Debates of Oct. 5th, 2009

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, about this issue of war and a secure environment, there is no question that Canadian soldiers are dying, Afghan soldiers are dying, as are other coalition soldiers. People are dying. It is important to understand that we are trying to make it a secure environment.

The House passed a motion stating its principles as to what is to be achieved. The Parliament of Canada set its priorities through that motion.

The member and I sit on committee and we measure on a quarterly basis the progress made.

That is the real success in Afghanistan.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to downgrade the importance of this debate because it is a debate about the fate of our armed forces, the people currently serving and those who have given their lives.

I do however want to raise the cover on why the debate is happening right at this second. The NDP wants to delay Parliament because those members do not want the free trade bill to proceed. The second thing is they asked for--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is the right of every parliamentarian to bring forward a concurrence motion on a committee report. He is impugning motive and that is unfortunate, but that should not be allowed. Mr. Speaker, you should be ruling in fact that this type of motion is allowed in Parliament.

For a member, whether he is on the government bench or not, to stand and suggest that we cannot do what we are doing I take issue with, and so should you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not a point of order. The member for Ottawa Centre is correct that he has the procedural right to move a concurrence motion and other members have a right to agree or disagree with that decision, but we will go on with the question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

The second thing is that the NDP wants to slow down the EI bill so that we can remain in the House, which is a good thing because, indeed, that is what the Conservatives and the Prime Minister want to do.

That said, having raised the cover as to why this is happening, I would like the parliamentary secretary again to underscore why in the world the NDP thinks that we can achieve the rebuilding of Afghanistan without first creating security for the people of Afghanistan.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question everybody is asking: How does the NDP expect development to take place when there is no security? In the meantime, the NDP wants us to withdraw, providing an insecure environment.

Events are taking place in Pakistan and Afghanistan even now and reports are saying it is a difficult mission and the insurgency is gaining ground. All of this indicates why it is important to ensure there is a secure environment and that the Afghan national army is built so that it can take care of its own country and destiny.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the member for Ottawa Centre and my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for participating in this discussion.

Historians will argue for generations the reasons that the New Democratic Party moved the motion on this particular day, and I do not take anything away from that. It is important for the House to take the opportunity to reflect on the Afghan mission and, certainly, if there are families of soldiers whose lives are at risk and families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we, as members of Parliament, owe it to them to provide some reflection on the mission in Afghanistan.

First of all, as a member of the Liberal Party, when I participated in some discussions before I was elected to the House with respect to the mandate of the mission, I appreciated very much the efforts that were made by the Prime Minister and others to involve a number of people in those discussions. I certainly have never regarded this mission as a matter of partisan politics or as a matter of partisan debate. There is no more important decision for a member of Parliament, indeed for a government and certainly for a prime minister, than the decision with respect to Canada's putting its military and civilian operations in a theatre of conflict, putting their lives at risk and asking them and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice. When we go back to our constituents and we argue and debate these questions, it is not a matter of political philosophy or a matter of abstract ideology; it is a matter of very real questions for the people of Canada and certainly for those families.

Those who were in the House last week would know that I did not hesitate to give what I hoped would be a fairly lively partisan intervention in a debate on the confidence motion. This will be a very different kind of intervention, simply because of the nature of the subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

It is important for the House to continue to keep its eye and focus on the most important and difficult questions which we have. The first one is that while we as a country have this debate, we should never make the mistake of thinking that this is somehow a conflict in which Canada alone is involved. There are over 40 members of the United Nations that are engaged in some way or other with respect to their activities in Afghanistan in support of the United Nations mandate and in support of the mandate which flowed from the London conference. Canada, Canadian troops, Canadian CIDA workers and Canadian diplomats are engaged in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in the neighbouring region, and we are not engaged in it alone. Our troops are not alone. Our diplomats are not alone. Our aid workers are not alone. Somehow, that reality has to filter down more powerfully into the discussion in the House of Commons.

Of course, all of us are responding to national mandates from national parliaments.

It is only natural to have a discussion on such an important mission in the House of Commons, but we have to remember that Canada is not alone and that Canada will not resolve the conflict in Afghanistan alone. It is not a Canadian mission. It is a UN mission and a NATO mission. It is not just a mission for our army and our military forces, but a mission for our diplomats and our CIDA workers.

We as Canadians have to better understand that we are not in this mission alone. We are in this mission with all our allies. It is an effort that is both difficult and important.

Let us go back and remember, because somehow we seem to need to do this over and over again, and remind ourselves as to how we got there, what NATO and the United Nations is doing there and what we are trying and attempting to accomplish.

Let us recall that is a country that has been at the centre of a conflict that has been under way for over 30 years, initially a civil war, a conflict within Afghanistan which proved to be difficult and violent, then in 1979 an invasion from the Soviet Union in which, by the end of the invasion, over 100,000 Soviet troops were in Afghanistan, in which literally hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians were killed, in which thousands of Soviet troops themselves were killed, and which invasion was resisted. It was resisted by mojahedin fighters who were based in southern Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan and who were supported by the intelligence and military forces in Pakistan, as well as by our friends in the United States.

Ultimately, the Soviets decided to withdraw and after their withdrawal there was a continuation of a civil war. There was another civil war and conflict. Out of that conflict, came a regime known as the Taliban regime. One of the ironies of life is that there were elements in the Taliban regime that were supported by the Pakistanis, by the Americans, by ISI and by the CIA. This has been widely documented. It is not a wild assertion by anyone. It is well-known, well-documented and thoroughly researched and understood.

It is that Taliban regime that harboured al-Qaeda and allowed Osama bin Laden to operate within the country and within its jurisdiction and which provided harbour, support and allowed free rein to al-Qaeda and bin Laden to launch his attacks initially in the region and then ultimately the attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade towers.

NATO invoked the doctrine for the first time in NATO's history that said that an attack on one is an attack on all of us. This is our attack. The United Nations was engaged because of the nature of the conflict and because of the risk that was posed to the entire security of the region by the regime that was in place in Afghanistan. As a result of that, Canada, as a member of NATO, became involved. We became involved through our work at the United Nations and through our work at NATO.

A decision was made by the Canadian government to support the decision of NATO, which was sanctioned by the United Nations, that we would remove the Taliban regime, get rid of that government and launch a military attack that would allow that to take place, which is exactly what happened.

Canada participated in the initial conflict in Afghanistan. We supported the NATO operation. As a result, the Taliban regime left the major cities of Afghanistan and the rebuilding operation began. The rebuilding operation began under the aegis of the United Nations, of which Canada was a strong member and supporter, and NATO was asked and sanctioned by the United Nations to continue to provide the security services that would be necessary to rebuild Afghanistan.

At the time the rebuilding started, it is important to remember the level of destruction, the physical destruction that had taken place in Afghanistan, the level of poverty that affected the country of tens of millions of people and the extent to which we were starting from the most difficult and tragic of circumstances.

Hundreds of thousands of people had been killed, indeed, deaths in the millions, refugees in the millions and homeless in the millions. Poverty was at the very lowest levels of income and ability to survive of any country in the United Nations. It was a country that had been literally devastated by 30 years of violent conflict, to say nothing of the psychological and physical trauma; the number of people without arms, hands, legs and limbs; the number of people who were disabled; and the number of people who were absolutely devastated by the extent of this conflict.

The Taliban was not defeated. It left Kabul and Kandahar and the major cities of Afghanistan but it did not disappear as an organization. For reasons that historians will debate, the United States decided that it would not focus solely on the question of rebuilding Afghanistan but would extend the war on terror, as it described it, to Iraq.

In my opinion, which is an opinion I have expressed on a number occasions, that was a mistake of historic proportion. When Richard Clarke, the security advisor to President Clinton, was called to the Senate to testify he said that this was an absolutely fatal mistake because it did two things. He said that it first let Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts off the hook and gave them the ability to regroup in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan, which they have obviously done to a tremendous extent. Second, he said that it meant that the destabilization of the world was passed through to Iraq and Iraq itself became a major training ground for terrorist and guerrilla activity, making life more difficult all around.

It must be said that many mistakes have been made, both tactically and strategically, by all of us, including NATO, in how we thought we would solve this problem. The Prime Minister came into office and asked Mr. Manley and others to look at the war. They looked at the war and said that there had to be a change in strategy, that we had to get the whole of government involved and that we had to get CIDA, our defence effort and our development effort working together. We had to understand that there would not be a classic military victory. We would not have a VA day the way we have a VE day or VJ day. They said that this was not that kind of conflict and that it required a different approach altogether.

I think it is fair to say that the report that Mr. Manley chaired has had an impact today and at other times in saying that there needs to be a refocus of our efforts. We need to continue to refocus those efforts. I think it is fair to say that the report that the New Democratic Party has suggested we debate today is a report that points to that change in direction.

We are now in the middle of a national debate under way in the United States. The President of the United States has said that he wants to continue to discuss with General McChrystal and his other advisors as to how they will proceed. The Americans have increased substantially the number of troops that they have in Afghanistan, but we understand that there is now a request for even more troops with respect to the next two-year period for creating greater stability in the country.

I have been able to get to Afghanistan twice as both a private citizen and as a member of Parliament. On the basis of those trips, it is not possible for me to say that I am in any sense an expert or that I have any particular dramatic insights that are greater than those I have read.

For my colleagues in the House, I want to say that I find the membership on the special committee on Afghanistan; the foreign affairs committee work that I have done; the amount of reading I have been able to do; the travels we have been able to take to Washington; the discussions that I have had in New York, Washington and other discussions with other countries that are engaged; the very late night discussions I have had with several ambassadors in Kabul who were kind enough to come around and agree to an off-the-record conversation; the conversations I have had with our military officers and with members of their families; and the discussions I have had with our aid workers and NGOs in Afghanistan have all been fascinating, important and interesting. I think we all need to figure out how we go forward and the best way to move forward.

I am convinced that we have suffered a little from what I call mission creep in Afghanistan. Too many people started out with the rhetorical ambition that we would turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy in relatively short order.

I am trying not to be too partisan here but part of the difficulty I had with the Bush doctrine was that it talked a lot about how we take freedom to other countries, we impose it, it is there and it will be quickly embraced, but my entire experience in life is that life does not work that way.

This is a deeply feudal, tribal society. This is a divided society, a badly damaged and traumatized society. This is a society with very high rates of illiteracy and very low levels of economic development. It is a narco-economy with over 50% of its GDP coming from the production and manufacture of highly illegal drugs. It is a society in which what we define and see as corruption is widespread.

We are having a great challenge now with respect to the election, which I asked the minister about today, and there will continue to be serious issues on this side of the House about the conduct of that election and what more needs to be done to ensure credibility for the national government in Afghanistan. There is a serious issue with respect to the credibility of that government in the eyes of a great many of its people, let alone the allies who are making such a significant contribution to the life, safety and security of Afghanistan.

This is not a crusade for anything. This is about providing security. It is about ensuring that that country and that region will not become a base from which terrorist activity can threaten the security of the world. That is what it is all about. The more we can do to advance freedom, to advance the rule of law and to advance equality, the better off we will all be. However, let us not lose our focus on what must be the central activity. The central activity is not a crusade. The central activity is security and it is a security that cannot be achieved in Afghanistan alone. It is a security that must be matched by the security we find in Pakistan.

People talk about Vietnam or other conflicts and say, “Wait a minute, let me understand. If there is a full scale retreat, there is a Taliban government in Kabul, there is greater destabilization in Pakistan and the possibility of a more radical fundamentalist government in Pakistan which has access to nuclear weapons and is an ally of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, what is the effect of that on the security of the world?”

No thoughtful person can look upon that result and say that we have peace. If we have peace, then why do we worry? Our troops are not there so no one is getting killed, so we will be at peace. However, what kind of peace will it be? If it is a peace in which the security of the rest of the world is deeply threatened, then we are simply putting our heads in the sand and pretending as if we found a solution.

I have never been one who felt that going to war or taking military action was something that could be taken on lightly. I have certainly never thought of myself as somebody who believed that democracy comes at the end of the barrel of a gun.

Nonetheless, I am certain that Canada has a vital interest in the security of the world. We must first find a way to ensure the security of the area around Afghanistan, so the people of that region and the people of the world, including Canada, are no longer subject to terrorist attacks. That is why I believe it is important for us to continue to provide the necessary focus and support to a mission that can work and that will have the chance to succeed.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus will continue to be, as much as we can be, a constructive and, I hope, effective voice in the House with respect to this mission. I do not see it as an ideological mission. I do not see it as exclusively a military mission, and we do not see it as one that is carrying on a crusade for anything. We see it as something that we hope will provide greater security for Afghanistan, greater security for the region, and yes, greater--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Westlock—St. Paul.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his intercession. As informative as it was on the history of Afghanistan, I would like to ask him some questions on what he sees for the future of Afghanistan.

I have the privilege of representing men and women from both CFB Edmonton and 4 Wing Cold Lake who have served in Afghanistan. When I talk to these men and women, they do not obsess about the past in Afghanistan. They do not obsess about past military ventures they have been on in Afghanistan. Truly this is not Vietnam. This is not Afghanistan in the 1970s. This is Afghanistan in 2009.

These men and women tell me more often than not about the amazing difference they have made in this country from the beginning to the current date. When I talked to the development and aid workers who have been there, all they talked about was the future of Afghanistan. They are not weighed down about the past, as others are, though I do not want to be too partisan with this question.

The member talked a lot about the past and the history. I would like to know about his vision and how he sees Canada's engagement moving into the future, past 2011. Surely from the sounds of it he sees Canada being engaged in some role. I would like to know exactly what he foresees for us and what vision he has for Canada's role in Afghanistan past 2011.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I appreciate the question, Mr. Speaker. I have difficulty collecting my thoughts in 20 minutes, so I can assure the hon. member that I would gladly have spoken more had I been given the opportunity.

Let me just say as briefly as I can that I think there is a very important role for us, an ongoing role for us in Afghanistan. I do not believe that Canada's commitment to Afghanistan can, in any way, shape or form, end in 2011. I do not believe our commitment to the region can end in 2011. We are beginning to understand better that what happens in Pakistan, particularly in the northwest but in fact in the whole country, is every bit as important as what happens in Afghanistan, and I think Mr. Manley helped us do that.

I noticed Ambassador Holbrooke said the other day that it is only when we deal with these two questions together, only when we see them together, that we will be able to succeed as we go forward.

First, from my visits to Afghanistan, my sense is that there is still a major role for us to play in the whole field of development. There is a major role for us to play in the rule of law and the governance of the country. There are significant issues with respect to how the government of Afghanistan actually operates and how the governance can operate. Finally, there is a very significant role for us to play in training the military and in training the police.

There is a very strong consensus, which I found for example in the speeches by Prime Minister Brown of the U.K. last week, in what has been said by many others, and indeed, in what has been said in the House. There is a tremendously important role for us with respect to making sure that the Afghan army and the Afghan police are in a position to do the job, which simply has to be done. If hon. members accept my argument that security is the key, then those institutions are obviously key and critical.

My visits with General Formica and with the Canadian military in Kabul persuaded me that there will absolutely be a strong role for Canada in the period after 2011. We have to take a long hard look at that as we look at what our role has to be in order to be useful. The resolution is clear that our military deployment in Kandahar will come to an end, but I certainly do not see that our role in Afghanistan with respect to development will come to a conclusion.

Let me give just one example: the whole question of polio eradication. We need to see this as a long-term campaign, one that involves Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the other day, at the economic club dinner at the Chateau Laurier, four-star General Wesley Clark was there and was asked a question on Afghanistan. He said basically two things.

First, he said that anyone who believes we are not in Afghanistan or Iraq for energy security is sadly mistaken. I am paraphrasing now. That is not exactly what he said. However, he indicated one of the major reasons we were there was for energy security.

Second, he said that if we do not deal with Pakistan, we cannot deal with an Afghanistan.

When I spoke with him on a more private level, he indicated he meant to elaborate more on the region, not just on Pakistan.

As my colleague from Toronto Centre has said, the reality is there are many countries in that region that need to be taken into the dialogue.

And, yes, the hon. member for Toronto Centre is absolutely correct. Canada will have some role to play in Afghanistan. The question is this House and this country have to decide in a thoughtful manner what that role should be after 2011.

My question for the hon. member is, does he think that General Wesley Clark was correct in his summation on energy security of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, I would like to give him an opportunity to elaborate more on what Canada's role, not just with Pakistan but with the other countries in the region, should be, as he says, in going forward on this very serious issue.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from a factual point of view, I do not know what the energy security issues in Afghanistan would be in relationship to Canada.

Certainly with respect to Kazakhstan, which is not a neighbour but which is reasonably close by, there is obviously an issue with respect to the energy question, and obviously the supplies of oil and natural gas that come from that part of the world are of interest to all of us.

However, if the member were to ask me if I think that is the reason Canadian troops are in Afghanistan, I would have to say, no, I do not think it is. And I do not think that is why NATO is there either.

I am sorry that time did not permit me to respond to the broader diplomatic issues that were raised by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I am very much in agreement with him. I think we need a stronger diplomatic presence in Islamabad, Delhi and Kabul, as well as whatever we can bring to Iran and the neighbouring countries. I think it is critical for us. I think it is critical that Canada be able to play a stronger role in those diplomatic discussions and in those development discussions.

I certainly would agree, and I think I said in my speech, that I believe very strongly that we cannot solve the security situation in Afghanistan until the security situation in Pakistan is addressed. As long as that border is as porous as it is, which it will be forever, we will have to deal with all of the issues around Pashtun instability in the northwest of Pakistan and also in Balochistan. There are serious internal questions in Pakistan that we have to deal with. I do not think our diplomatic capacity is as great as it could be given the strength and the quality of the people that we have.

The last point is that when we take something as basic as polio eradication, we cannot eradicate polio in Afghanistan alone because that population is travelling back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan all the time. So, unless there is a major public health intervention in Pakistan, we are not going to be able to solve a major public health issue in Afghanistan. That is just a living proof--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There is enough time for one more question. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank my colleague from Toronto Centre for an excellent intervention.

I have two quick questions. One is philosophical and one is a little more specific.

We talk about progress or no progress; the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. Would he agree that the glass is at least fuller than it was when we started? Anybody can decide what that means, but is it at least fuller?

Now, I have a more specific question. General McChrystal in his recent well-publicized report basically said that we should be putting more forces on the ground, concentrating on stabilizing an area and then staying there. That is precisely what the Canadian Forces have been doing now for a number of months. What is the hon. member's view on General McChrystal's strategy and the fact that we have in fact been doing that ourselves and perhaps leading the way again?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, when we ask if it is getting better, we have to ask better than what when? My own judgment is that if we look at the situation, as I have tried to describe it, when we first went in there, it was absolutely devastating in terms of basic infrastructure, schooling, public health, or access to anything. So there are many respects in which things have improved in Afghanistan and many parts of the country in which things have improved quite dramatically. However, we also have to recognize that in the last while, the security situation in a number of parts of the country has not gotten better. Just on an anecdotal basis, I found that the security situation in Kabul when I went there last June was significantly more difficult than when I went there three years before, and that is just a fact of life.

General McChrystal's strategy from what I know, and I am not a military strategist, has a lot of common sense to it. It makes a lot more sense than just whacking away at a few people and then leaving, and then they come back--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Social Programs; the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Product Safety.

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

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

This mission has cost the lives of 131 young Quebeckers and Canadians. We always hear about how these young men and women were the pride of the troops they shared their lives with, and the pride of their families and hometowns. This is a high price to pay. We must find that this is a necessary and appropriate price. Canada has lost 131 soldiers in Afghanistan, while all other countries, excluding the United States, have lost 426. That means that our losses represent well over 25% of the combined losses of all the other countries.

I am not saying this to imply that we have regrets, but to explain that the Bloc Québécois did not support the proposal to extend the mission to July 2011. The Bloc would have liked the mission to end at the start of 2009. Is that because we do not believe in the mission? Absolutely not. But we think that other countries could have taken over. I will even say now that they should, because Canada will withdraw its troops in July 2011, and other countries will have to step in. Afghans will still need help from other foreign armies to ensure that they are safe.

Having asked representatives of other countries on a number of occasions—at parliamentary meetings in various European locations or during missions to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)—to come to the assistance of those in Afghanistan, and having seen that there was little enthusiasm, I know that the Government of Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence must continue to search for support to have others replace the Canadian Forces when they leave.

I said that it is not true that we do not believe in this mission. Rather, we want other countries, who have not yet stepped up, to share this difficult task as they should. I would like to spend some time discussing what I believe should be done in Afghanistan and why it is such a difficult task.

I would start by pointing out that President Obama's advisors are divided, as reported by the New York Times on Sunday. It is the only paper I read; it is substantial and I have the time to read on Sundays. Some advisors, such as General McChrystal who was just appointed, say they would like to have 40,000 more soldiers. Others say that it is futile and there would be nothing to gain from it. They are also experienced people.

I have not yet gone to Afghanistan—I may go and I would like to—but I have read a great deal and thought long and hard about it. A few weeks ago, either in the Globe and Mail or in the National Post—I know it was an English-language paper—there were two full pages about women who were pleased with the 2001 mission, not just ours but the mission in general. However, they were still afraid to intervene and to live, just as they felt when the Taliban were there.

Thus, there is something wrong. I heard Ms. Soraya Sobhran, the chair of the human rights committee, say in her concluding remarks that Canada was doing good things and that the people were telling her so. But they were also telling her that they were afraid they would not be alive the next day.

I know that by saying that I am raising the issue of security. Does anyone in this House believe that we can get to the bottom of this issue simply with weapons or soldiers? I do not think so. I think the Taliban and all these young people and not so young people are prepared to give up their lives to chase out the foreigners and go back to their old way of life. We have not spoken with them, as a matter of fact, but there needs to be more than security to deal with the situation in Afghanistan.

I heard the drug issue get mentioned. It is awful, but the Taliban have resumed responsibility for 90% of all heroin production. The numbers I have read indicate that. I have heard in conferences that eradication is not possible. It was possible in some countries where security was widespread and where those who continued to produce heroin could be punished. But what can we do about Afghanistan at this time? Some propose convincing farmers to grow profitable fruit and vegetables that are sought after abroad. To do so, the farmers would need to be protected during that time and they would also need infrastructure, roads and the means to transport these products and sell them abroad. They would also need security. Indeed, it still boils down to security, which cannot be provided by soldiers alone.

Some say we have to get along with the Taliban. Some have said that. Women there say we cannot get along with the Taliban because the Taliban want to take away from women all the rights we want to give them.

Moreover, others are saying—I have also heard this—that, among the Taliban, some of them are at times farmers and at other times, Taliban. Not all Taliban are Taliban all the time. Indeed, we could probably convince some people.

This brings me to the country's structures. Many wanted Afghanistan to become a democratic country, and the UN has worked very hard in that regard. A great deal has been accomplished and we are told that some progress has been made, but President Karzai's entourage seems to be showing signs that it could be less than squeaky clean. At this very moment, the ballots of the last election are being recounted, with the knowledge that, there too, there was a major split between two groups. Some were convinced that ballot box stuffing was so obvious that there was no way that President Karzai was democratically elected. Others said that it was not that serious, that some of the ballots would be recounted and that President Karzai could then be recognized. However, we know that President Karzai has some allies who do not necessarily make good friends, and those allies have tainted his entire government, or a large part of it.

I am going over all these points because I think they will be important to knowing what to do in the coming years. Of course, the Liberal critic, whom I cannot name, was right when he said—and I think almost everyone agrees at this point—that the United States made a serious mistake when it abandoned Afghanistan after defeating the Taliban and went to Iraq to attack Saddam Hussein, who, by the way, was the only non-religious figure to defend the Sunni Muslims and allow the Iranian Shiites complete freedom. Not only are they responsible for the disaster in Iraq vis-à-vis the Iranians, for example, but they also brought about a disaster in Afghanistan by abandoning the mission just when more support was being solicited.

The people believed that they were going to have a country, that they would be allowed to participate, and that there would be rules. Unfortunately, since the necessary efforts were not made at the outset, we now find ourselves forced to operate in a situation that is much less favourable, because the Taliban are back and fear has again taken hold, particularly of women.

We have to start over. That is what we are doing, and I know that Canadians and Quebeckers are doing it well, but, as I said, at a high price. They are doing it well, but it means that they have to train Afghans so that they can begin to withdraw. They have to train the police and the Afghan national army, and that is a good thing.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is gone. He would not have liked me.

I reread the motion—I will read some excerpts—that was passed to say that we would stay until July 2011, on the condition that

Canada's contribution to reconstruction and development in Afghanistan should: (a) be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

That is what we have to do.

(b) focus on our traditional strengths as [nations], particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions ... [People are trying, but it is not always easy to get involved in] ... addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;

(c) address the crippling issue of the narco-economy...;

(d) be held to a greater level of accountability...;

I have to skip nearly a page, but I want to get to this:

that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the government must:

(a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada’s international obligations;

(b) pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people;

(c) commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to report on the results of reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials.

I am pleased to have read that because we are in the middle of a debate on this issue. I am not sure that what has been passed here has actually been done.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, whom I have known for a long time, has served with me in a foreign affairs capacity for many years. I respect her judgment and we have good working relations. The member is on the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan as well.

During her speech, she mentioned a very good point, which was we were not going to win a military war. She is absolutely right. Everybody understands that. The military war is just one component to provide the security aspect. However, we must not leave the impression in the debate that this is what the Canadian Forces or NATO forces are doing. That is not their primary purpose.

The most important purpose there is to provide the institutions for nation building. As many have stated, this is at ground zero. She has rightly alluded that the NATO mission's main object is to train the national army, train the police, train the judicial system, put in the relevance of an administration in that country, which will be the key element in running the country and which will allow all of us to leave Afghanistan and provide security to Afghanistan and its people.

The NDP members keep talking militarily to end the war. We can only do that if the other institutions are there to take over, the Afghan army, the military, the institutions.

Is that not what the member agrees with us on in the special committee? Is that not what our primary focus is? Is that not what we are there for? Is it not what the member supports we do?

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

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member repeat the question?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member support what I said, that our main mission over there is to build the administration of Afghanistan, which is the army, the police, the judiciary and the remnants of an administration? Is that not what our main purpose is? Does she not agree with that and not with what the NDP members keep talking about of stopping the war, getting out of it? Does she agree that this is the main reason why we are there?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, and I made that point a number of times during my speech. It is important that Afghanistan be able to administer and manage itself and be a country. That is what the people who believe in what we have done expect. Yes, that is what is important. I believed in that when I said we had to leave Afghanistan in 2009 because there are other things to do and we have to be there. Other countries have to agree to provide security, and this is something I have called for at meetings of parliamentary associations. Some countries have not done their part. In my opinion, Canada has done its part, and other countries must do theirs. We know that the army has had enough. There is a military base in my riding, and that is what I hear from the people there. So I am pleased to answer yes to the parliamentary secretary.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member rightly said that the solutions are in a complex use of our three tools of defence, diplomacy and development. I would like to ask her three questions related on that.

First, how does the member see coordinating those? How does she see that working and coming to a solution?

Second, does the member think we have not been successfully supporting all those tools equally, perhaps more on just the defence?

Third, because she is an experienced member of Parliament, the structure of government having these three tools in different departments, does that make it more difficult to coordinate those efforts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I may have experience, but not in government. I am sure that it is difficult to coordinate, but at the same time, it is absolutely necessary. The member's question is valid, but I believe that the answer should come from Parliament.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I sit on both the Afghan committee and the foreign affairs committee.

She made one point that was extremely important, and that was sharing the burden. In my comments I tried to underline the importance of having those other countries in the region take responsibility for the conflict, the war in Afghanistan and certainly the challenges in Pakistan.

Does she not think it is time that Canada push as our primary focus right now, looking at post-2011 in policy terms, to have all those other countries in the neighbourhood, China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, et cetera, take responsibility for what is going on there?

The member quite rightly mentioned that Canada had been there a while. Our military is absolutely fatigued. In terms of changing things and doing something positive, should we not be pushing to have those countries seriously involved, particularly in the area of diplomacy and negotiations?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canada should push, but I would say that all parliamentarians that belong to international associations could do so as well. It is not necessarily easy to do, because taking part in missions like the one in Afghanistan is not an attractive prospect. But all parliamentarians must also make a compelling case to convince other countries that, using the proper means, they need to help the Afghans out of this terrible life they are forced to lead.