Debates of Oct. 5th, 2009

Bill C-32

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 2, I responded to a question regarding Bill C-32, which is currently in the Senate. I said that Bill C-32 had passed the Senate with no amendments. I should have said that Bill C-32 had passed the Senate committee with no amendments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the House appreciates the hon. member's clarification.

Economic Action Plan Presentation--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe concerning access to an event that took place in Saint John, New Brunswick on September 28, 2009, publicizing the government's third report on the economic action plan tabled in the House on the same day. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter in the House.

The hon. member argued that his lack of success in gaining access to the event prevented him from performing his duties as a member of Parliament. I undertook to come back to the House with a ruling on this matter.

On a number of occasions, members have raised concerns about being denied access to press conferences, briefings and similar events and about the release of documents on and off Parliament Hill.

As I pointed out on September 29, the first question that concerns me is what, if any, jurisdiction the Speaker has in respect to such activities occurring off the Hill.

In a ruling I gave on November 21, 2002, in the House of Commons Debates, on pages 1741 and 1742, I stated:

Matters of press conferences or release of documents, the policy initiatives of the government, are not ones that fall within the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House unless they happen to be made in the House itself.

...

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event].

Even when such events take place on Parliament Hill, Speakers have consistently ruled that it is not a breach of privilege to exclude members from briefings and lockups. I pointed this out in a ruling on March 19, 2001 in the Debates at pages 1839 to 1840.

In a ruling on a similar matter, Deputy Speaker Kilgour noted on April 11, 1997 in the Debates at page 9589 to 9590:

The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room.

He went on to say:

The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.

In order to find a prima facie question of privilege, a member has to prove that his or her ability to carry on his or her duties as a member of Parliament has been impeded and that the member is acting in the official capacity that is protected by privilege. The following quotation from pages 91 and 92 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice summarizes the view taken by successive Speakers:

—rulings have focussed on whether or not the parliamentary duties of the Member were directly involved. While frequently noting that Members raising such matters might have legitimate complaints, Speakers have regularly concluded that Members have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties.

In the case before us, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe may have grounds to complain that this event was not managed differently, but the Chair must conclude that there are not sufficient grounds for a finding of a prima facie breach of privilege in this case.

I thank the House for its attention.

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association OSCE respecting its participation at the eighth winter meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Vienna, Austria February 19 to 20, 2009.

Williams Syndrome Awareness Week Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-453, An Act respecting Williams Syndrome Awareness Week.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a private member's bill to establish Williams Syndrome awareness week in Canada. I thank to the member for Winnipeg North for seconding the bill.

I am pleased to support the work of the Canadian Association for Williams Syndrome, which supports people with the syndrome and their families, friends and neighbours. Williams Syndrome is a rare, incurable, non-hereditary genetic disorder. Like Down Syndrome, it is caused by a chromosomal abnormality and there is a wide variation in ability from person to person.

Individuals with Williams Syndrome have a unique pattern of emotional, physical and mental strengths and weaknesses. Various forms of hyperactivity and a hypersensitivity to noise are two of the key psychological factors related to Williams Syndrome, and children with the syndrome all have distinctive facial characteristics.

For parents, teachers and support people, increasing awareness of the syndrome can be key to understanding an individual with Williams and helping them achieve their full potential. The incidence is approximately 1 in 20,000, but as the medical profession and public become more aware, more cases are being diagnosed.

Marking Williams Syndrome awareness week in August each year will lead to a better understanding of the needs of those who live with it, ensuring happier lives and relief and support for parents and caregivers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canadian Soldiers' and Peacekeepers' Memorial Wall Act

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-454, An Act to establish a Memorial Wall for Canada’s fallen soldiers and peacekeepers.

Mr. Speaker, whereas Canada has yet to properly honour, at a suitable location that is accessible to the public at all times, all of our fallen soldiers and peacekeepers; whereas over 115,000 of our fallen soldiers and peacekeepers have their graves in 75 countries and hundreds of cemeteries around the world; whereas their remains cannot be repatriated to Canada; whereas we must establish a suitable national shrine to honour our fallen soldiers and peacekeepers; and whereas proper recognition for those soldiers and peacekeepers will show our love for them and our respect for their sacrifice, I am honoured to introduce my private member's bill, the Canadian Soldiers' and Peacekeepers' Memorial Wall Act.

This enactment requires the minister responsible for the National Capital Act to establish a memorial wall that would comprise the names of Canada's fallen soldiers and peacekeepers and have it located on a suitable area of public land.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development presented on Thursday, February 26, 2009 be concurred in.

I thank my colleague, the member for Sudbury for his support.

The foreign affairs committee tabled a report on Afghanistan. We now have an opportunity to open up the debate on this report and, of course, on Canada's mission in Afghanistan but also perhaps, I hope, about where we are going.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you the concerns that Canadians have, that members of this Parliament should have and that the world community has in terms of what is going on, not only in Afghanistan but in the region.

The list of recommendations that came out of the foreign affairs committee report with regard to Afghanistan was fairly thorough. There were 35 recommendations.

We heard from people who had been in the field and had a military point of view, people who were there who had a diplomatic point of view, and certainly from people who were there who had a development point of view. We heard from Afghans themselves directly, through video conference. We also heard from people who have worked in Afghanistan, and who looked at it from a Canadian perspective.

Hopefully what the report did was give some helpful advice to parliamentarians as to where we should go in Afghanistan. In particular what was important about this report was that it actually talked about diplomacy, and it talked about the role of Canada when it comes to diplomacy in the region.

I think most Canadians have been seized with the mission in Afghanistan, but most recently with the concerns, the problems and the challenges. What they have seen is that the rhetoric we have heard in this place has fallen to the side and that reality has taken over.

We have seen a mission that has had many problems. I think the focus has been, with all due respect to the government, too one-dimensional. By that I mean that while the government was seized with the military option, the opportunity cost of that was that they forgot what the other options were.

Sadly, I think when we look at the Manley report and what was in the Manley report, certainly the testimony, the details of that report showed a cause for concern. The report said that if we carry on in the present manner without looking at the diplomatic side and doing development differently, we will find ourselves in a great muck and in a situation that will be hard to resolve.

That is where we are. I say this respectfully to those who have sat on the Afghanistan committee and indeed to my colleagues on the foreign affairs committee and certainly to those on the defence committee.

I do not think we have had enough debate in this country when it comes to Afghanistan. I do not think we have had all the options put in front of us. That has not served any of us well, be it those who are serving in the military who I have had the opportunity to visit when the defence committee went to Afghanistan, or especially those who serve in our diplomatic community.

What we are doing right now is a sad testament to the history of Canadian diplomacy, and it is because of a failure of imagination, a failure to listen to those who have said that we must do more when it comes to the region, not just focus on the country of Afghanistan but be seized with the region.

We have seen that the new administration in Washington has at least opened up the debate and looked at the region a little more. They have looked at Pakistan and Afghanistan. What I think is crucial, as we see in this report, is that we look at the entire region.

It is interesting to look back to 1998 and 1999, when the UN sent a special envoy to Afghanistan and to the region. Mr. Brahimi, who was instrumental in putting together the Afghanistan Compact in 2001, was sent to the region by the secretary general of the UN of the day. He was sent there with a gentleman by the name of Mokhtar Lamani, a Canadian.

At the time, they found three things that are very important to note for this debate today. They said that right then the Taliban were training foreign fighters. They said there was a problem with the drug economy and they said there was a problem with human rights in the country.

If one reads those reports, as I have, and puts their hand over the date, they could be representing exactly what is happening in Afghanistan right now. We have a problem with adherence to human rights. We more or less have a narco-economy and we have a problem in terms of foreign fighters. One simply looks at the growth of the Taliban in the last couple of years and it is hard to deny those facts.

I think those facts are certain. I do not think anyone disputes them. I think everyone from every side agrees on the proliferation of fighters. We agree that the drug economy has proliferated. We agree that there are problems with human rights. Certainly, we just have to look at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission's reports to look at the concern around human rights.

The problem is that we have not done anything different to seize an opportunity that is in front of us. The opportunity in front of us is to say that what we have done in the past has not worked. We need to set a new direction, a new course. I would ask the government to look at this report, look at what others have suggested and consider that new path.

Our party has said that what we should be focusing on right now is ending the war. Ending the war that is happening should be everyone's primary focus right now. The work that has been done by our military, development and diplomacy components has hopefully been to that effect. However, right now we are stuck.

I think we are stuck because the government is saying that when 2011 comes, we are out. That is what I hear. That is it, except for the odd time when we hear the Minister of National Defence say that we might stay in the PRTs and train military or police. However, we have not heard from the government about exactly where we are going.

I suggest a couple of things as a member of my party and caucus and as a foreign affairs critic. I think that the government should be pushing those who are saying that we need to have a Bonn II, so to speak. We need to take a look at the reality on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan but also in the region. We have seen the proliferation of insurgency beyond the south into the north. Right now, we should be engaging with countries in the region. We should be engaging with Russia, China and Turkmenistan. We need to talk to Iran. We need to make sure that we talk to Pakistan as well.

These are the countries in the region and we have done nothing to engage them. There are countries that want to engage those countries because it is in their self-interest. After the Taliban took over, the first people they went after were Iranians. There is no love lost between these two countries. Somehow, perversely, what has happened in this conflict is that refugees who fled the Taliban have safe refuge in Iran. Right now, the Iranians and Russians are sitting on the side, watching us spend our treasury and spill our blood. They are just waiting until we say that we need to do something different.

The time is now and I will explain why. Up until a year and a half ago, it was not a problem for those countries in the neighbourhood to watch the rest of us do the work that they had tried to do on Afghanistan before. They thought we would eventually learn the lesson. Right now, there is an opportunity because the threat to those countries is omnipresent. The insurgency is growing past the point of the south. It is going to the north. It is going to other regions of Afghanistan, which means it will effect those other countries.

I plead with the government to look to diplomacy to push for special rapporteurs like Mr. Brahimi, who knows the region, who can talk to pretty well everyone in the region, with the exception of al Qaeda, and who knows this file. He would be the person to help set dialogue in the region. The fact that we need to end the war has been missing in our policy. To end the war, it means that we have to set up negotiations.

One of our goals is reconciliation. The problem with that goal is usually reconciliation is after a conflict ends. The same goes for development. We set up PRTs and if we bend to them, they are fortified. There is not a lot of back and forth with everyday people. There is ongoing training. The problem is it is not spread out and integrated into the area. This is the reason a war is still going on.

From our perspective, we cannot have reconciliation in the middle of a war. We have to end the conflict first. To do that, we need to identify the people to whom we can talk. That is why Canada's policy should be pushing to have a special rapporteur, a group of imminent persons is how I put it before, or whatever we want to call it. We need to have someone to engage those countries in the neighbourhood.

We should also be offering our expertise and diplomacy. I already mentioned Mokhtar Lamani. He was working with Mr. Brahimi when he was there in 1998. Mr. Brahimi was the person who put together the Afghan compact that followed the Bonn conference. We need to seize these components.

In the list of recommendations, there are four or five that push the government to this direction, to say that we need to take a new direction, set a new course, put more resources into diplomacy and put Canada in its rightful place in the world, where we can take a leadership role when it comes to building a consensus toward diplomacy. We have the people and the knowhow to do it. As I just enumerated, we have people who have done this before.

Mr. Brahimi and Mr. Lamani have spoken out on this. They said that one of the challenges they saw after the Bonn conference was there was not enough attention paid to bringing in those who would be reasonable, to talk to those who would want to see an end to the conflict. That opportunity was lost. However, it is not too late. In fact, it is never too late, when it comes to ending a war.

The report states that Canada should re-calibrate its focus in Afghanistan, that when it comes to our role post-2011, we should put more resources into the diplomatic side, on a regional basis.

We should do this by identifying those countries in the neighbourhood. This war will not be ended by Parliament. I am certain of that and I understand it. However, the war can end if Canada pushes with like-minded countries to identify those who are willing to take up the cause of ending the war, of ensuring that the people in the region are going to be responsible partners. To date, this has not happened.

If we look at the recent events, as was mentioned by my colleague from Toronto Centre today in question period, we have concerns around the follow-up to the Afghan elections.

Mr. Galbraith, who has written extensively on Iraq, was being honest when it came to Afghanistan. He was clear in saying that if we were going to call this a free and fair election, then we were obviously sending the wrong message to the people of Afghanistan. Why?

When we have ghost polls that come through with results that show 90% support for the president, what message do we send to the people of Afghanistan? Do we think that will not noticed by the people of Afghanistan? If we ignore the Galbraiths and others, we will basically tell the people of Afghanistan that all the rhetoric about democracy, that the notion they should be able to decide who runs their affairs, is something we did not mean, that we actually do not care.

When it comes to corruption, it is the same. There is rampant corruption going on right now in Afghanistan. It is totally linked to the drug trade. People are sitting in the cabinet of the present president who are part of that.

Do we think the people of Afghanistan do not know that? They are not stupid. They understand their country better than we do. If we do not heed their call, then what will happen to them? They will not be willing to listen to us. Nor will they be willing to work with us when we try to help them.

Sadly, one of our recent messages to the Afghans was that if they did not tell us all the facts of what was happening on the ground when it came to reporting on the insurgency, then we would withdraw aid. I guess that shows the fatigue of the mission. We send a message to the people we are trying to help, that unless they tell us what we want to know, then we will not help them.

I think that is the frustration of people on the ground right now. The direction we have taken has been one that has been the same over and over again. We say this is not a war that is won militarily speaking, but we add the same ingredients every time.

I plead with the government to read the report. I know in its dissenting report, it took issue with some of the concerns that were laid out by the committee. However, I look at some of the first recommendations that were made. They basically said that we needed to have NATO-led international security forces in Afghanistan, ISAF, continue to focus on avoiding Afghan civilian casualties and minimizing property damage. The government's response to that recommendation was that the Canadian Forces made every reasonable effort to do so.

That is not the point. It is not about the Canadian Forces. It is about what was happening in the whole mission.

We cannot look at this mission in isolation. It is not only about what we are doing. The fact is when we have our allies call in air strikes that take out civilians, every time that happens it sends not only the wrong message to the people we are trying to help, but it helps the other side because that is used to recruit members for the insurgency.

When we talk about recommendation 3, which states that the Government of Canada should reinforce efforts on the diplomatic military development levels to promote the creation of conditions favourable to a peace process in Afghanistan, I would hope the government would say, yes, that it believes this is a good idea.

Again, I go back to the goal the government has set out as reconciliation in its own reporting. It has not been able to make any real progress when it comes to reconciliation. I know there are some pilot projects ongoing on the ground. Those are important. We have to build that capacity. However, the key focus is how to end this war. If we try to have reconciliation before we end a conflict, it will be very difficult. Talk to any expert who deals with conflict and post-conflict. The reconciliation piece is after the conflict ends.

When we look at the report and recommendation 3, I hope the government takes this seriously and pushes beyond the notion of what it has set up as its goal for reconciliation and goes further to tell us how we end this war.

Again, I plead with the government. It needs to talk and work with our allies. It needs to talk to people in the neighbourhood. If we do not talk to the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and Pakistanis about what their self-interest is when it comes to Afghanistan and when it comes to Pakistan, then this will be ongoing for a very long time, much longer than we already have been engaged.

It is important to note how long we have been engaged.

In summary, I hope this place and our country will debate the war in Afghanistan more than we have. I hope we will provide solutions that come from all of us to ensure that when we get to the point of saying, “what's next”, which is where we are at right now, we will have a plan, a consensus to take us from what we have had in the past and move to the future to end the war in Afghanistan, to use our diplomatic muscle and ensure that all is not lost, that in fact Canada can reclaim its rightful role in the world as a nation that ends conflict and builds societies in a post-conflict situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who was very much involved in this file, will have some pretty good questions for my colleague across the floor.

As a parliamentary secretary for three and a half years in Parliament, I have debated quite a lot on the Afghanistan issue.

First, I must remind every member that when it first started, the NDP opposed the mission completely and voted against sending any troops there or even bringing any peace and stability to this. Therefore, let us keep the record very clear.

Now the New Democrats talk about finishing the war and they want a withdrawal date. The point is if we do not provide security and a secure environment, where will we get the development about which he has talked? Let me give him a typical example of what is happening.

The neighbouring country of Pakistan has a democratically elected government. He says that the Taliban became strong in Pakistan, ultimately to provide security. They were blowing up schools and everything they could. There was no development taking place there until the Pakistani army went back in and provided a secure environment.

He knows that at this current time, the Afghan army cannot provide a secure environment, although Canada is training it. That is why this is a UN-mandated, NATO-led mission to provide a secure environment so the development he talks can take place.

The facts do not support the whole idea of withdrawal from the war and doing development there.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was. I think what the parliamentary secretary forgets is it is very difficult to do development in a war. We have seen that and we have heard it from development workers who have been frustrated. They were able to do development in the beginning of this war, but presently they have given up.

That is not odd. If we think about it, in the middle of a war, how can we look at the success rate of the schools, for instance, which they herald. Often they have been targeted again by the insurgents. That is just a fact. What I am saying to the government is that it is time we took a different direction on this. We have what we always consider on this side as an imbalance between where our resources are and putting more resources into trying to end this war. I think most Canadians are ready for that.

We heard Vice-President Biden say that there needs to be a different take. It might not be exactly what everyone is saying in this place, but at least they are asking that question. That is my whole point.

Let us have a debate about changing things. We have not had that in this place, certainly not from the government. We have had report cards that are questionable in what they assess, the results of which are even more questionable.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the initiative of my colleague from Ottawa Centre in initiating this discussion. I am quite happy to participate in it.

I have two questions for the member.

When there are talks of a political solution and a reconciliation, one of the things we have to ask ourselves is this. Who are the people we are reconciliating with, what are the implications for human rights and for women's rights and for the kind of democracy that we might want to see emerge in Afghanistan if we are simply to walk away and say that we are prepared to do a deal with anyone?

The second question is this. Could the New Democratic Party imagine any kind of future presence by our military if that role were confined or focused exclusively on training and was not based in Kandahar?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's first question is extremely important. That is why I have said we need to have people who actually understand the region well. That is why I offered two names, Mr. Brahimi, and everyone on this file and the government's side will know who that is, and Mr. Lamani, a Canadian who is often brought to the White House in Washington to advise and who worked on this file back in 1998. These are the people from whom we need to find out to whom we can talk. The last thing we want to do is regress. We want to find people not only in Afghanistan but in the surrounding countries who are willing to be accountable for what is going on in the region as well.

That is the first step. We have to find and identify those people and start to set a table for dialogue, which then hopefully will lead to ending the war. I think it is pretty evident to everyone around that that is what is needed.

On his second question of what our party's position would be with regard to the military, we should get to the first point first, but we have always supported peacekeeping missions and ones where we are reinforcing what has been a peace negotiation. I could see us supporting that, just like we should be in the Congo and in Sudan.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we first went into Afghanistan, it was under a Liberal government, as I recall. At that time people in the public generally felt that we were there in a peacekeeping role. That was the role of our armed forces. Many people were surprised to find out that our role had changed to active fighting in the most dangerous area of the country.

Just today I heard a military source on the radio claiming that leaving in 2011 would be viewed as abandoning Afghanistan. We can see the campaign has already started to prolong our involvement in this war without end. We should not forget that this war has been going on for many, many years. The Russians were in there for a number of years and other countries have had deep involvement and it has never concluded.

I want to applaud the member for his excellent presentation and ask him whether he could review these options that he has talked about and explain them in a little more detail.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is more debate around Afghanistan, which is something I welcome. My concern, however, is that the reason we are hearing about Afghanistan again is because things are going so badly. There was an election that did not go well, to put it mildly, we have drug proliferation, corruption in government and recruitment in insurgency in another country across the border. Some have made the comparison to an unpopular war fought back in the sixties.

Canadians and members of Parliament need to ask, what are we doing there? What can we do better? What can we assure Canadians that we can achieve that is realistic and within our tradition?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a little trouble following the line of reasoning. My colleague from Calgary asked about the role of the military, and I think we are getting into a bit of a discussion about what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

The issue is, how can these discussions that my colleague is talking about take place without any kind of stable civil or military presence? That is the question the House has to come to grips with. If we actually go to Afghanistan and ask the NGOs which one of them think that the military should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, not one of them would say they should leave. They understand the necessity for the military being there. I am just wondering what is wrong with leaving the military there while some of these discussions that the hon. member mentioned go on.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear that from someone who is at the cabinet table. Maybe we are hearing it from him first. I just heard about an extension beyond the deadline of 2011. I am not sure if that is what he was saying. That is what it sounded like to me. If he was trying to clarify, he has just confused.

The minister might want to tell his colleague, the Minister of National Defence and indeed the Prime Minister about that policy he just announced. However, if I cut through that, what he was getting at was how do we do development without security.

I was very clear. I have been to Afghanistan and I have talked to people on the ground. They want to see something change. If we cannot win a war militarily, as has been mentioned and he has heard that, then why do we continue with one option? Why are we not looking at other options? If he cannot think that one through, I would have to ask him to maybe debate--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate I have participated in on many occasions in the House in the past and the NDP keeps bringing the same old argument out when as a matter of fact many things have changed. I remember when this report was being prepared and the member was there. At that time the Prime Minister created the Manley panel which did an extensive review and came back with recommendations that were brought to the House. The House passed a motion on how to handle Afghanistan and what Canada's commitment would be.

Let me remind all members that it was the NDP which opposed that motion. Under the motion, the direction that Parliament gave was very clear. The NDP has been talking about the historic peacekeeping role that Canada has played. Yes, Canada has played many peacekeeping roles. It is our traditional role and we have earned an international reputation for that. As a matter of fact, I was in Congo to see how the peacekeeping forces under the United Nations work. It needs to be understood that peacekeeping forces are mandated by the United Nations. We do not pick up our guns and try to go and bring peace between two parties when it is not mandated by the United Nations.

I would like to remind my friend on the other side that this mission is also mandated by the United Nations. It is the United Nations that asked NATO to take on the role of providing security in that region. This needs to be understood. This is where the NDP keeps changes its tune.

This is not a war. We are providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security. Let us get it very clear so the NDP can understand what a secure environment is and what a war is.

A war is between two nations; a war is between two parties. There are not two parties there. This is a different kind of war. We are facing a terrorist organization that does not respect any rules of engagement. As a matter of fact, it has the most hideous way of running a government on record. It will provide no rights to its own citizens. That is why the citizens of Afghanistan want us to bring peace and security. Peace and security can only be provided by NATO forces.

The member keeps forgetting one thing. Every NATO member is providing assistance to the Afghan national army. The Afghan national army is being built, the Afghan police is being built, and an Afghan regional system is being built. They are all being built by NATO forces and native people.

We have debated this mission in the House on many occasions and this government knows where Canada is going. That is why the member and my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, are part of the special committee on Afghanistan. It meets regularly to view the progress being made by our forces. The member who just spoke is a member of that committee, so he is well aware of what our forces are doing. That committee is televised and we bring in everyone involved to see exactly what this successful mission has accomplished on the ground.

It pains every Canadian whenever there is the loss of life of Canadian soldiers. It pains every one of us to see that, but we must recognize that their death must not be in vain. It must finish in Afghanistan. Afghanistan must run under secure conditions, not by threats and terrorists who live in the dark ages in that country. Everybody knows the rule of the Taliban when it was in that country, what they did to the rights of women and the rights of citizens.

If there is anyone with any doubt, they can clearly see what is happening in the neighbouring country, Pakistan, where the government of Pakistan finally had to have the army go in and fight the Taliban because they were destroying all development that was taking place.

Let me say also this. Canada has a huge amount of development money pouring into Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, Afghanistan is our number one development strategy. We are very proud of all the development efforts taking place there. We would like to see more effort taking place there. There would be more money in that country if there was a secure environment there.

At the current time the most important aspect for our engagement in Afghanistan is to prepare the Afghan people to take over from ground zero. The national army is being trained by the Canadian army. Their police officers are being trained. The judicial system is up and coming.

As they take control of their own destiny, Canada will be more than happy to give all things back to Afghanistan and continue the way we are. That is why we have a motion in the House that says that 2011 will complete our military engagement. Thereafter, we do expect to be there, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said today, in a development aspect in order to help that country because Canada stands for some basic human values. It stands for the basic values of human rights and the rule of law, and we should be there to help that country achieve those objectives.

I could go on and on, however, I do not need to go on and on because I do get an opportunity at the special committee to see the progress being made. My other colleagues today will elaborate on many of those things.

Nevertheless, I do want to say this to the NDP members. I was part of the report that they were talking about. That report had lost relevance because of the motion that came from Parliament. Indeed, there were some good suggestions. Good suggestions can always be taken, but the most important thing is to build an Afghanistan based on what the Afghan people want and we are helping them to do that.

We are helping the Afghan people. After years and years of fighting, years and years of terrorism in that country, the world is finally standing by and helping them. The NDP members should stand behind that motion and say, “Yes, we should do that”. They should be proud to do that and not oppose when Canada wants to do something.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could perhaps enlighten us and say what process he envisages the government following to determine what the future of Canada's mission will be after 2011.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that when the mission is debated after 2011 by Parliament, he, as the Liberal foreign affairs critic, will have an opportunity to fully participate in that debate. The committee will participate. Canadians will participate to indicate how the mission after 2011 should go, while taking into account the strong values and past contributions.

I can tell the hon. member that we are looking forward to that debate.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us on one question that bothers me. It seems to me that the confidence of people in this country in the ability of Canada to achieve anything meaningful in Afghanistan has been seriously eroded. It is not surprising when we see the shifting sands in the kinds of commitments that are expected, that the international community expects to happen in Afghanistan.

The London compact of 2006 had an aim of expanding by the end of 2010 the Afghan national army to a ceiling of 70,000 personnel. Yet, we see in today's Globe and Mail reports of an expectation by the Americans that the Afghan national army would go from its current strength of 96,000 to 124,000 by next year. This is what U.S. General Stanley McCrystal wants. He wants it to be doubled by 2013. So we are talking double that number by 2013. We are talking, in four years, about an expectation of 250,000 troops in the Afghan national army. Then they will be able to take over security within four years.

If we are not dealing with a war in Afghanistan that people want to see an end to, what are we dealing with when we are looking at 250,000 troops to maintain this situation?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear so people understand. We are creating a secure environment so the development process can take place. The only way a secure environment can take place in that country is by building the Afghan national army so Afghanistan can make its own decisions about providing security. What is important here is that the army is starting from ground zero. We must make that very clear.

Canada is proud to help build the Afghan national army. We will continue to provide all the logistic support.

It is important to note that it is not war as the NDP likes to say because those members have this notion about peace building. It is by providing a secure environment so that development can take place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get my colleague's comments on reconciliation.

Our NDP colleague across the floor said there can be no reconciliation during conflict, and I frankly reject that. Even in a conventional war, like World War II, behind the scenes activity was going on, perhaps not with Adolf Hitler but with others, that could be called reconciliation. This is not a conventional war, obviously. The reconciliation that went on all through the conflict in northern Ireland was part of ending that conflict.

I would like my colleague's comments on that. Can reconciliation be part of any conflict? It does not necessarily have to follow after the conflict has ended.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when does reconciliation take place? It takes place when both sides know they cannot win and they realize that going to the table is in both their interests.

The NDP wants us to get out and then go to the reconciliation table. To reconcile what? The Taliban would ask why it should reconcile. The Taliban would say it wants its old style of government, the dark ages, with no rights for women. That is what the Taliban is working for and what it is fighting about. Why would the Taliban come to the table to reconcile with us?

That is why it is important for the reconciliation process to take place. People would see that everyone would be a winner as a result of the reconciliation process.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something with the government. If this is not a war we are in, I would like to know what it is. This is the first time I have heard the government say that this is not a war. I ask the parliamentary secretary, if this is not a war, then what in Heaven's name is it?

The NDP has taken the position that we need to change the direction of what we are doing in Afghanistan. If no one on that side of the House believes that we need to change direction, I think they are out of sync with most Canadians and the rest of the world.

This war is not going well; every indicator shows that. The elections have been called a fraud. There is drug proliferation. The parliamentary secretary talked about human rights. We heard at committee, and he heard it as well, that the human rights of women and others are not great and in fact are getting worse.

Does anyone want to go back to the Taliban? Of course not. I started off my speech by saying that we have reports from 1998-99 on the Taliban and they were dutifully ignored. It is time to change the way we do things.

If this is not a war, what does the government call what we are doing in Afghanistan? A tea party?