my colleague from Edmonton Centre on the remarkable work he is doing in his job as a parliamentary secretary.

The parliamentary secretary has had a long career in the armed forces. He has been to Afghanistan, not only as committee travel, but he also spent Christmas with the troops in Afghanistan. The member has been to Afghanistan a number of different times. Perhaps he could tell us about some very clear indicators that he has seen while he has been in Afghanistan of the change, of the transition, of the way that people are viewing this mission from the Afghans' perspective.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have much time so I will tell one short anecdote. I was there at Christmas 2006. On Christmas Eve, looking out from a place called Masum Ghar across the countryside, I was smoking a cigar and having a coffee with the chief of the defence staff. It was a dark night. Bombs were going off in the distance. It was not a very pretty picture.

I was at exactly the same spot this past Christmas with the Minister of National Defence, having a cigar and a cup of coffee, looking out over exactly the same landscape. It looked like a scene from the Canadian Prairies with villages in the distance with the lights on. The villagers were there and the lights were on. They were there the year before, but the lights just were not on. The lights are on and people are home because Canadians are there. The Afghans know that. I think more Canadians should understand that too.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have to do something about the parliamentary secretary's smoking habits. I do know he has done long hours of hard work on this file.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand in the House of Commons and represent the riding of Crowfoot, but also to be able to speak about Canada's mission in Afghanistan. This is an issue that is sure to define our country's role in international affairs for years to come.

I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the foreign affairs and international development committee. Certainly there is a number of different areas where Canada is involved and has been over the years. The work that the Canadian armed forces, the Canadian government and the people of Canada have done in Afghanistan is going to be a defining moment and a real standard which other countries are going to have to take a look at and perhaps live up to.

This government welcomes the kind of debate that we are seeing here in the House of Commons today, the dialogue that is going on between all parties, because frank and open exchanges and discussion are key in shaping our future role in Afghanistan. It is important to bring various viewpoints to bear when we are making decisions as critical as what our country is making in regard to Afghanistan.

As often as we see and hear about the military aspect of our mission in the newspapers, on the radio and on television, the humanitarian and developmental assistance aspects of this mission are also critical success factors in Afghanistan.

As the hon. Minister of International Cooperation very eloquently stated during the debate on Motion No. 5, our efforts to bring hope and confidence back to Afghanistan rests in a large part on our ability to promote development and reconstruction in the country. Progress in these areas means better living standards for ordinary Afghans.

That is what this is about. This is not necessarily about just checking off certain benchmarks when we attain something. It is about how the ordinary Afghan lives, the standard of living for Afghans.

It means improved infrastructure. It means enhanced access to vital services such as health care and education. It means increased protection under the law. It means a greater respect for human rights. It means more employment prospects, a stronger economy. These are the things that make up the difference in the day to day living for the average Afghan.

There is no denying that our mission continues to be dangerous and challenging. There is no denying that we still have a long way to go. There is also no denying that we are seeing significant progress in many areas.

I want to touch briefly on some of the areas that have been brought forward to our committee and which I think Canadians really need to understand. What progress are we seeing in Afghanistan?

First of all, there is education. Close to six million children are now in school in Afghanistan. One-third of those students are girls. This is a dramatic increase over 2001 when there were only 700,000 children who attended school and every one of them was a boy. All of them were young men from Afghanistan, no girls.

In health care, tuberculosis deaths have been cut in half annually. Infant mortality rates have dropped by almost a quarter. These are lives saved.

We all notice and count the number of casualties that we see in Afghanistan. Very seldom do we ever take account or an inventory of the number of lives that are saved. Prior to 2001 and even up until a number of years ago there were high infant mortality rates.

We also see an access to health care that has soared to over 80%. Access is up from only 9% for the ordinary average Afghan just a few years ago.

In humanitarian assistance, more than five million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since 2002. Why are these people coming home? Because they have hope. They see that this mission is making a difference. More than 365,000 in 2007 had returned, with the assistance of the Canada supported United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

A number of days ago we celebrated a day when we called upon the world to get rid of landmines. In mine action nearly 1.3 billion square metres of land have been cleared, opening up fields and land for productive purposes such as farming and other commerce.

In economic development, per capita income doubled between 2003 and 2006. More than 418,000 people, the majority of them women, are accessing small loans and savings services to help rebuild their lives and reduce the vulnerability of their economic stresses.

In community development we have seen over 20,000 elected councils. They have been put in place across the country to oversee community development projects in areas such as agriculture, infrastructure renewal and access to drinking water. More than 18,000 such projects have been completed to date. Their impact on the country's reconstruction cannot be overstated.

These are but a few examples of genuine progress in Afghanistan.

I cannot stress enough what an important difference we are making in the lives of Afghans. This is not to say that the situation is perfect. I think every party here and most Canadians understand that we have not reached any end goal yet. We continue to face a daunting set of challenges in the face of such diverse and complex issues.

On poverty, we are still addressing it. There are extremely low literacy rates. When we start an education system from square one it takes time to build. There is a desperate lack of infrastructure. Institutions have been debilitated by war and misrule. The continued insurgency is still a huge concern not just for our military, but for all people who understand the situation and the fact that this insurgency still comes. There is widespread corruption, the illegal drug trade, a tradition of warlord rule, and the condition of women and girls. I underline that one again because we have already spoken of it. Still, part of the culture, perhaps part of the tradition of that country under the Taliban rule has been one--and diminishing is not even the right word--of ignoring completely the human rights especially for women and girls.

All these factors make Afghanistan one of the most challenging operating environments in the world. It is challenging for us as a government and challenging for us as a country. It is challenging for the Afghan government, a new government trying to develop a certain level of democracy. Certainly it is challenging even for our allies and partners. They are realizing that it is a massive undertaking as well.

Working in such an environment is a gruelling task, but we are learning something new every day. We are applying new knowledge from lessons learned as we constantly explore ways to improve our effectiveness.

I do not think this government has ever come to this place and said that this is the only way to attack poverty and the issue of security. We have never done that. We have learned from lessons. This is a progression even as we continue in many of these ways. However, we are moving forward.

That said, if some of the progress that I mentioned earlier is any indication, there are many reasons to hope for a brighter future. There are many reasons to believe that if we stay the course, if we continue to apply lessons learned, if we continue to look at innovative ways, we will see positive changes in Afghanistan.

That is why this government is pleased that the House supported our motion to extend the mission beyond 2009. It is why we are pleased that the House continues to be engaged in helping to shape the future and the way forward in the years ahead.

Canada is making an important contribution to the mission. We are proud of the accomplishments of our men and women who help Afghans rebuild their country after years of war.

The Prime Minister in the House has been very clear. Our military mission ends in 2011. As the Prime Minister said in Bucharest, “We are serious about not just staying but also leaving. When I say leaving, I mean accomplishing our objectives, which is training the Afghan forces so they can take responsibility for their own security”.

Much work remains to be done, to build a nation and a society that is self-sufficient, economically stable and able to provide its own prosperity.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was an excellent outline of some of the benefits and some of the failures of the mission to date, although I must say there was a conflict between what he said and what the minister said in the number of Afghans who have health care. He talked in the range of 80% and the minister said 100%. I hope the government, in flaunting its successes to make the case for this mission, it will at least get its facts straight.

However, my question relates to refugees returning to Afghanistan.

I went to Afghanistan to support our troops and to ensure we were providing them with good equipment, et cetera. One of the benefits that I do not think he talked about in detail was that in a secure situation thousands of refugees are returning home to Afghanistan, which, of course, is a benefit for the world community. I wonder if he could just talk about those returning refugees.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to what he viewed as being some kind of conflict, not all five points of the Canada Health Act are as easy to fulfill in Afghanistan as they are here. Accessibility is tough. I would say that about 80% of Afghans have access, and I would not say easy, but have access to Health care if they need it immediately. In a country where there is no infrastructure, it takes people longer to get to the place where health services are given. However, I do not think the difference is anything major that should be of concern to this House. We want to see a strong health care system in Afghanistan.

With regard to the refugees coming back, I have had the opportunity of speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and he has talked, I think even in this House, quite extensively about the importance of building an economy.

Why are these millions of people coming back to Afghanistan? Again, because they have hope. It is not simply that they want to come back to live in Kabul or to live wherever they have always lived. They want to come back to be involved in the commerce and in the economy, to lead productive lives and to raise their families in a place where there is hope and they are now seeing hope. We could talk about what is happening in microfinancing.

When I was back in my constituency last week, we were talking at a town hall meeting about how commerce has grown in Afghanistan. It used to be that the average Afghan lived on less than a dollar a day. A few months ago, the economy doubled and they were living on two dollars a day. It is now close to three dollars a day. We are seeing hope. People are becoming involved in small businesses and now have a level of income to sustain their families.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Crowfoot, for the excellent work he has done as chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It is a privilege and an honour to have him as a neighbour and a good friend in the neighbouring constituency.

I have had quite a few constituents come to me over the course of the mission with questions and concerns about the mission. However, when I explained to them all of the good things that the Canadian Forces, the development workers and the agencies were doing in Afghanistan, they soon came to realize that we had every reason to be in Afghanistan.

One of the other things that has recently come to light and which I have had a chance to talk to some of my constituents about is the alleged terrorist ring that was uncovered in England and the plot to take down two Air Canada flights, one to Montreal and one to Toronto.

I wonder what feedback he has had from his constituents with regard to the fact that we still have a clear and present danger of terrorism facing Canadian citizens who are going about their everyday lives, trying to get things done, to raise their families and to go to work. I wonder if he could just comment on what he is hearing in his constituency about the fact that terrorism is still present out in the world.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer, I want to welcome our new member to the foreign affairs committee, the member for Toronto Centre. I look forward to serving with him.

I think Afghanistan has moved beyond the war of armed terror. I think we are now looking at how we can help the ordinary Afghan, how the country of Afghanistan can be built and how the economy can be built.

Yes, terrorism is real and, yes, there are those from fundamental militant extremist groups who would do anything in their war against freedom, democracy, rule of law, justice and all those things that we value and take for granted here in this country. There are those who would do everything they could to drain the hopes of Afghans who want the same type of human rights. Now we need to look at ways of developing a country so that the dream can live.

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

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

This motion occurs in a context and that context was, in some measure, set by the Manley report. I know John Manley and regard him as a friend. I know the other members of the committee less well but I have nothing but the highest respect for each member on that panel and nothing but the highest respect for the work they did. Their report, in some respects, set the context for the original government motion, then the fuller reply motion set forward by the Liberal Party, and the ultimate adoption by this House of what primarily was the Liberal Party response crafted, in part, by the member for Toronto Centre.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, most of the focus of the debate, both here and in the media, had to do with additional soldiers, helicopters and things of that nature. Much less debate was focused on increasing Canada's contribution to reconstruction and redevelopment and much less on systematically addressing the effectiveness of Canada's contribution toward setting benchmarks for success. Many government members have taken this opportunity to say that there have been a number of successes and, in some measure, they are correct.

The final recommendation in the Manley report was that there be more frank and frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan. If this mission is to enjoy knowledgeable support by the people of Canada, and that support now going forward to 2011, and if Canadians are to be effectively informed, this recommendation needs to be taken very seriously.

Regrettably, in the initial drafting of the government's motion, the last three recommendations were only given lip service or ignored altogether. It took the Liberal Party, with some effort, to redraft the motion in an acceptable form and to bring forward this more frank and frequent reporting of events in Afghanistan by recommending a special committee.

One might ask why we need a special committee. As some government members have already said, we have the foreign affairs committee and the defence committee, and we have already had 30-odd hours of debate in the House, et cetera. They have given the illusion that the government's motion was adequate.

One of the recommendations of the Manley panel, which was subsequently adopted by the Liberal Party and the government, was that there needed to be a special committee of this House. The special committee would be simply that. It would be a special committee to continuously monitor our mission in Afghanistan. It would be set up for that purpose and that purpose only. Unlike all of the other committees that have been mentioned and that have other agenda items on their daily order papers, this committee would be a special committee on the Afghanistan mission.

It was rather regrettable that the government did not pick that up in its initial drafting of its motion. However, thank goodness, with the assistance of the Liberal Party, the House has now recommended that there be a special committee to deal with the issue of Afghanistan and Afghanistan alone and that it has regular meetings with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of International Cooperation and other special persons as are necessary from time to time.

The special committee would bring a regular focus on Afghanistan and it would give members of Parliament the opportunity to ask, in a committee atmosphere, significant and important questions, questions that Canadians want answered.

We set up this special committee, not for the government, not for the opposition and not for various partisan politics, but for the benefit and information of Canadians. If the committee is able to achieve that, then we will all have much better and more informed support for the mission as it goes forward into the year 2011. However, for better or for worse, we are in Afghanistan in a military fashion until 2011. Hopefully, we will have the ministers come on a regular basis before the committee.

The other part of the motion deals with authorizing travel. It is pretty easy to be opinionated here when we are half a world away from the conflict. Certainly there are those of us who think we can run a war from this side of the world but I think it is extremely important for members travel, to see the lay of the land and to inform themselves as to what should or should not be done.

The other part of the recommendation is that the committee make frequent recommendations with respect to the conduct and the progress of our efforts in Afghanistan. Again, if we want support for this mission, this is the way to go. We visit the place and develop a level of expertise. We need consistent membership on the parliamentary committee and the committee should spend a significant amount of time informing itself by hearing from the ministers and other special persons. It needs to develop a body of expertise that will help with respect to the support of the mission.

The motion goes on to say:

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions....

I think it was Churchill who once famously said that truth is the first casualty of war. It may well have been someone else, but there is a large element of wisdom in that observation. This is the information age. This is an age where people expect to be informed. People expect to have information literally at their fingertips, something in Wikipedia, on Google or wherever, where they can make themselves informed and have informed opinions.

Gone are the days when government thinks it can control the information flow. Hopefully this parliamentary committee, in some small measure, will be able to inform Canadians to generate factual based information so that Canadians can inform themselves on the success and sometimes the failures of this mission. We want to see that kind of thing happening in the year 2008.

I respectfully submit that as we go forward we will actually not know what technologies will be available in 2009, 2010 and 2011 with respect to how Canadians receive information and how they form their opinions, but we can reasonably assume that Canadians will want more information rather than less information. I think this special committee will help with respect to providing information.

It is somewhat ironic that a government, which ran on transparency and accountability, needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the year 2008 to form a special parliamentary committee that it has already agreed to by its support for its own motion.

As I say, it is somewhat ironic that an opposition party, the official opposition party, has to use up one of its opposition days to get the government of the day to support this motion.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to any questions from my colleagues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the public's right to know is one of those fundamental cornerstones in any western democracy. The freedom of information and the flow of information is one of those checks and balances by which we ensure our government is operating the way that we want it. It provides scrutiny and shines the light of day on the operations of government.

I suppose the idea of this newly struck committee is to hopefully pry from the government some of the information about how the Afghan mission is being carried out, to wrestle some of that information from the government that it has been so reluctant to share with Canadians through the normal avenues of recourse, such as the access to information laws.

I wonder if my colleague agrees with me that this particular government seems obsessed with secrecy about the Afghan mission.

I am holding a letter here from the Department of National Defence, an access to information coordinator's letter, telling our critic here that the department wants another 300 days to answer a fairly straightforward question about a press release it sent out recently. This is an additional 300 days to fill a fairly ATI straightforward request.

Will my colleague share his views on the culture of secrecy that the government has adopted?

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the latest technology was working in the case of the hon. member as well.

The irony here is resplendent. Here is a government that in the last campaign ran on accountability, transparency, et cetera, to the point where we actually got sick of listening to it. As soon as the Conservatives got into power they became, and I use the hon. member's phrase, engaged in a culture of secrecy.

Ultimately, information is power. Certainly, the government is intoxicated by power. There are therapies for that, by the way. Because it loves to control the power of information, it seems somewhat reluctant to set up this special committee, because this special committee would generate information which would inform Canadians and allow them to make an informed choice, make informed decisions with respect to the successes and failures of the mission.

There are some resplendent ironies in this particular motion in that we, as the Liberal Party, have to use up an opposition day to force the government to do what it said it would do in the last campaign and indeed, what it said last month regarding the support of the Afghan motion.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing what the member had to say, but I would like to clear something up a little bit.

No one on the government side of the House has forced the opposition to come forward with the motion today. This was a motion that the opposition used. This was a motion that the Liberal Party brought forward.

The government has been very clear that it would be open and transparent. We were clear back when we said we wanted to extend the mission that it would take parliamentary approval, that it would take a debate in the House and approval. We also said it was contingent on a number of things. It was contingent on securing another 1,000 troops, on securing much more resources, and those things have been achieved.

Let me say that the government has achieved things from which the former Liberal government pushed away, in which it did not want to become involved, so we have made steps forward in this process on the Afghanistan mission and now we are moving into a number of other new areas.

We are moving into the committee that would be responsible for looking at the mission in Afghanistan. We are always putting forward new ways of more clearly communicating what the government is doing. Why did the Liberal opposition party bring forward the motion when it knew the government would act on it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the irony of this whole thing is that it took the Liberal Party in the first instance to redraft the government's motion, so that it made some coherent sense and actually adopted all of the Manley report, not just bits and pieces that the government chose.

Then the motion was adopted by a majority vote in the House and the government runs off and tries to secure the 1,000 troops, et cetera, which we support. We are happy about the government doing that. However, there is absolutely no reason in the world why it would not move to set up this special parliamentary committee which was part of the motion. That is an easy thing to do. It is simple.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the mission in Afghanistan is clearly a matter of great concern for most Canadians. Any time we as a nation send our courageous men and women into harm's way, it is essential that we undertake such a mission only after a full and thorough process of review and consideration.

All views, all opinions and all possibilities must be considered. There are many different things to consider when debating the mission in Afghanistan. A measure of the importance of this matter to our constituents across the country is the sheer volume of emails, letters and telephone calls we have received from those we represent.

I have personally met with many constituents who have deep reservations and considerable concerns about the mission in Afghanistan. I share many of these concerns. I am of course particularly concerned about the decision to extend the mission in view of the concerns that have been expressed about the success of this undertaking to date.

There have been 82 Canadians who have lost their lives in Afghanistan since the beginning of the mission. The financial cost of the mission has also been considerable. In May 2006, when the issue of extending the mission was put before Parliament, I voted against the extension because I truly believed it was the right thing to do. I did not vote in favour of the latest extension.

Regardless of the positions that members of Parliament took during the previous debate, a consensus has emerged which maintains that, if the mission must continue, it must also change. Canadians have made it clear that if we are to continue in Afghanistan, then our focus must be on reconstruction and humanitarian aid.

The debate as to when our troops will return home appears to have been settled, at least for the moment. We know that a date of 2011 has been set though I must confess to being somewhat concerned by the apparent wavering on the part of the Prime Minister at the Bucharest NATO summit regarding a specific end date.

Indeed, this very question was asked by my hon. colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore of the Prime Minister just yesterday and his only reply was that our allies did not need to ask. Canadians have now been told that the end date is 2011 and we hope we are not now hearing the beginning of wavering on the part of the government.

Nonetheless, it has been decided that they will come home in 2011. While some members may claim the troops can be brought home tomorrow, the Government of Canada has made international agreements which cannot be abandoned lightly. However, that does not mean that we should extend carte blanche to the government.

Given the continuing operation of our soldiers in Afghanistan, Parliament has an obligation to ensure that the mission is being conducted in accordance with the will of Canadians and there simply must be a better framework of accountability. Indeed, the recent Afghanistan motion made reference to the need for more oversight and the transition from a combat mission to one focused on reconstruction.

As my colleague, the member for Toronto Centre and our party's foreign affairs critic, has stated, “The key thing to recognize is that an outright military victory in traditional terms is hard to achieve”. I believe my hon. colleague is absolutely correct and I further believe that most Canadians and reasonable observers fully agree with his contention.

Therefore, it is, I believe, essential that we have enhanced oversight and accountability for the Afghanistan mission that is fair, constructive and responsive. The government owes it to this Parliament and to Canadians across the country to commit itself to greater accountability and oversight regarding the mission in Afghanistan.

As noted, the motion passed by the House calls for the formation of a committee to oversee the mission. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not yet set up such a committee and it is essential that the government facilitate the movement forward on this commitment in the committee.

Today's motion is not about whether the mission should or should not have been extended. That issue, rightly or wrongly, has already been decided. Today's motion is about ensuring that the government lives up to its word and follows through on its commitment to the people of Canada and Parliament.

It is about showing Canadians that Parliament can work together for the better of our society and on an issue of such importance. It is about ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform are only asked to put their lives in danger for a mission that is consistent with the will of the Canadian people.

Finally, this motion will allow parliamentarians and Canadians the opportunity to better understand the mission in Afghanistan and to reassess how our resources are being allocated. There is no greater obligation for parliamentarians and government than to ensure that members of the armed forces who are put in harm's way are committed to such service with objectives that are attainable. These must also be circumstances that are productive within the context of a mission that is clear and understood.

Greater accountability and oversight will, at the very least, provide for this opportunity. Accountability, oversight and transparency are the hallmarks of the democratic system of government. If we are not prepared to apply these principles to the mission in Afghanistan, then we are doing a great disservice to our country and to Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question with respect to the ironies of actually bringing this motion today.

Why is it that Canadians need this special committee? It is not the Liberal Party that needs a special committee. It is not the Bloc, the NDP or the Conservative Party that needs a special committee. It is Canada or Canadians that need this special committee.

Why is it that, so to speak, we have to bring the government kicking and screaming into this motion? Now it is apparently agreeing to support it, as is the NDP. I am not sure of the Bloc's position. What does he see Canadians getting out of this committee in terms of the benefit of information?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood that it is kind of sad that we have a government that speaks about accountability and transparency but in fact does the exact opposite.

We in the opposition have to force the government constantly to be accountable and transparent to Canadians on an issue as important to Canadians and Parliament as the Afghanistan mission. We have to make sure we send clear signals to our men and women in uniform that we have a clear direction of where we are going.

Accountability is of great importance and the formation of this committee as soon as possible is extremely important to make sure that the government is in fact living up to the commitment it made to both Parliament and Canadians. I would hope it will do that with the unanimous support of the House because it is a motion that is worthy of support from all members, no matter where they stand on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was such a fine speech and he is such a fine speaker that he should have an opportunity to speak more fully. I would like his comments on the fifth Manley recommendation which says:

The Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military.

Does he anticipate that this special committee is in fact a fulfillment of the fifth recommendation of Mr. Manley's report?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations that I thought was very striking in the Manley report, no matter how people felt about the report, was the whole issue that the government was certainly not communicating and being transparent enough with Canadians about this mission.

Part of the reason we are trying to force the government to in fact be more transparent and accountable is because we know that the success of this mission depends on transparency and accountability. We need to ensure that Canadians are aware of what is happening there and we in Parliament must put everything in place to make sure we are accountable.

It is because Parliament has done it and the opposition has put forward a motion. It is not because the government has done anything about accountability and transparency when it comes to this mission.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will allow me to take a few seconds of my time to greet the people in my riding, who have not seen me speak in Parliament for quite some time. I thank them for their patience, and I thank you for your patience.

I am happy to be taking part in this debate. I will comment on the motion, which I feel is important. It is important that the committee fulfill its mandate. The motion reads as follows:

That a special committee, consisting of 12 members, be appointed—

I noticed that members of the party in power were saying that, in any event, a committee was going to be created. The motion does refer to a committee, but that committee may need an even more specific mandate. Even though it is described in just a few words, this special committee from Canada will have more control over what happens in Afghanistan in terms of military action or services.

The motion states:

That a special committee, consisting of 12 members, be appointed to consider the Canadian mission in Afghanistan—

“Consider” and the French equivalent “examiner” should have the same meaning. To consider an issue is to look at it carefully, from all sides. I will continue reading the motion:

That a special committee, consisting of 12 members, be appointed to consider the Canadian mission in Afghanistan as referred to in the motion adopted by the House on March 13, 2008—

Since I was not here and did not take part in the debate, I looked at the motion of March 13. It seems to me that it will give this committee a great deal of work to do.

I should perhaps say that although the Bloc Québécois voted against the motion to extend our military presence in Kandahar, that does not mean that the Bloc is not interested in the mission. Far from it. The Bloc is especially interested in seeing the mission rebalanced to place greater emphasis on reconstruction and international assistance. In fact, as early as 2004, the leader of the Bloc made a major speech in which he urged the government to rebalance the mission to make it successful.

This committee, which will not be the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade or the Standing Committee on National Defence, which will continue to do their work—I do not see why they should not—will be responsible for ensuring that Canada's mandate—both the military mission and the reconstruction and development mission—is fully carried out.

In fact, I am basing this statement on the fact that, in the paragraph that describes the committee, we read that the House of Commons resolves as follows:

that the House of Commons should strike a special parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence—that cannot hurt—and senior officials, and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region—and this is where it gets interesting—so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan;

Where will those recommendations come from? It seems they will come from this review the committee is being asked to make of all the duties assigned, by the motion, to both the troops and the various government services.

I want to come back to this military mission that will also be considered by the committee. The mission must include the following points:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

“Expeditiously” is a term that seems specific, but it is rather vague. It is important to know what that means. How can we train these forces expeditiously?

The second point reads as follows:

(b) providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar;

This issue of security for projects has been addressed quite often for a number of reasons by the witnesses we have heard in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. For one thing, people who work with NGOs do not want to be associated with the military. They say it is more dangerous for them to be associated with the military than to take care of their own protection however they can. On the other hand, there are some truly dangerous situations where troops must intervene. In that case we are no longer talking about the provincial reconstruction team. It is clear that this entire situation needs to be reviewed.

The last point is the following:

(c) the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

This is important, of course.

Here is the second mandate. In other words, it is also the opinion of the House:

that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

The express conditions are then set out, as the government member reminded us earlier, and here is the first condition:

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1,000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

The leader of the Bloc Québécois raised the question yesterday of the 3,200 soldiers that will leave in October. Are they included in Mr. Manley's total or not?

Here is the second condition:

(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity ... before February 2009;

It says that this condition must be met no later than February 2009. I would like to comment on this. There is a military base in my riding, but that is not why I am making this comment. Is it because I am a mother of two boys? No, that is not why. I think anyone in Canada who has been watching what is going on has been shocked by the number of soldiers who have died because we did not have sufficient military equipment to prevent them from being blown up by improvised explosives. That is precisely why, it would seem, the motion is asking for helicopters.

However, why was this not done before? After all the money that has been spent on military equipment, why have we allowed these young men and women to be blown up and killed like that? I was going to say these lives have been lost for nothing, but of course no one should say such a thing. However, given the circumstances, one might be very inclined to think so. I think that is a flaw, a chink in the armour of this mission.

The third condition is that:

(c) the government of Canada immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of July 2011—

We think that it is clear this time.

Another part of this motion is very important. It says that:

—it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan,—which cannot do it alone—must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

This is an extremely important issue. How many times have we been told in committee that one of the biggest problems with getting the soldiers we train to stay, especially in the police force, is that the Taliban offers them more than their government offers? When the pay is that low, it is easy to understand why many of them went to work for the Taliban to earn more money in a shorter period of time and often under better conditions. This is a very important factor.

Next, it is resolved:

—that Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:

(a) be revamped and increased—

This is an urgent matter. How many times have we been told that all of the money is going to the military and to corrupt officials? Ordinary citizens we have met with on certain occasions have said that this is scandalous. These billions of dollars are not going to the people; the money is being used to build castles for corrupt officials and to buy military equipment.

Also, Canada's contribution to reconstruction and development must:

(b) focus on our traditional strengths...the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and...political institutions...and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada—

Afghanistan needs to rebuild. I left out the fact that that was about Canada's role in addressing the drinking water problem, but that is very important. However, as we have often been told, it is clear that this cannot be done in two years.

Lastly, Canada's contribution must:

(c) address the crippling issue of the narco-economy—

Many witnesses told us that the narco-economy and the poppy fields ensure the survival of farmers who would not be able to make a living otherwise. However, they also ensure the survival of the Taliban network through corruption. This is how the corrupt get rich. This corruption spreads to regions to the north, such as Kurdistan. It is happening everywhere.

What should we do? Some solutions take time. In any case, eradication is impossible in the short term. It would be too expensive in terms of police resources. It has been tried in certain areas, but it was expensive and it takes time. Another alternative is to buy the crops from the farmers to produce pharmaceuticals. It is important that the farmers not lose their resources.

We have spoken about transparency. It is urgent—and I am certain the government realizes it—that Canadians know what is really happening.

Since 2004, the Bloc has called for the appointment of a special United Nations envoy. The motion mentions this. We know that he has now been appointed. Mr. Kai Edie, a Norwegian, was recently appointed by Ban Ki-moon, thank goodness.

This motion also calls on the government to provide the public with franker, more regular and more frequent reporting and that, for greater clarity, the government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan. That will also make work for the proposed House committee and create an obligation to get to the bottom of things and to not be stopped by the naysayers we will hear, inevitably.

At the end, there is also mention of the transfer of Afghan detainees and we have spoken about this at length in this House. Events have taken place that have tarnished Canada's international reputation.

This motion is full of good intentions. I understand that the committee cannot do this alone. Therefore, in terms of the government and other services, we must be willing to make sense of all this. We must not forget the context—a war—which I may talk about later.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

At the end of oral question period, the hon. member will have three and a half minutes left to finish his speech.

Now we will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.