Debates of Oct. 5th, 2009

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this afternoon in the debate.

First, both as the vice-chair of the national defence committee and vice-chair of the special standing committee on Afghanistan, I want to salute the great work our soldiers do there.

I visited our troops in Kandahar on two occasions and from personal experience, every one of them believes, as and this side of the House believe, and I am sure all sides of the House believe, that they are making a significant difference to the lives of Afghans.

I want to talk a lot today about re-engaging particularly with the population, which I think is the key.

The point we have to look at first is that we live in an age of instant gratification. We all expect suddenly that things will happen. Obviously in Afghanistan the road to a political solution that is meaningful in terms of empowering Afghans, to improving the economy, to improving the living standards, to improving the social networks in that part of the world is not going to come overnight. A country that has been ravaged by war for many years will not be able to find a solution overnight.

Canada is certainly part of the work going on there, but an Afghan solution must be found. In fact, the Department of National Defence, in a very important document in October of 2007, talked about the 3D Soviet-style approach on the issue that national reconciliation and not military victory was the likely outcome, that if we really wanted to see peace in Afghanistan, we must do it by working with all parties effectively to establish a long-lasting peace.

Stability is obviously imperative. We cannot do all the other things we would like to see done unless we have stability on the ground.

Canada, along with 40 other NATO countries, is working with the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police to try to bring stability on the ground in Afghanistan. We see that in northern parts of Afghanistan. Some areas are certainly much more tranquil than others. We happen to be engaged in the Kandahar region, a very volatile area and an area that is the home to the Taliban.

We currently have a crisis of governance. Are we going to get success or are we going to get failure? How we approach this is extremely important.

I commend the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for its report, which contains 34 recommendations. For quite a while I was a member of that committee and happened to contribute to a number of those recommendations, and they are worth reviewing.

The role of the special committee on Afghanistan is to inform Canadians as to the progress or lack thereof that we have achieved in terms of the benchmarks we have established. It is important that we have established certain benchmarks to see where we are in terms of, for example, the training of the Afghan National Army.

By turning that country back over to the Afghans without really being able to provide security, nothing will happen. We need to engage local Afghans. We need to ensure they have a reason to support the ongoing efforts both by the Afghan government and the international community.

There have been significant changes on our strategy and the way we operate. One of them is the issue of the training of the Afghan National Army. When I was there in May of 2008, I learned of a particular Afghan mission in which Afghan-led forces went out into the field. Canadians were supporting that effort, but did not take the lead. We saw, for example, a unit that was able to go out and with the right tools, the right morale and the right support, they were able to engage and inflict significant casualties on the Taliban.

The effectiveness of the Afghan National Army and that of the police, which is one of the benchmarks we are looking at in the House, is extremely important. The Afghan National Army is much further ahead for many reasons. One of them has to do with pay and one has to do with the resources that are put in the Afghan National Army. However, the police force is absolutely the critical element because it is in every town and village. Often the only contact people have with the government is through the police force.

What is required is a police force trained both in terms of dealing with crime but also dealing with the issue of human rights and respecting the local Afghans in that community. To ensure that respect is the key element is extremely important in being able to not only get the support of the men and women in the community but also to hold on to that support within a community.

The change is obviously in terms of the operational culture that we are involved in. We went into Kabul in 2001. When we rotated out, the Turks came in. Part of the debate we had before the resolution of March 13, 2008 was passed was on the issue of future direction and clearly the issue of rotation, informing NATO that we will not be there after December 2011 in a combat role in Kandahar. It is very clear.

One of the debates we are going to have to have, and I will touch upon some of it later, is a healthy debate as to post-2011 in terms of a reconstruction role. Some people say we cannot have reconstruction without having a military presence. The provincial reconstruction team, the PRT, has 150 Canadian soldiers. We cannot have a PRT unless we have 150 Canadian soldiers there, otherwise the chances are it is going to be overrun.

Do we want to continue that? That would be a question. Do we, in fact, engage in the training of the Afghan national army if we are there after 2011? Canadians have to understand that our soldiers are going to be outside the wire. In other words, they are not going to train them in a parade ground. They are going to be outside and they are going to be subject to enemy fire. People need to know that training does not mean that there will not be casualties because unfortunately there will be.

If we are going to do governance, we do not need soldiers. We could have governance in terms of different ministries: ministry of health, ministry of justice, ministry of foreign affairs. We could have advisers assisting in Kabul.

If we are going to deal with support, one of the organizations which we have not used, and it was going to go to Afghanistan in June but due to a number of factors it did not go, is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I can tell members, as a former president of the FCM, that it does outstanding work internationally. It must because CIDA funds it on a five year basis.

For capacity-building at the village level, we could bring in Canadian experts in the fields of engineering, rudimentary health care and the development of laws. We have a resource called the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which has put forth a proposal to actually engage in Afghanistan, to be part of the solution.

We need to look at those kinds of solutions which will help the men and women in Afghanistan. It is really important because without that kind of engagement, we cannot have success.

The field of education is another area, and of course we have witnessed over six million young Afghan children, particularly young girls, going to school for the first time. That is a great success.

We have experts on the ground here, so much so that the government of Vietnam, in an unrelated matter, is going to be looking for 15,000 teachers from the province of Ontario because it is going to mandate English in Vietnam from grade three on. What does that mean? It means that Vietnam realizes that Canada has tremendous resources in terms of expertise which it needs.

The Afghans need that too. One of the biggest resources we have in this country is the diaspora. The largest Afghan diaspora outside of Afghanistan is here and quite frankly we have not been very effective in utilizing it. These people know the language and the culture. They could be that bridge to assist us in ensuring the kind of development that we would like to see and that certainly the Afghan government would like to see.

Using that diaspora effectively is an important element that we need to utilize not only post-2011 but right now. We need to engage it effectively. These people want to be engaged and that is an element that we should be doing immediately.

There is no question of our contributions both on the military side and on the development side. On the military side we know that we clearly are making a difference. On the development side the creation of clinics or schools cannot necessarily be measured because if six months later they are destroyed, that is not very effective. When a clinic is built, it is not simply a building, it is the training of individuals to work in that clinic. How do they give shots, how do they deal in terms of cleanliness, dealing with making sure the floors are clean, making sure that everything is spic and span, because without that, the clinic itself is of no value, so we need to do that.

We need to be much more effective with our Afghan allies particularly in the area of corruption which is still a major problem. That was one of the issues with the police. The money was not going to the people on the ground, it was going through their commanders. Fortunately that stopped, but what is the incentive if people are not getting the proper dollars? That is an important issue.

There is clearly a crisis of confidence in Afghanistan, particularly in the government and in the international coalition. Therefore, we need to again engage Afghans to ensure that they understand and that we are able to provide them with a better way of life. We are seeing for the first time that more wheat is being grown than poppies. Afghanistan actually is a major producer of wheat. The people get a lot more money for that. It is the drug lords who get all the money for the poppies.

The Dahla Dam, which the government identified as one of our signature projects, when it is up and running, it will provide needed hydroelectricity but also irrigation to hundreds of thousands of Afghans. The question of course is defending that dam because it is going to be a clear target. Whether it is done by Canadian soldiers, by Afghan soldiers, by contract, or whoever, we need to ensure, that with Canadian taxpayer dollars being put in, that the dam is operational and continues to be operational.

The resolution that the House passed did not give the government a blank cheque. The special Afghan committee's role is to hold the government accountable on the benchmarks. It is to hold the government accountable so that Canadians understand where we are on this mission and to ensure that we are delivering. In regard to the training of the Afghan national army we have not delivered. At the moment only one out of eight units would be up to snuff. Unfortunately, we are behind and that is one of the concerns that we have on this side of the House. Canadians expect results with the resources in that regard, so why are we failing in that area?

We are going to ensure that the appropriate witnesses come before committee. As a clear explanation, we reported on this just before the summer recess, again informing Canadians of where we are.

This is not and has never been a Canadian mission, therefore, NATO and all our partners need to be there and to step up. Some countries like the Germans have certain caveats. That is pretty hard and is pretty rich. I remember meeting with members of the German defence committee urging us to continue the fight and stay longer which is very nice, except when we are not allowed to go out at night because the Germans are not out there, then that seemed to be a bit much.

We met with members of the Pakistan parliament in May. We had some very frank discussions with Pakistan and the Pakistani government, over the last few months, certainly recognized the fact that the main threat was not to its east in India, but that earlier this year the Pakistani Taliban elements had come together. They were very close to Islamabad until the Pakistan government had the political will and political courage to take them on.

Without a regional approach and without the support of regional players like Pakistan, any kind of approach for peace or some kind of national reconciliation among some of the more moderate elements out there would fail, and President Karzai has made attempts in that regard.

Pakistan is a key player and Iran is another key player to the west. And of course there is Russia, China and others, but we need to have a regional approach. We on this side have been pushing to ensure that we have that because diplomacy is a critical part of this whole issue.

We are not going to win militarily. The national defence department clearly showed that from the Russian situation. It is on reconciliation. We need to have building blocks there.

We have to do that not only at the diplomatic level to ensure that we are all on the same page but if it is a NATO mission we have to say to our NATO allies that they need to step up and take some responsibility. Countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have maybe 150 to 200 troops there on a per capita basis. They have more troops in Afghanistan than some of the other countries. They realize what we realize and that is, if we do not deal with this Afghan situation effectively, then those elements who would come back to Kabul and other cities would be quite a threat not only in the region but obviously in the export of terrorism around the world.

A deeds-based information environment is important. What perceptions do the Afghan people have of NATO, of the government? We hear of tragic bombings in which civilian casualties occur because someone has bombed from the air. The immediate reaction is not only negative but it turns people who otherwise may not be pro-Taliban into supporting the Taliban.

In terms of deeds-based, how has the average Afghan's life improved because of the intervention of the international community in support of the government?

The government of Afghanistan has a lot to do. It faces a long road ahead in areas of corruption and in the area of governance. We have heard of the disputed issues with regard to the election, and that is very disturbing.

As much as 40% to 45% of the international aid has not been spent because the Afghan government cannot spend it. The government does not have the capacity. So capacity-building in terms of governance and at the village level is important in terms of ensuring that the lives of individuals are improved with clean water, with health care, with a job. Obviously, employment is extremely important.

How do we interact with that population? Canadian soldiers have done an outstanding job working in the local villages and befriending local Afghans and children. They need to see Canadians and others not as a threat or as the enemy but as their friends. How quickly things will improve if that kind of engagement goes on.

What is Canada's role, if any, in terms of Afghanistan? Are we going to be there at all? If we are going to be there, are we going to be in another part of Afghanistan? How can we contribute? Our contribution needs to be based on the needs of the Afghan people. This Parliament has to have that debate and we have to have it for more than six hours.

The Conservative government is fond of saying that we have had this debate, but the reality is that we have to have a debate which involves Canadians. We have to ensure that as the representatives of Canadians in this Parliament that we clearly speak.

The one thing we can assure Canadians is that every member of the House supports our military as long as it is actively engaged overseas. We support our military 100%.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Richmond Hill talk about what is happening in Afghanistan. Of course we support all of our troops and every Canadian in Afghanistan who believes they are providing something important to the Afghan people.

However, I have a problem and perhaps the member can help me. We do have some very knowledgeable people. I will quote Scott Taylor, who is a well-known military writer, who recently said:

IT WOULD SEEM that even the most hawkish of pundits have now come to the conclusion that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, and that this conflict is fast becoming a quagmire akin to the American fiasco in Vietnam.

The second point I would put to him is the suggestion today by the spokesman for the Afghan national army that it will be four years before they can take over security. General McChrystal has said that he would like to see 124,000 Afghan troops by next year and to have that doubled by 2013, which is four years from now, to 250,000 troops.

The third thing I would put to him is the incident that happened in Dand last week where General Vance berated the local villagers because of a roadside bomb incident. It seemed to me that he was saying that it was up to the Afghan villagers to provide security to the Canadian forces and not the other way around.

Those three facts put together seem to indicate that we are heading in the wrong direction there and that this is not going the way we would like to see it go. I would like to know whether he thinks that Canada could be doing more to achieve peace instead of figuring out how to continue to fight a war that cannot be won.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his report of 2009, General McChrystal very clearly said that the direction they were taking was not simply about more troops. The solution is not more troops. The solution is better engagement with the local populations.

With regard to my colleague's comments about General Vance, clearly we need to do more engaging. I hate to use the term “winning the hearts and minds”, but I will use it because it does bring up certain images. There is a need get people on board and the only way we can do that is to show progress on the ground that affects local Afghans.

I do not know if it is true that General Vance berated the local population, but we will not win the hearts and minds if we do that. We will win the hearts and minds by the deeds that we do. We need to do more, particularly in the areas of better development and diplomacy. We also need to look at why the Afghans have announced that it will be four years before they can take over. In another two years they could say that it will be another six years.

Some of our allies in NATO need to do more on the training aspect and they have not done so. Obviously we have concerns with the Dutch and their decision to leave and what this will mean for us? The Italians have already indicated that they will go.

We not only need to ensure we do more on the training aspect, but that we are also much clearer in terms of using our diplomatic leverage in the region. We will be hearing very shortly on those issues at the Afghan special committee. However, we need to be very frank and say that we are not going to win, but we are trying to create the conditions for not only national reconciliation but also for better development.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Liberals, with whom I have had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan and be on the Afghanistan committee as well.

I have two very quick questions. One of the things we have raised during the debate and that all members have talked about with regard to what happens post-2011 is the role of training the Afghan military and police. I want to point to the recent publicity that was covering the police in particular and the fact that there had been an instance where the Afghan police had been handing over their arms in a very cordial manner. They were not cornered or taken hostage by the Taliban. If that is what is happening, we really need to look at what is going on here.

My second question is on human rights. He knows that I have raised this in committee. We have the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission documenting the abuse of citizens by law enforcement officials who we happened to train. If our role is training police after 2011, does he think that is a worthy thing, in light of these instances? What needs to change in light of what I have just mentioned?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referenced our trip in May 2008. We did see Canadian police on the ground doing training. One of the key elements is on the issue of respect for human rights. I do not think we can preach human rights at home unless we practice it abroad.

This is not just about giving a police officer a gun or giving him the basic training of how to enforce the law. This is about the respect for human rights aspect and ensuring they understand that. We need to know how that impacts in terms of getting to the hearts and minds of individuals in the community.

By doing that, then we can be successful. The training of the police is probably one of the most paramount roles that we can play because it is the people in the communities, in those villages and towns, who, unfortunately, have the highest casualty rates. Having met some of them, I must say that what they are going through is really moving.

The human rights aspect of training and then ensuring it is carried out is absolutely essential.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians are very supportive of this mission and back up our troops to the maximum degree. However, when we start talking to them, they get a little concerned that we do not seem to be winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani population. They see the election irregularities, the vote rigging, the things that are clearly corrupt practices and they see some of the difficulties raised by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre about basic human rights standards. They see progress being made on one front with aid and then progress being rolled back entirely with a Taliban raid or something of that nature. We have been there a fair bit of time.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on how he sees us changing that perspective, changing that dynamic within the next two years where we have committed withdraw.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways is certainly through the special standing committee on Afghanistan, which is televised. We need to begin looking at very specific examples of development, for example, microcredit. Microcredit has been one of the most successful programs, particularly with young Afghan women, that we have had. It has made a major impact on the lives of those individuals. That is a success story we have not really talked a lot about.

We have not talked about the fact that last year 600 doctors graduated in Afghanistan and, for first time in Afghanistan, half of them were women.

Real progress is going on but the difficulty is that the progress is often overshadowed. When we lose a soldier in the field, then we tend to focus on that, understandably, because a Canadian has lost his or her life.

We need to give Canadians a sense that we are making progress in certain areas but that there is much more to do. Again, those kinds of issues and reports need to come out.

We need to engage the NGO community more. Our own NGO community is an example in terms of what it can do over there. I mentioned the FCM as an example of one that could have a very good news story because it has done it in places like Durban, South Africa after apartheid, and in Chile after Pinochet, et cetera.

However, those are the kinds of things that I would like to see dealt with more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this report today.

I will start by saying that since we first started our debates on Afghanistan, the Bloc Québécois has been disappointed over and over. Things did not get off to a bad start. After the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, everyone agreed that something needed to be done; we needed to take action. The international community needed to join forces to fight terrorism.

Shortly after the 2001 attacks, all eyes turned to Afghanistan, because everyone agreed that terrorist training camps, al-Qaeda and the Taliban made for a very dangerous mix for western countries, and we needed to take action.

I remind members that this was the first and only time until now in NATO's history that article 5 was invoked. Article 5 is a NATO provision that states that if one of the 28 NATO countries is attacked, it will be considered an attack on all the countries. The day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, on American soil, NATO rightly invoked article 5, which forced all the nations to join forces to help the Americans eradicate this terrible evil.

In the beginning, we agreed. We told ourselves that the UN had held discussions and agreed that the United States had a legitimate defence and that they could counterattack. There was a period of about one month when George W. Bush asked Afghanistan to hand over al-Qaeda leaders or else the Americans would launch a military attack. One or two months after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States intervened in Afghanistan. The war was not a difficult one. It was not very long. But the United States and Canada felt that we needed more than a whirlwind war to get the job done. In fact the war was far from being over; it was just getting started. In the end, it was more of an insurrection than an actual war.

There is nothing very complicated about an insurrection. People who think the Taliban is cowardly because it does not engage in full-frontal attacks on NATO tanks have a misguided interpretation or view of what fighting is. The Taliban can certainly not compete with conventional arms like NATO's tanks, bazookas and firearms. So they resort to an insurgency where anyone can attack NATO forces. For example, a 15-year-old child may approach a soldier and blow himself up. Tensions are high, and no one knows where the next strike will come from.

So the Bloc Québécois became disillusioned. We supported this measure in the beginning, but when Parliament was asked to extend the mission until 2009, we added some conditions. The government did not agree to those conditions and the mission was extended until 2009.

So the mission continued. As 2009 approached, the Conservative government began suggesting that the mission should be continued until 2011. We were somewhat disappointed, because in the end, the Liberal Party—which had been saying for a year that it did not want to extend the mission, that Canada had done enough and that the mission should end in 2009—decided to get into bed with the Conservatives and to extend the mission again, this time until 2011.

We objected for the same reasons as the first time. There was no exit strategy, or any fundamental strategy as to where we were headed with Afghanistan. What benchmarks would be used to measure the success of the mission? All they were offering was a day-to-day approach. Just find the Taliban and kill as many of them as possible. Then we would see.

The longer this insurrection went on, the less sure we were of the results. That is why, in late 2008, we decided that the mission should not be extended until 2011. We did not agree with extending it until 2009, and we agreed even less with extending it until 2011. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party agreed with the Conservative Party, which is why we are still in Afghanistan today.

I would also remind the House that the title of the American mission in Afghanistan was “Enduring Freedom”. The Americans were the first to go in. When they decided to send some of their troops to Iraq, they asked for NATO support. NATO became involved and in 2005 it began playing a systematic role in Afghanistan. Initial efforts were directed at trying to stabilize the capital, Kabul. They then continued counter-clockwise, in other words, they began in the north, and then headed west, south, and then east. That is where the problems really began.

I should point out that some 40 nations are involved in Afghanistan, each with its own chain of command. On top of that, there is some confusion about the chain of command. The Americans have always said that they would command their own troops. For example, take what is going on in eastern Afghanistan, where the Americans said that they would take charge of the fight against terrorism, which is happening in the eastern part of the country. So there was a NATO chain of command and an American one. That caused huge problems. Not to mention that the 40 nations all had their own exemptions because their legislative bodies said that their troops' participation in Afghanistan was contingent on certain conditions, such as not leaving camp after 8 p.m., or rules of engagement that varied from country to country. In the end, the situation got so complicated that Afghanistan is now in a state of chaos and confusion.

These are serious problems. I have often attended NATO meetings, where I have suggested that troops be rotated through Afghanistan. I mentioned the four points of the compass earlier. It is much less dangerous in northern Afghanistan right now than in the south. Why are Canadians always the ones based in the south? Why does NATO not have some kind of rotation scheme? Those based in the south are sure to suffer losses, and it will cost more. So there should be a rotation to ensure that the bulk of the burden is not always borne by the same countries. But that idea has always been rejected out of hand. I am sure that the Prime Minister has asked for this too, but has also been turned down.

Speaking of the cost of the mission, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that by the end of 2011, the mission will have cost $16 billion. That is more than $1 billion a year. I can tell the people who ask me how much the conflict in Afghanistan is costing Canada that it costs between $3 million and $4 million a day. Why does it cost so much? Because we are still not sharing the cost with NATO. That is another major problem. Each nation is responsible for its own troops there. It costs much less to have troops in the north than in the south.

It is going to cost us a lot. However, the greater cost is in the loss of human life. So far we have lost 131 soldiers. I think this is a very dear price to pay. Just go to the funeral of one of these soldiers to understand the human cost. It is not just the soldier that is lost. His comrades dissolve in tears at the sight of the coffin followed by the family members choked by emotion. It is almost unbearable to be in those churches during a military funeral. That is the toll we must pay and I do not think we can keep it up much longer and not just because of our lost soldiers and the expense, but because we are far from certain that we will succeed in Afghanistan for the reasons I have just mentioned.

There are all manner of aggravating circumstances with respect to Afghanistan. I will start with the first, which involves the Canadian Parliament. We have a problem in the Canadian Parliament. We had to fight tooth and nail to be briefed on what was happening in Afghanistan. I remember that the minister at the time told us he could not brief us because we could not be told in advance where they would be the next week. That would be giving away their position to the enemy. That is not what we wanted. We wanted to know what had happened in the previous two weeks. Was progress being made in Afghanistan?

We were given all kinds of briefings like the following: we were shown a C-17 aircraft arriving in Kabul, we were shown its cargo which consisted of crates, and we were told what a beautiful aircraft it is. That is not a briefing. Similarly, we were shown a bridge and told that it had taken one month to erect and that it connected the two shores. That is not what we wanted to know.

Have Canadian MPs, elected by the citizens to be their representatives, been kept informed? I say the answer to that question is no. We have not been given the facts and we are still not getting them. We ask for all kinds of additional information and the people in Canadian intelligence, a division of national defence, give us the nonsense I just mentioned. We are not told if we are making progress. We are not told if victory is close at hand. We are not told if people are happy in Afghanistan. Has the quality of life improved for the Afghan people? The answer is no. It is not the Canadian government telling us this. MPs are forced to obtain information from all kinds of other sources. We are forced to consult others to ensure that we get the straight goods.

I have to constantly tell the defence committee that we are members of a Parliament that makes decisions about the mission, that decides how much it will cost, and that must bear the burden of the loss of soldiers.

First of all, not only should we be consulted but we should be kept well informed. And yet, that is not happening. I call that an aggravating factor.

There are other aggravating factors. Pakistan is an aggravating factor. Even recently, the American army fought in the east against people who came from Pakistan. When we receive delegates from Pakistan, members of Parliament from Pakistan, I always tell them that it is true that their government seems to be taking the situation seriously. I remember that Musharraf told us that he had lost some 800 soldiers in one year. His problem is not necessarily his political will to put soldiers on the front lines, it is also his problem with the ISI, Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani intelligence service, which gives arms to the Taliban and helps them to such an extent that the Pakistani delegation told us the other day that the ISI is a government within the government. There are certain problems, and Pakistan is certainly an aggravating factor. I am not saying that the Pakistanis are not making any effort, but there is a segment within Pakistan that is not helping the cause of the alliance troops, because everyone knows that the attacks are coming from Pakistan. When things get too hot, the attackers retreat to Pakistan, so the Americans have started attacking certain places in Pakistan using drones, because the Pakistani government does not seem to be addressing the problem in that country.

We may not solve the problem militarily—I will talk about this later—but it is significant that the Americans are intervening directly in Pakistan and are not even telling the Pakistanis what they are doing.

Poppy cultivation is another aggravating factor. How can we prevail in a conflict when we take away people's means of survival? There have been discussions at NATO. My colleague spoke earlier about the importance of infrastructure and the importance of growing different crops. Poppy growing must be replaced with something else. But it takes more than infrastructure and different crops. It also takes a market.

A few years ago, I witnessed discussions where Afghanistan was guaranteed a share of the European Union market. It is all well and good to substitute another crop for poppies, but if farmers produce cucumbers, tomatoes or melons, the domestic market in Afghanistan will not be enough. The European Union, the United States and Canada should perhaps make an effort to welcome Afghan products. If we want to substitute something else for poppy cultivation, infrastructure will not be enough. There will have to be markets.

But we must realize that the poppy trade is currently feeding the insurgency in Afghanistan. There is a problem, and we must address it. These are aggravating factors in the current crisis. So are civilian deaths. How can we win?

I hear my colleagues saying that we must win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. But does it help us when we kill civilians? Afghans have lost friends and parents in other conflicts. I am willing to believe that the allied forces now are not occupation forces. The Russians were occupation forces because they truly wanted to take over the country. The allied forces are not occupation forces, but when we needlessly drop bombs, when the lives of young men, young women and children are lost, that does nothing to help us earn the trust of the Afghan people.

In their own surveys, Afghans are saying that security has deteriorated since 2001. That shows that it was better under the Taliban than the current regime. That is a very aggravating factor. The government is corrupt. There is disappointment after disappointment. An election was just held, and its legality and legitimacy are being called into question.

The other day, at the Standing Committee on National Defence, I talked about Mr. Karzai's fellow candidate, one of the bloodiest warlords who ever lived in Afghanistan. Western democracies close their eyes and allow such things. This cannot be tolerated very long.

Afghans understand that there is a major problem when President Karzai brings one of the worst warlords in the history of Afghanistan into his fold. There have been some ballot boxes in which the number of ballots was some four or five times the number of names on the list of voters. There were some problems. Some people added ballots to the ballot boxes.

So this is an extremely difficult situation and we are again stuck between a rock and a hard place. We supervised the vote at arm's length, but would it be possible to hold another one if necessary? There are all kinds of aggravating factors. The government is corrupt. What has happened to the billions of dollars the international community has given to help the people?

I recall hearing that a ton of stone to build a road might cost $8. Yet when people went to buy it from the warlords, they demanded $80 for a ton of stone to build a road. Clearly, there is a problem there.

We have to review the situation and take a more diplomatic approach. Afghanistan's neighbours need to get involved. We are all affected by what is going on in Afghanistan. We have to talk to Iran, China, Russia and the countries bordering Afghanistan, who are in the thick of the events, because they can have an influence.

It would probably be a good idea to have an international conference in order to refocus. We have to continue providing reconstruction assistance and protecting what has been rebuilt and we have to enhance the diplomatic side of things. Everyone knows that this conflict will not be won by adding more soldiers. The Russians once had 150,000 soldiers there. Now there is talk of a build-up to 120,000 soldiers. The Russians did not resolve the situation in Afghanistan and they left disappointed and defeated.

It was important to the Bloc Québécois to take part in the debate today. The Bloc will continue to keep a critical eye on this mission and will continue to support the soldiers who are under orders and doing excellent work in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member covered the subject rather well in his speech.

It is really hard to have confidence in the government when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs basically said that there is no war going on over there. Clearly, he is a bit confused. Maybe he should let the troops in on that piece of information from the government.

Canadians deserve to be consulted on this whole question. From listening to the media reports lately I think that the fix may be in on this and the government, supported by the Liberals, may move at some point to extend the mission. Canadians should be consulted on this subject either through a referendum or an election before Canada signs on for a never ending commitment.

I liked the member's statement about the rotation of troops within Afghanistan. It seems to me that we are in the worst position within the country and we should move our troops around.

I did have some things to say about the poppy trade, because it seems to me the member asked for a market for the poppies. I have read articles about the fact that Africa could use the drugs as painkillers to help millions of people who are without painkillers. There is a market for the poppy crop in Africa.

I would ask if the member would like to elaborate on any of these points.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I would like to clarify one thing. Earlier, I spoke about the poppy crop. I am familiar with the position of certain NGOs that would like to see it used for therapeutic purposes. I agree with that, but we cannot buy the entire supply. The heroin produced in Afghanistan represents 90% of the international illegal trade. Even if it were to be used for therapeutic purposes, there would be too much. We have to replace poppy crops, keeping only part for therapeutic purposes. If they decide to grow other crops, as we have in our own country, they will need a market. My colleague spoke of infrastructure and of changing the crops.

Europe has talked about reserving part of their market to help Afghans sell their goods. Perhaps the U.S. and Canada could do the same thing. But we have to do something about the poppy trade in Afghanistan because it is fuelling the insurgency.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is the defence critic for his party and has studied the issue of Canada's role in Afghanistan over the years. I would like his comment on what seems to be emerging in the debate in the United States, which of course is important to all of us because it will affect what we do, I would think, in terms of the present and post-2011.

There is the McChrystal view and the Biden view. The McChrystal view is a troop surge and the idea of clear, hold and develop. The Biden view is to take a step back and not do the troop surge, but treat this more like a different mission, doing the special ops and rooting out al Qaeda, and focusing on that.

I would like to get the hon. member's feedback on that. Does he think that one is better than the other? How might this affect Canada in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, I came to the same conclusion as the member for Ottawa Centre.

Just the other day, I heard Barack Obama say that he would be very skeptical if any of his generals asked for more soldiers. I think that the American administration understands that we will not put an end to this conflict by sending more soldiers and bulking up military contingents. We have to find another way. Everyone is looking for solutions.

The other day, I noticed that Canada has adopted an interesting approach. It was decided that when troops go to a village, they will not rush in and immediately rush out again, making way for the Taliban to retake the village a couple of days later. Instead, they will stay and show people that they can help with reconstruction and protect them.

Earlier, someone was talking about General Vance's temper tantrum. The other day, a vehicle was blown up and the general told the people of the village that they had to take responsibility for their own security too. That is the kind of approach we need to take now. We have to go to these villages, support them, help them and protect them until finally, the Afghan people realize that it all serves a purpose. We cannot rush in, carry out an aggressive military operation, chase all of the Taliban out of town, and then take off, because a day or two later, the Taliban will be back. We have to come up with original solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the motion to concur in the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on Canada in Afghanistan, a report that was originally tabled in the last Parliament but because it was still valid, was reported to the current session as well. I am glad that we have this opportunity to speak about what is happening in Afghanistan and what the future holds for Canada's efforts in that part of the world.

As a member of the NDP, I still believe that our mission in Afghanistan is the wrong mission for Canada. I have believed that consistently in my time here in the House of Commons and before. If I could do so, I would bring our troops home now because I think that the role they are playing departs from the role Canadians believe our armed forces should be playing around the world.

Our role in this combat mission is the wrong mission for this country. It is a departure from the values of peacekeeping, of separating combatants, of putting ourselves between those who are solving disputes through violence. I believe Canadians firmly believe that is the role Canada should be pursuing in the world. Our ongoing combat mission in Afghanistan is something that has not upheld those kinds of values in which Canadians firmly believe.

I also believe that this is a war that cannot be won. We have heard many others who are far more skilled in military operations than I make that same statement. It is not a statement that comes from someone who is unaware of the situation or the difficulties of engaging in war. Many people now firmly believe that that is the case.

I also believe that pursuing a combat role and a war in Afghanistan was never a way of ensuring security for Afghanistan, ensuring security for the people of Afghanistan, for making sure that human rights were upheld in that country and for ensuring women's rights. We have often heard that this was a war that had establishing women's rights as one of its goals. I do not think that any of those things can be established by military means. It takes a lot more and a lot of other kinds of efforts to make all of those important things possible.

We have seen a turn in the opinion about the war, even from people who initially supported it, even from those who have made it their career and their business to understand how wars are fought and won. This is a war that cannot be won.

We are there and I doubt that is going to change before the date of February 2011, which was set in this House a number of years ago, but if there is an opportunity to discuss bringing the troops home as another possibility, I will be there to discuss that possibility.

What do we do in the meantime? The report is very clear. It mentions in at least three of its recommendations the need for a new focus on diplomatic efforts.

Recommendation three talks about the need to set the conditions within Afghanistan for the possibilities of peace and reconciliation, of how the folks within the communities in Afghanistan need to work together to find that place where another possibility can be explored. That is a very key recommendation of this report.

Recommendation four talks about the role of the United Nations. Clearly the United Nations needs to be a key player in whatever the future of Afghanistan is. That was a very significant recommendation from the committee as well.

Recommendation five talks about the importance of regional diplomacy and the importance to have other countries of the region, the neighbours of Afghanistan, directly involved in finding a solution to this situation. We have heard that talked about this afternoon already.

New Democrats have long advocated for a diplomatic effort, have long advocated that Canada should be making more efforts on diplomacy. The leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, was very clear that Canada needed to be pursuing every diplomatic means possible and needed to be talking with all of those who could bring about a different kind of solution than a military one in Afghanistan.

There was some derision for that, but it is interesting now to see that many of allies, that many military experts are also saying we need this kind of diplomatic effort, that it is not an option but a necessity to bring this situation to a conclusion.

I am proud of my leader for having been there earlier on and clearly in favour of Canada taking a role in that area.

We know the region is one that lacks a certain security. The insurgency in southern Afghanistan, which is now spreading to the north, also affects the security of the countries surrounding Afghanistan. Those countries have a direct interest in seeing a diplomatic resolution to what is happening in Afghanistan. They also need to be involved in pursuing that resolution. Canada should be talking with them to encourage their participation in finding that diplomatic solution. Countries like Russia, China, Turkmenistan, Iran and Pakistan all have a very clear interest in what is happening in Afghanistan and their security is all very much bound up in that.

Others have said that this diplomatic effort is absolutely crucial. The United Nations special envoy to Afghanistan has called for a political surge, which is his phrase, to match the kind of military surge about which we have often heard. We need that kind of political surge to ensure a satisfactory solution to this conflict can be reached. That is important to realize and the UN can play a very important role in that.

We also know that involving those other countries will lead to a sharing of the burden of responsibility for what is happening there. Canada has had a very large share of that burden and our men and women in the armed forces have disproportionately, in many ways, shouldered the burden of our involvement there, of the activities and of the war in Afghanistan. It would be good to involve the other countries of the region in sharing that burden.

Also Canadians have been involved in the region in negotiating earlier agreements. They are experts in understanding that part of the world, in particular Afghanistan. In particular, Mokhtar Lamani has been very involved over many years, working in Afghanistan and with the people of Afghanistan and in the region. He certainly should be involved in any future efforts to find a peaceful or a diplomatic solution to what is happening. He worked together with his colleague, Lakhdar Brahimi, the former Algerian foreign minister, on many of these issues. They did a report in 1988 and they were also involved with the Bonn conference report in 2001.

It is interesting to look back at those reports which came out of both Mr. Brahimi's and Mr. Lamani's original report. They also came out of the Bonn conference. The issues that were delineated are still with us today in Afghanistan. In 2001 they noted that the Taliban was training foreign fighters and it was a very destabilizing kind of effect. The drug issue in Afghanistan was still very destabilizing and the narco economy was a very serious problem for any effort in that region. There were very serious human rights problems as well.

Sadly, none of that has changed today. None of the efforts that have been expended in Afghanistan so far have been successful in addressing any of the concerns identified before the conflict began. Mr. Brahimi said that the Bonn conference process needed the participation of those in Afghanistan who were willing to talk, who were willing to be part of a diplomatic solution, which could include elements of the Taliban who were willing to participate in that kind of process.

Therefore, we saw in other instances where we needed that kind of broad diplomatic effort, a diplomatic effort that did not only include NATO countries and the UN, but included regional partners and the people of Afghanistan as well as the political groups there. Surely it is only common sense to believe that this is the way to a solution to this conflict.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has made it very clear that it is a very necessary piece of what needs happen and what needs to be on Canada's agenda as we move forward and that there is much more we could do as a country is that regard.

We know we have excellent diplomats who are very capable. We have experts in the region who are from Canada. There are ways for us to take advantage and play a very key role in a diplomatic solution, not just in our current military role in Afghanistan.

There are very serious issues related to the ongoing conflict there, serious issues that point to a lack of progress, which would cause many of us to question what has been happening there, what our role is and what success we can point to, if any, in that region.

I think many of us were disappointed in the outcome of the recent elections in Afghanistan. The ghost polls, the electoral fraud that seems to have been documented so far, and more reports will likely be coming out about that, is a huge disappointment. It must be a huge disappointment to the people of Afghanistan, who have been told time and time again that their future lies in the establishment of a true democracy in Afghanistan. They must be incredibly disappointed that their ability to have a say about how their country proceeds into the future seems to have been manipulated, that this does not seem to be working as it should and that their say in choosing their leadership has been altered in some way. That is a very serious problem and it is very disappointing. It again points to the question of what has been accomplished in Afghanistan.

There are very serious concerns, as well, about rampant corruption within Afghanistan and within its government. There is no doubt that much of this may be linked to the narco economy and the drug trade, which is a very serious ongoing problem. Other solutions to this have been proposed but they have never been taken up seriously by who those do that kind of work to establish a cleaner regime in Afghanistan. There are other suggestions and proposals out there that would try to deal with the narco economy in Afghanistan, yet very little progress has been made in those areas.

That is a very significant concern about our ongoing participation in this war in Afghanistan and one that does need our attention.

In recent days my colleague, the member for St. John's East, and in previous months and years the former member for New Westminster--Coquitlam, raised very serious concerns about the operations of the Afghan police and armed forces and about the detention centres and prisons in Afghanistan and what exactly happened in those organizations and institutions.

We have heard the very disconcerting stories about the sexual abuse of boys by members of the Afghan police and the Afghan armed forces, serious charges that are a huge concern to us all.

We have also heard the concerns regarding torture against detainees in those prisons in Afghanistan. In fact, in the past this is one issue that I have raised in our debate on Afghanistan, the Canadian policy of turning those who are captured in the course of Canadian military operations in Afghanistan over to the Afghan authorities, to Afghan prisons, where we know torture has been practised and is practised.

I have often said it is an inappropriate policy of Canada to turn over detainees to Afghan authorities after they have been captured in a Canadian military operation. I still believe it is a dereliction of our responsibility to the people we capture in the course of war. These ongoing allegations about torture in the Afghan prison system concern me greatly.

Some of these complaints have gone before the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission. Yet in recent days we have also become concerned as to whether that body will have the ability to fully report on these very serious concerns. My colleague from St. John's East again raised that in question period today, to try to get the government to commit to the ongoing mandate for those who are currently working at the Military Police Complaints Commission on this report. This is a very serious report. It needs to be completed and they need to have the resources to fully finish that work before there is a change in leadership. I would heartily support the concerns and the suggestions made by the member for St. John's East in that regard.

We need to be fully clear about what our role has been with regard to these very serious allegations. If Canadians did not take responsibility for information they knew about the abuse of boys by the Afghan police or Afghan armed forces, we need to know that. We need to know what is happening in Afghan prisons. I hope a way can be found to ensure that important work is not interrupted or delayed.

Shortly after I was elected as a member of Parliament, I raised a concern during a take note debate on Afghanistan. I remember asking the minister and colleagues how Canada was planning to deliver development aid to Afghanistan and noted the fact that the aid was being delivered by the Canadian military. I had very serious questions then and I continue to have very serious questions about trying to deliver development aid by the military. It is utterly ineffective, it is the wrong way to go and it is a complete departure from how Canada has delivered military aid in the past.

We know that when a combatant military force is also responsible for delivering development aid, especially in an area where conflict is still possible and still regular, it sets those development projects up as targets of the opponents of our military forces. It is not an effective way to ensure that the development aid, if it is building a school or some other community facility, is not targeted by the enemies of our armed forces due to our combat role in the region. It is not a good way of delivering that aid.

In fact, if we look at the statistics, it seems our ability to deliver that aid has been extremely limited. It is my understanding that we have committed to building 50 schools in the Kandahar region for the period we are in Afghanistan. However, at this point only five of those schools have been completed. It is not a very good record given that there is only a limited time left in the mandate of the armed forces there. It is not looking promising that the commitment, that delivery of very important aid to the people of Afghanistan will be met. We have been unable to deliver on those schools as a key piece of that commitment.

A lot of question are being raised about the cost of the military mission in the war in Afghanistan, the cost in human terms, the number of Canadian men and women in the armed forces, the diplomat who have died in service in Afghanistan. We know their families, friends and communities mourn and grieve their losses, we all do. There has been a huge human cost.

We also know there has been a huge human cost on the part of the Afghan people. We do not often hear about the human cost to Afghan civilians. In fact, sometimes that information is kept from us. I applied to have those statistics a number of years ago. I was told that it could not be released. There is a very limited response in that way and it would be good to know what the true human cost of this conflict is. There is also the huge military spending involved in this mission in Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that significant taxpayer dollars are going to fight this ongoing war in Afghanistan. Given the many questions about it, one wonders about that huge financial commitment. We want to ensure that when we ask men and women of the Canadian armed forces to undertake this kind of work, they are well equipped to do that. There is no excuse to send them to battle without giving them the appropriate resources. However, we need to be very clear about the cost.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am afraid it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Climate Change

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by a good number of residents from my riding of Yukon calling on the government to take action to address the serious threats posed to Canadians by climate change.

They note that climate change poses threats to economic well-being, public health, natural resources and the environment. They believe Canada needs to assume its responsibility, so Parliament should continue to support former Bill C-30.

Gasoline Prices

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition in the House of Commons on behalf of a large number of people who are concerned about gasoline prices and the fact that the government is doing nothing to help ordinary working families who are getting hosed at the pumps.

In fact, the petitioners are keenly aware that the government is making things worse rather than better. By offering the Liberal government in Ontario $4.3 billion to implement the harmonized sales tax, the federal Conservative government has just added another 8% tax to a commodity that many of the petitioners need every single day to get to and from work, to look for new jobs, or to keep a doctor's appointment.

The petitioners no longer have faith that the government will protect their interests as consumers. They do believe, however, that my private member's bill, formerly Bill C-442, now Bill C-286, which calls for the creation of an oil and gas ombudsman, will provide strong, effective consumer protection to make sure no big business could swindle, cheat or rip off hard-working Canadians.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament of Canada to give speedy passage to Bill C-442 to help consumers fight the gas price squeeze.

Employment Insurance Act

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table yet another petition today signed by hundreds of people from all over Quebec urging Parliament to immediately pass Bill C-378 to allow hard-working families to access their maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits without worrying that if they lose their jobs in the meantime they will lose their EI.

The petitioners note that one barrier preventing workers from accessing EI is the anti-stacking provisions found within the Employment Insurance Act. These discriminatory provisions prevent new mothers in particular who have secured the full amount of “special” benefit entitlements from accessing regular benefits if they lose their jobs during or shortly after these specially sanctioned leaves.

The petitioners are keenly aware that in the current economic downturn, layoff announcements are coming daily, and they want to ensure that these discriminatory provisions of the EI Act are eliminated.

I am pleased to say that my Bill C-378 would indeed address those concerns. I very much appreciate the support of the petitioners on this very important issue for thousands of working families.

Protection of Human Life

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people mostly from Prince Edward Island.

They note that Canada is a country which respects rights, including the right to life, and that since 1969, for 40 years, Canada has been a country which allows abortion, and since 1988, in fact, we have had no law on abortion whatsoever.

The petitioners call on Parliament to pass a law which would ensure the protection of human life from the time of conception until the time of natural death.

Canadian International Development Agency

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present in the House today petitions, not only from people in my constituency but from Alberta, Ontario, clearly all across the country.

They are calling upon this House to promote the values they cherish, which are Canadian values in support of pre-born life.

They are particularly calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the funding of planned parenthood by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, believing that CIDA should be concentrating on dealing with fighting poverty instead of concentrating on destroying human life.

Workers' Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in the House signed by dozens of residents of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, from Sooke and Victoria in the south to Courtenay and Comox in the north.

All of these petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support my Motion No. M-384 which would rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including arbitral awards and equal pay for work of equal value.

There is no doubt the provisions of Bill C-10 have a negative impact on our hard-working civil servants. These are people who devote their time to making the governmental machinery work, even when the government makes bad decisions. Our civil servants are there to work on behalf of all Canadians.

These petitioners, many of whom work for the government and many of whom have families who are associated with the government, are calling on the government to rescind those provisions of Bill C-10 that attack those principles of equal pay for work of equal value and the principles of collective bargaining in the federal civil service.

Firearms Registry

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to present petitions on two separate subjects.

The first petition is signed by 229 petitioners, many of whom are from my riding of Wild Rose.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry). In so doing, they call on all parties to do the right thing in support of law-abiding farmers, ranchers and hunters, and finally abolish the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

Natural Health Products

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting two separate petitions signed by people from all across Canada calling for greater freedom in the use of natural health products.

Workers' Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a petition calling for a stop to wage rollbacks and a restoration of pay equity to public service workers.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 384 and rescind the provisions of Bill C-10 that violate workers' rights to collective bargaining, including arbitrary awards and equal pay for work of equal value.