Debates of March 26th, 2009

International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, my approach today was neither positive nor negative, just constructive. I went to Afghanistan on my own, I would remind hon. members. Unfortunately, I did not have the backing of the Conservative government, but once I got to Islamabad, and to Kabul, the embassy took good care of me, as did our troops when I was in Kandahar.

That said, no I did not see the schools. I did, however, speak with a lot of people, some of them in the field, and they spoke to me of their concerns.

The Taliban have a proverb that says “you've got the watch”, talking about us, and “we've got the time”. That is the situation right now. Of course, we can say that there was some progress at certain levels, but the reality in the field and the reason why I read that, saying that Afghanistan is at the brink of chaos, is that it seems that there is a lot of territory that we have been winning. But because we are not necessarily there now, and there is the national army or the police force, that territory has also been recuperated by the Taliban.

At the same time, when Brigadier General Laroche was there and they made what is known as the “omelette”, when the forces were put together, interesting things happened.

Unfortunately, I am not certain about police training. There is a reality that must be taken into consideration. Many of these people are illiterate. They live under threat a great deal of the time. The Taliban are currently conducting guerrilla warfare. When people walk alone in the streets or are left on their own, they are vulnerable to Taliban attacks. For that reason, there is an increasing number of home-made bombs and attacks. Hospitals and the department of justice have been attacked. That is the reality in the field.

Progress can be made but much needs to be done. We need to know what is actually happening on the ground before going there because there is less security in Afghanistan at present.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to start by thanking the member for his intervention and then ask a very specific question about the direction that our government is taking and indeed the direction our country should take.

On Tuesday we are going to see what many of us have called for, not just in this place but internationally, and what some people are calling Bonn 2, bringing all parties together to look at a regional approach.

I want to ask the member if he is of the belief that Canada should be part of this diplomatic surge that is being asked for by Kai Eide, the special envoy to the UN, and also by the American administration, and should we see the same diplomatic surge from our own country?

The minister did not really touch on that in his comments. I am wondering what the Liberal Party would see as a beneficial direction and what he thinks should happen on Tuesday.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. I have, from the outset, talked about the balance between the 3 Ds. Of course, the solution in Afghanistan is not military, it is political. We need to ensure that, of the 3 Ds, the D for diplomacy is able to do its best. So we have to re-evaluate our approach.

We had the Manley report. We are continually told that there is more to it, because now more civilians are involved. At the committee, which the hon. member attended this morning, we discussed a greater presence for CIDA and for Foreign Affairs. As Canadians, the first step that we ought to have taken was to have our own special envoy. We need that presence, that authority, and it would play a vital role. As I have said from the outset, we need to re-evaluate the situation and work towards a regional, geopolitical solution. We have to ensure that there is security, but we must emphasize diplomacy.

But it is the elections that concern me at the moment. We will have Mr. Karzai. There is a growing feeling that his government does not have the confidence of the international community. We think that there will be elections on August 20. What will happen if they are later? When we look at the opposition to Mr. Karzai, we need a code of conduct to achieve reconciliation when one wins and the other loses. But I have to confess that, if there is one area that we must emphasize, other than the matter of the special envoy, it really is how we are going to operate during the election period. There will be the security aspect to consider. There is also the aspect of ensuring that Pakistan does not interfere. In that sense, since the solution is political, diplomacy will have to regain its former glory at this conference.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chair, we all know that life has not improved much for women since the fall of the Taliban. While there are legal rights for women that are constitutionally embedded, they are of minimal use if there is actually no rule of law.

As far as the protection of women's rights goes, it includes ordinary citizens as well as leaders. We know that the lives of some female Afghan leaders and journalists have been threatened and some have been killed.

I am wondering if the member would agree with me that a new diplomatic approach should be developed that would actually expand the scope of engagement to include the women of Afghanistan as major stakeholders in the future economy of Afghanistan.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, we must be careful not to speak in absolute terms when trying to compare what was happening before with what is going on now. I agree with the hon. member that there is still a long way to go. I looked at the Transparency International index and Afghanistan fell by 59 points. Of course, so much needs to be done and not enough is being accomplished in terms of women's rights and freedom of the press. Certain cultural factors must be confronted there. We must not be ethnocentric, but certain questions definitely need to be addressed at the conference. This is not a new diplomatic approach. It is a diplomatic approach that should have been taken from the beginning.

That is the reality. That is why there was not enough emphasis put on the other “D”, which is diplomacy.

There is a situation with women. There is a situation with children. I noticed in a report that there are abortions taking place due to rapes. It is not a pretty sight and it is bad, but I would urge caution in saying that it is the same as when the Taliban was there.

Just one instance is one too many. We must focus on women's rights and the living conditions of the Afghan people.

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

Madam Chair, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois this evening, just a few days before the meeting in The Hague, which I feel will be an extremely important meeting where the participants will review what is going on in Afghanistan.

I feel it is important to start by explaining how political positions in this House have changed since the 2001 attacks. I want to focus on the two most recent political positions, starting with the extension from 2006 to 2009. In 2006, we held a debate here in this House, and the House decided to extend the mission in Afghanistan until 2009. At that time, the Conservative Party, which had proposed the extension, naturally voted in favour of it. The Liberals were divided. Some voted for the extension, others against it. The Bloc Québécois asked for a number of guarantees in order to vote for the extension.

I want to tell the people who are watching this debate this evening that in 2006, the Bloc Québécois said no to extending the mission until 2009, because we had set certain conditions, which were not met. But we were even more disappointed when the 2008 debate was held. Throughout 2008, the Liberal Party said that the mission would end in 2009 and that we would go no further. They said that at every possible opportunity, but when the time came to decide whether or not to stay until 2011, the Liberals and the Conservatives joined forces to extend the mission until 2011.

We did not want to sign a blank cheque, which is what we were being asked to do, so we said no to a further extension. I can tell my Liberal colleagues that we were disappointed. What they did was not what they had been saying for the previous year that they would do, and it took everyone by surprise. Now, Canada is to stay in Afghanistan until July 2011. I think it is important to mention that.

For two years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking for changes to the mission. First we wanted a better balance. The mission has never been balanced. When I made my first trip to Afghanistan, I asked for figures on the number of people—they spoke about the 3 Ds and I am going to talk about that. I asked them how many Canadian soldiers there were. They said about 2,500. When I asked how many diplomats there were from Foreign Affairs, I was told about a dozen. When I asked how many people there were from CIDA to do the development part, I was told there were about a dozen. So there was already an imbalance.

Back then people started saying—including great generals such as the British general who was the head general in southern Afghanistan—that the war could not be won with military means alone. Since then, however, all the government has talked about is adding soldiers. They are happy because the United States is going to add 17,000 soldiers.

Everyone says we cannot win by military means alone and everyone clamours for more soldiers. I hope we will be firm in this regard. I hope the House of Commons will not say again in 2011 that we will extend the mission for another two years.

Insofar as international conferences are concerned—I was just talking with the minister about them—we have been asking for two years for a more regional approach involving the local powers around Afghanistan. Everyone knows who is around Afghanistan: Iran, Pakistan, and bits of countries touching on China. These people have been silent so far. It took the American Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton, to persuade the international community of the importance of meeting again. There is going to be a meeting in The Hague on March 31, but we should also not forget the NATO summit a month later. It is important now because we are on the threshold of some major decisions on the alignment of Afghanistan over the next few years.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

It is four days later.

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

The NATO meeting is four days later, according to what the minister tells me.

The Bloc Québécois has been asking for two years for a rotation of the allies. I have gone to Afghanistan twice. I went to Faizabad in the north with the German troops delegated by NATO and I went to Kandahar in the south with the Standing Committee on National Defence. They are two different worlds. The points of the compass are of basic importance in Afghanistan.

In the north, I drove around with the Germans in Mercedes Jeeps. Children were playing in the streets and there were no problems. What is more, I noted that there were caveats or exceptions that applied to them. They had to be back to camp by 8 p.m. I told them that there were no such rules for the Canadians in the south, who are out on patrol day and night in a far more dangerous location.

In the parliamentary assemblies of NATO I have called for a rotation. Why do the same ones always have to bear the same economic burden, because it is extremely costly in the south, and the burden in lives lost as well? One hundred and sixteen soldiers have died since the intervention began in 2002.

We are also asking for joint financing, if possible. Where the costs of involvement are concerned, each nation foots the bill. As I have said, it costs far more to patrol in the south than in the north. If they do not want a rotation, there ought at least to be joint financing, with the bill split among everyone, so that the ones now paying the most would pay a bit less, particularly if located in a geographical area that is far more difficult than others. That has been the Bloc position for the past two years.

When we look at the situation and listen to the briefings from the generals—such as the one we had just recently in the Standing Committee on National Defence—we see that the situation has always been depicted as far too rosy. We are never given the real picture. We members need to rely on other sources of information, and we have done so. Whether at NATO or in the Asian media, there are fundamental differences between what we are told and what is actually happening on the ground. I have noted some of those.

There is talk of deteriorating security. Only 30% of Afghans feel that they are safe in their villages, regardless of what part of the country they live in. This is a dramatic drop from several years ago, when the figure was around 55% or 60%. That is no longer the case. It means that the insurrection is in the process of spreading in Afghanistan.

This is what is happening, and there is nothing complicated about it: the troops clean up part of a region at a certain point, but they cannot stay there and have to move on to another region. As soon as they move out, the Taliban come back. So security has deteriorated a great deal. The influence of the insurrection has spread to all of the zones that have been pacified, with great difficulty, as I said. The troops pull out in the night and when they come back a month later, they are back to square one.

We are not winning. That is what people are saying. The Prime Minister said that suddenly, and perhaps not in the right place, but at least he has grasped the reality. And that is the reality: we will not win.

The number of attacks is rising; In 2008 there were 983 strikes in Afghanistan, which is 47% higher than in 2007. We are therefore unable to control the safety of not just the troops but the civilians as well.

Speaking of civilians, they are the first victims. In 2008 there were 2,118 civilian fatalities, compared to 1,523 in 2007. That is a 40% increase. How can anyone hope to win an insurrection when you have to try to convince the Afghans that we are on top of the security situation? They need to feel secure. We need to win over their hearts and minds. How can hope to win such an insurrection when the number of civilian victims is increasing rapidly?

I could speak for a long time about the humanitarian situation or about governance. People are saying that President Karzai is just the mayor of Kabul and no longer has any authority in the rest of the country.

So this brings us back to the Bloc's action plan. Yes, an international conference is necessary, and an update with all the major players in the region. It is important for this mission be rebalanced. It is also important for us to work with our friends in NATO on a kind of rotation. That is the position of the Bloc Québécois; it has been the position of the Bloc Québécois; and it will also be the position of the Bloc Québécois in the coming months.

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

Madam Chair, I listened with interest to the reasoning of my hon. colleague in his intervention. We are both on the Afghanistan committee and, as such, we quite often interface with each other's ideas on how to get this mission moving forward. Today, Mr. Mulroney gave a review of Canada's commitment in the past, what is happening now and where we are going.

The member alluded to the fact that the Bloc wanted an international conference. It is happening in the Hague. Whether the Bloc called for it is not the issue. The issue is that the American government and our NATO allies called for it.

The member alluded to two points that I need to address. He talked about the German commitment up north and our commitment in the south and how the German commitment up north was peaceful while down south there was mild insurgency.

If we look at the situation geographically, the insurgency was led by the Taliban and the Taliban's home is in the south. The Taliban in the south are working from across the border in Pakistan. The Taliban are not working in the north because they do not have sanctuaries to cross the border into the northern state. Henceforth, it is natural that the northern state would not face the same kind of insurgency attacks, et cetera. Therefore, to compare the two regions and say that our forces in the south are not doing enough is quite misleading.

The second point he made was on how we win hearts. We have said that development is the key element and, as he knows, we are putting a lot of money into development. I hope, through his intervention, that he will recognize the achievements Canada has made in development.

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

Madam Chair, I do not dispute my colleague's depiction of the situation; I am merely making an observation about the geography. I know the Taliban stronghold is in the south and it is only natural that things are calmer in the north. That is precisely the crux of my argument. Why is it always up to the Canadians, the British and the Dutch to be in the south, and to pay the price with our soldiers' lives as well as the financial cost of the mission? Every country pays its own way. I am simply saying that, if possible, there should be some sort of rotation. We have often asked the Prime Minister to make that request at international forums.

As for the money spent on development, I also agree with the member, but let us consider the numbers. The numbers show that the mission is unbalanced. The minister responsible for CIDA announced $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion over the next 10 years for development. During the same timeframe, $18 billion will be invested on the military side. That is why the mission is said to be unbalanced. Although we do see some efforts in terms of development, they are insufficient compared to the efforts made on the military side.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his intervention in this debate and the minister for calling the debate in response to the request of the NDP.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments and the fact that he has shown the imbalance in the government's efforts despite the recommendations of the report that it commissioned. There was a great deal of effort on the war effort but very little effort on the diplomatic measures.

I wonder if the member would support the proposal by the NDP to intervene at a much higher level diplomatically, rather than sending some political envoy who would only represent the interests of the Government of Canada. Would the member support the proposal put forward by the New Democratic Party to appoint an eminent persons panel composed of persons who have worked directly with the United Nations?

I am making this recommendation from a very personal perspective. My great uncle was the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. I have friends and family who have worked and travelled in Afghanistan. I have helped in the effort of selling carpets and textiles to support those communities. I have had the opportunity personally to talk to Malalai Joya, who is a very important female member of the Afghan government and has been twice removed, if not more, because she has been outspoken in calling for more diplomatic interventions, the pull back of the military and support instead to the communities.

I look forward to the reply of the hon. member.

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

Madam Chair, although eminent persons are often important persons, we are at a point in the debate where the real decision makers, those who have been elected, those who govern nations, must take their place. That is the purpose of the conference in The Hague. The Prime Minister will probably be accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. They will go to The Hague along with representatives of at least 50 other countries.

I understand that it is important to be represented by eminent persons who have a great deal of credibility. She referred to a woman who has such credibility. However, she is not a head of state. It is at that level that the issue must be resolved. It is up to the elected representatives, at the highest possible level, to settle this matter. I am not opposed to having an envoy, an emissary. However, given the point we have reached, it is up to heads of state and the respective cabinet ministers of these nations to decide on the new alignment.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the government for allowing us this time, something that the NDP had asked for, to debate this issue before the important conference in The Hague.

I want to say at the outset that my colleagues and I acknowledge the profound sacrifice of those Canadians who have lost their lives and those who have been wounded since we have been engaged in Afghanistan. We will forever be indebted to them and their families.

As our military role in Afghanistan nears its end, Canada, like NATO as a whole, stands at a crossroad. Both as individual nations and collectively as an international community, we must decide the shape of our future engagement.

I believe there is unanimity in Parliament and with all parties that our combat role in Afghanistan should end in 2011. With that certainty in mind, I believe consensus is now forming in Canada that we must remain involved in the region and, furthermore, that we should choose a more robust diplomatic role. Fortunately, common sense is finally overcoming rhetoric. Gone are the hot speeches boasting about obliterating the Taliban and quickly installing a fully formed democratic state in our own image.

On a personal note, we have come a long way since my party's recommendation for a peace process in Afghanistan was met with vitriol, characterized as naive at best and pro-Taliban at worst. In fact, a recent major study on counter insurgency operations conducted by our own Department of National Defence conceded that “Insurgency is a political problem. The mere attrition of insurgents is highly unlikely to result in their defeat”.

Even our Prime Minister admitted recently, “We are never going to defeat the insurgency”.

Many around the world are now looking for a way out of the quagmire and a resolution that stabilizes conditions in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. President Obama's appointment of Mr. Holbrook as his envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan speaks to the new administration's desire to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, even though in the interim we shall see a surge in U.S. troop presence.

Clearly, a new realism about a long term strategic approach is growing internationally. We are seeing a new will emerging among countries to turn the page and move forward with a more progressive policy on Afghanistan. We seem to be learning from our mistakes, recognizing the inherent limits of using force solely to address a situation that has its roots in complex regional politics, economics and history.

Here in Canada, we need a post-2011 plan and we need to start now. We do not have that clearly articulated, so I welcome the opportunity to debate this and share ideas.

Within the mission, the real challenge is that we lack a common strategic vision. We hear this at NATO and we hear it at the UN. Therefore, the effort to come together on an assessment and a strategy for Afghanistan is due.

That is why I am delighted with Secretary Clinton's initiative for the conference in The Hague next week. This conference is the first step for such a strategic review. I am encouraged with the fact that the conference will take place under the auspices of the United Nations, the body best suited for pursuing a diplomatic approach to Afghanistan.

We must, of course, be mindful that for any peace initiative to work, informal discussions need to take place first, as soon as possible, to prepare the ground, to identify regional partners and to discover and test new political ideas and solutions. We must engage, in other words.

However, there are many challenges to engagement. To begin with, how we identify willing participants, and then there are the regional issues, particularly the role of Pakistan. Pakistan is the key to peace in Afghanistan. As Mr. Bahini recently said, “Whether anybody likes it or not, if Pakistan says there shouldn't peace in Afghanistan, there will be no peace in Afghanistan”.

I believe Canada is well placed to take the lead in getting this new engagement under way. I would like the government to advocate for an eminent persons group that could take on the challenges to engagement. By expanding our diplomatic efforts in creative new ways, we can help play a leadership role in defining the strategy for a new diplomatic approach in the Afghan conflict.

To that end, Canada must and should promote the establishment of a group of eminent persons, something we could promote in The Hague next week. The group could be composed of international figures of the calibre of former UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and former permanent observer of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, Mokhtar Lamani, who, I proudly note, is a Canadian. Such individuals possess credibility and respect in the region. They understand the challenges. They have the contacts and the experience necessary to open new avenues of dialogue with key constituents and affected parties.

In this initiative, personalities matter. For instance, Mokhtar Lamani has already worked with Lakhdar Brahimi. They travelled to Afghanistan and the region during the rule of the Taliban in 1998. His deep knowledge of the political landscape is invaluable. His opinion is often sought out in Washington on issues related to the Islamic world. Experts like Mokhtar Lamani could hit the ground running.

There is a real need for a balanced respected group that could plan the next steps in Afghanistan. Canada could be taking an active role in the establishment of such a group because it has experience on the ground.

An advisory group, although a Canadian initiative, could function independently of Canada's part of the UN led efforts for peace building in the region. Establishing such a group of eminent persons could be a major Canadian contribution to the UN led peace process. It would signal a new approach and play a key part in the political surge, as was called for by Mr. Eide, the UN Secretary-General's special representative to Afghanistan.

Canada could seize the opportunity to broaden the scope of diplomatic engagement with other external actors and neighbours, including Iran. The group could act to ensure that any peace process was inclusive of the government and people of Afghanistan, in particular, women and their civil society representatives, not just warring factions and regional power players. The group would take on an informal approach, preparing, in UN terms, non-papers on issues and subjects that the different countries and the alliance and beyond would have to wrap their minds around.

Another advantage of the approach is the group could speak to those whom our official envoys might find unpalatable or difficult to speak with. This would not be easy. We know it would be hard, but there are no easy paths forward.

The outstanding question is what military approach is required to complement the diplomatic overtures. A reoriented political offensive focused on diplomatic peace making would require a reoriented military force in the south focused entirely on a defensive strategy of protection. In effect, it would hold the ground not yet under Taliban control while the foundations for formal negotiations were being laid, and with a view to preparing the way for a new robust stabilization force under a new different command, ideally with more significant Muslim participation.

Participation for military reorientation has to happen at the same time as informal discussions for political solutions to take place. While Canadian Forces will not be able to participate in the military reorientation after 2011, we can play and hope we will play a constructive role in other areas.

Frankly, we have carried more than our share of the military burden. Canadians were sent to Afghanistan with pride. They have acted with courage, strength and determination. However, there are serious concerns in Canada about their burnout, force regeneration at home, not to mention the urgent need to control the expanding military costs in favour of our other important non-military priorities both in Canada and in Afghanistan.

Canada's post-combat role in Afghanistan has to focus on cooperating and strengthening the multinational, multilateral diplomatic approach to the conflict. Only in this way can we move toward lasting peace and stability in the region.

In closing, without a focused framework and diplomatic creativity and muscle, all of the human and financial sacrifices will have been lost. Instead, we will be faced with more conflict and instability threatening the peace and security of nations around the globe, including all of those that will be at the conference on Tuesday.

Canada could help set the table for a diplomatic process led by a group of eminent persons helping lead the way to the formulation of a UN led regional contact group, making it possible to achieve substantive progress toward political stability in the region and to lasting peace further down the road.

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

Madam Chair, the Liberals are asking for a special envoy to Afghanistan and the NDP wants endless panels to be created. Of course the Bloc, the party that wants to break up Canada, is speaking on behalf of Canada calling for, two years ago it said, an international conference.

The three opposition parties seem to have forgotten one important factor. The most important factor is that Canada is there under a UN mandate. The UN is the main important body now.

This party is a big supporter of the UN. There is a UN special envoy for Afghanistan, Mr. Galbraith, and a second one was appointed, Mr. Kai Eide.

We must not forgot that this Parliament made a decision. Of course the opposition opposed it but the motion passed in this Parliament as to what would be our mission's priorities and how we would be working and reporting to the Canadians. Parliament has already spoken on how we should be doing these things. Quarterly reports are tabled in this Parliament.

Whatever the member is talking about, getting this group of eminent persons, he is going to try not to follow what Canada is doing. This group of eminent persons may not be fulfilling the mandate.

It is causing total confusion for Canadians in that the three opposition parties are going in three different directions. Let us not forget that Canada's Parliament has given direction as to what this mission should be and what it should accomplish. That is what the government follows.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, there is some confusion but it is in the comments of my colleague across the way. I think what he was trying to get at is he wonders where this eminent persons group would fit within the context of the Canadian policy.

I want to read into the record the following:

That Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including support for the naming of a special enjoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in all diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region.

That motion was passed by the House of Commons on March 13 last year.

I would ask the government to read its own motion and to understand that the next steps that we need to contemplate are to make sure that there is coherence from Canada on our diplomatic initiative.

I listened very carefully to the minister. At committee today was Mr. David Mulroney and we wanted to know where we are going. In 2011 the military mission will be done. That is around the corner. We have to prepare the steps for what Canada will do after.

Is the government saying that that is it? Are we going to try to train a couple of people and that is it? Canada can do better. Canada should do better. On this side of the House, the New Democratic Party believes Canada should be offering solutions to the UN. I suggest that we even have a Canadian do that, not as an envoy just to serve Canada's interests, but as a process that could serve the interests of the UN and the interests of the region.

I think this is a positive proposition, not just simply an opposition. I think that is what most people want to see.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Chair, during the election and during the town halls, the one question that comes up almost all the time is, what is the face that Canadians want Canada to show to the world? I very much believe we have an opportunity to show a very positive face to the world and to be a leader.

Why does the member think it is so important that Canada take a leadership role in Afghanistan?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I think most Canadians are proud of our country's history and our values on the international stage. They are confused about where Canada is right now. They want to see Canada take a leadership role in what the Prime Minister has admitted is a conflict that cannot be won militarily. If it cannot be won militarily, then it obviously leaves another option that needs to be more fully exercised, and that is diplomacy.

We are the country of diplomacy. We are the country of multilateral approaches. We are the country that people used to turn to for reconciliation and peace building. We do not want to lose that. The government has an opportunity to regain that reputation, but more important, to put on the world stage a solution and some resources behind that to go to the next stage when it comes to Afghanistan.

The Americans need that support now. Canada can provide it. That is what we should be doing.

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

Madam Chair, the member read from the resolution last year about the special envoy. I will point out that the NDP voted against that resolution.

I do have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague and they are fairly short and simple. Does he believe in continuing training of the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police post 2011? If not, fine. If he does, how does he see that being accomplished?

When he talks about holding ground and being defensive, I just want to confirm he is talking about starting that now. If that is the case, does it really mean that he wants us to simply hold the ground where we are and let the Taliban roam freely everywhere else?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I will clarify a couple of things. What I read into the record was to remind the government of what it committed to, and that is why what we are proposing fits within that frame. Also, we amended the motion that was voted against by the government, which is its right. We did not just vote against its motion; we amended its motion and it was defeated. We were keeping that component of the government's motion in our motion, just to be clear, because we believe in that.

We believe that Canada's role and that of the envoy to help with coordination of diplomacy is important. To be very clear about the clear, hold strategy, this would be exactly what needs to happen as we look toward reconciliation and negotiations. The idea that we are letting the Taliban run loose, the news flash is that is what is happening. What is not happening is the clear, hold and then being able to develop to the extent we want.

The government acknowledges it in its own reporting. This would be in tandem. This is not the position of the NDP. Neither is the eminent persons group idea. These are ideas that have come forward and we are simply advancing them. They have come forward at the foreign affairs committee. The eminent persons group has been put forward by many other groups. It was not the NDP that came up with this on its own. We advanced the idea that was brought forward by others, as is the military strategy of clear, hold, as these very difficult and important next steps to reconciliation happen. That is where we have to go.

As long as people acknowledge, quite rightly, that this is not something we can win militarily, now we have to advance ideas that are outside of what we have been advancing before. That is why we have been listening to others and advancing those ideas. Quite frankly, that is what the debate should be about.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, I am glad we are having this debate tonight. The member for Ottawa Centre has made some very thoughtful comments.

I remember some of the debates in the House that were ferocious in terms of attacks on the NDP. We should be very proud that we have always led the debate on this issue in terms of a very clear strategy about the mission in Afghanistan that was focused on stabilization of peace.

Here we are again offering very constructive suggestions to the government. It has always bothered me that the government is so black and white in its assessment, that we either agree with it or we are against everything.

In terms of civil society in Canada, there are groups like the Rideau Institute that have done such fine work. What is their assessment in terms of where Canada should be going after 2011?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, in civil society, many other groups have come forward and said that they would like to see Canada go this route. In fact, not just the group she mentioned but eminent persons and institutions like the Norman Paterson School have advocated that. In fact, at committee, my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, heard Mr. Hampson advocate this approach. We listen carefully to people who advocate this. They are specialists in the field. That is why this makes sense, not only to us but to other people.

We would hope the government has big ears and is listening tonight.

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

Madam Chair, on this side of the House, we are not confused as to where our mission in Afghanistan is, contrary to what the NDP says.

On March 13, 2008, the House voted in favour of a motion on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The motion stipulated that Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and civilian development efforts in Afghanistan.

On June 10, 2008, our government announced six priorities to guide Canada's engagement in Afghanistan through to 2111. In doing so, the government set a clear course toward our goal: to help Afghans rebuild their country as a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.

After careful study and review, including extensive work undertaken by the independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, the government determined that the best way forward would be to focus Canadian efforts in key areas and to direct additional resources to Kandahar province. This focus will allow those working to accomplish the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, soldiers, diplomats, aid experts, civilian police and correctional officers, to have the greatest possible impact.

As Canadians who have mourned the loss of our soldiers, our diplomats and our humanitarian workers know all too well Afghanistan can be a dangerous place. It is the former stronghold of the Taliban and it remains one of the poorest and the most troubled region in Afghanistan, yet progress has been made.

In January of this year, almost 11,000 students, most of them female, graduated from a 10-month literacy training course in Kandahar.

In February, more than four million Afghans registered to work in the upcoming presidential and provincial council elections. Registrations were planned and executed by the Afghan Independent Election Commission, with the support from the Afghan National Security Forces.

In March, the Afghan minister of the interior accredited the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team training centre, allowing Canada to accelerate its training program to strengthen the Afghan National Police reform and development.

To maintain and build upon this progress, Canada will increase its focus on Kandahar province, with four of the six priorities aimed at improving conditions there.

The first Canadian priority in Afghanistan is to maintain a more secure environment and to establish the rule of law. To enhance security, Canada is strengthening the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces, the army and the police.

Members of the Canadian Forces are training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan National Army so Afghanistan can take on increasing responsibility for its own security. With the help of the Canadian military, Afghan soldiers are learning to better protect the Afghan people, and the Afghan National Army is becoming a viable national institution.

Canadian civilian police and the military are continuing to support the development of the Afghan National Police. This is done through training, as well funding for equipment, salaries and infrastructure projects, including outposts to increase police presence in key districts of the Kandahar province. There are currently 31 civilian police officers from the RCMP and other municipal police agencies deployed to monitor, mentor, advise and train the Afghan National Police.

Our government is supporting justice and corrections initiatives. This includes measures to improve the justice sector to facilitate a working court system in Kandahar city with competent judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and administrative staff. This also means improving conditions in Kandahar's main prison and detention facilities, through training of corrections personnel and upgrades to prison infrastructure.

Recently the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade travelled to Afghanistan and announced additional contributions of approximately $21 million to help strengthen rule of law in Afghanistan. This money includes $19 million to help pay the salaries of Afghan National Police, $1 million for corrections officers and a $1.3 million fund for a human rights support unit within the Afghan ministry of justice.

Canada's second priority in Afghanistan is to strengthen Afghan institutional capacity to deliver basic services and promote economic development. The people of Kandahar have asked for schools, access to water, sanitation, electricity and job creation. Our government will invest up to $210 million over the next three years to help the Afghan government deliver these services. These initiatives are aimed to improve the quality of life of Kandaharis and will help increase the confidence of Afghans in their government.

As part of this priority area, our government has also announced two signature projects: the rehabilitation of the Dahla Dam, Kandahar's main water source for agriculture; and the building expansion and repairing of 50 schools in Kandahar province. Canada will spend up to $50 million to rehabilitate the Dahla Dam and its irrigation and canal system, creating jobs for Afghans and improving conditions for agriculture. Another $12 million will be dedicated to schools, giving Afghan children a chance at a better future.

Canada's third priority is to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need, including refugees. Canada will contribute up to $111 million to help the Afghan government provide assistance to Kandahar's most vulnerable citizens, including refugees, widows and those displaced by violence or natural disasters. This will include providing food aid to be delivered by the World Food Programme, as well as non-food aid such as blankets and kitchen utensils. Part of this funding will also be used to clear land mines and provide mine education to the local population.

As a third signature project, Canada will contribute up to $60 million toward eliminating polio in Afghanistan. The project is expected to immunize seven million children across Afghanistan.

Canada will, as its fourth priority, help Afghanistan to enhance security at its border by facilitating dialogue between Afghan and Pakistani officials. This means making the border more secure against the movement of insurgents and weapons, while creating economic opportunities for the region from the legitimate flow of trade.

Canada will provide up to $32 million of funding to contribute to the dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan and to facilitate discussions between the border officials. Canada will also contribute to the training of border and security officers and the provision of critical infrastructure.

In addition to these four priorities directed at Kandahar province, Canada has established as a priority, at the national level, advancing Afghanistan's capacity for democratic governance by contributing to effective, accountable public institutions and supporting Afghanistan's upcoming electoral process.

To strengthen Afghanistan's democratic development, Canada will spend up to $355 million to help build national institutions and to provide Afghan departments with technical expertise, training and mentoring and equipment and program support.

On March 4, 2008, Canada announced a contribution of up to $35 million over a three years to support Afghan-led elections, making Canada a leading participant within a coordinated multi-donor effort. Canada is taking a comprehensive approach to support the Afghan elections through security, diplomatic and development efforts. Canada is working with the Afghan government and international partners to support elections that will be perceived as credible in the eyes of Afghans.

Finally, the Government of Canada will support the Afghan-led efforts toward political reconciliation. Canada recognizes that reconciliation must be central to our efforts to foster a sustainable peace.

To assist the reconciliation process in Afghanistan, Canada will contribute up to $9 million over the next three years to develop Afghan government-led mechanisms to encourage and support dialogue and to improve the government's ability to communicate with its citizens.

The Government of Canada has made a strong commitment to Afghanistan. We are working with the government of Afghanistan and the international community to help bring security and a better life for the citizens of Afghanistan.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, in the Bonn conference, which was critical in pulling together all the disparate groups that wanted to help out with post-Taliban Afghanistan, one thing was absolutely critical, and that was the coordination of all resources. It remains a challenge. We know there are different focuses in different parts of Afghanistan. We know this has been problematic and we know it is not just with the military mission, but also development.

One thing done at Bonn, which people are looking to happen in The Hague and which is much of the reason for the debate tonight, is there would be some ideas put forward on how the region could stabilize and therefore Afghanistan stabilize. In my comments I quoted Mr. Brahimi who was the architect of Bonn, as the parliamentary secretary would know. He said that unless Pakistan decided it died not want peace in Afghanistan, there would be no peace. There needs to be a regional approach to this reconciliation.

Does the parliamentary secretary and his government see any value in promoting a process where we have persons who are able to talk to members within the neighbourhood, to look to set up a regional table and to ensure the work is done? If we do not talk to members in the neighbourhood, then there is no stability in the region. Does he not think that is an important thing to do and that Canada should be pushing that issue? Never mind if he believes in the approach I mentioned before of an eminent persons group, but just the analysis. Bonn was to bring everyone together. In The Hague we need to not only bring people together, but also coordinate efforts in the region to set a table so we can start to look for solutions for it and stability in the region.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Chair, I would tend to agree with the hon. member. I was at the Bonn conference. I saw the coordination efforts that went on. I attended also the first reconstruction conference held in New Delhi a couple of years ago. There was one going to be held this year in Pakistan as well, bringing all the regional people together.

It is no science as we have already said. The regional countries are the most affected with the instability in Afghanistan. They are the ones that should be at the forefront. Therefore, the UN mandated mission given to NATO, which we are a partner of, will work together to enhance this. Attending the conference in The Hague, as the member knows and as the Minister of Foreign Affairs alluded to, will be 60 nations including Iran.

The member is absolutely right. Ultimately the objective of everyone is to have a stable, democratic-led Afghan government, with Afghans planning their own future and running their own country. We are not there as invaders.

Therefore, that is the best approach. I would hope, as the member does, that out of The Hague conference, which the minister will attend, there would be consensus of the regions and everyone here to work together toward achieving those goals.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chair, I have a couple of very specific questions for the parliamentary secretary, which I hope he can answer.

The NDP, as he knows, has been very clear about our position and about the need for a diplomatic solution, but more than just diplomacy, we need better aid and development. Our development dollars need to ensure that Afghans see real development progress. We need to direct our aid in ways that improve lives and help build the capacity of the Afghan government to provide for its own people effectively and responsibly. We need to build Afghan's trust in their own state, not ours, and that means supporting projects that will actually work, not just those that are visible.

What are the development projects around agriculture currently that Canada is supporting and what is Canada spending on agriculture in this mission?