Bill Graham

[National Defence, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same partisan politics.

Yesterday when she was answering a question, the Minister of the Environment displayed a blatant lack of respect toward the House. She said, and I quote, “it is too bad we used taxpayer dollars” to pay for opposition participation in ministers' business trips, as though her own trip did anything for the environment.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that his government will stop scorning the privileges of all members of this House, and will finally respect our vote on Kyoto?

[National Defence, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, even the overly partisan parliamentary secretary can recognize that last night's debate was not sufficient to consider such a weighty matter.

Go back to the records in 1939. Do you think that this House decided to go to war in Europe after six hours of debate, Mr. Speaker? Is that even conceivable?

In the last Parliament we heard the current Prime Minister demanding that the government respect the democratic will of the House. The Prime Minister cannot show respect for the House only when it is his agenda. We cannot cherry-pick democracy.

If the government intends to respect last night's vote, will it respect the vote in this House on Kyoto, which we all adopted, the majority of this House, this week as well?

[National Defence, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last night's debate was one of the most important that Parliament could make, deciding on our commitment to the world and the safety of our troops.

Even the Prime Minister must have felt the frustration of a majority of members of this House who genuinely wanted to make the right decision but found that their decision had to be based on a lack of information and a partisan abusive process, something that has not escaped most commentators and the public.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that lessons have been learned and that in future, Parliament will be respected and that members will be given a genuine opportunity for debate and consideration before such important considerations and decisions are required of them?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for giving this speech.

In his speech, the Prime Minister talked about an additional expenditure of $310 million for development assistance in Afghanistan. A lot of us share this concern, that is, whether this government will follow a policy providing not only for military action in the region, but also for aid to complement what our military are doing.

My question is pretty precise. With this supplementary aid, does the government intend to spend money to the extent that it can in regions where our troops are making valiant efforts? The present fact is that, concerning aid, the Americans and others are much more present in the Kandahar region than we Canadians are. If our troops are there, it seems to me that our aid should follow the actions of our troops. I would like to know the government’s position on this subject.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the minister got a little carried away in his French.

He said twelve years instead of two years. The House would find that a bit hard to swallow.

I assume his English on two years was a little more reliable than his French on douze ans.

I believe the minister clearly confirmed what his colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. Ultimately he is giving the assurance to the House that the potential for a Haiti or a Darfur mission will not be diminished by our Afghan commitments. Those were the words of the foreign minister. I believe those are the words that members of the House want to hear when we debate and come to a decision on this very important mission.

I have two questions.

One goes to his observation about the nature of equipment. I have recently read a book by General Rupert Smith called The Utility of Force. In that book he describes very clearly the nature of these new missions and the type of equipment that is necessary because these are always actions behind enemy lines or within an area where it is not like a traditional situation.

Could the minister assure us that, with the use and prevalence of IEDs and these types of weapons in Afghanistan, our forces are properly protected? He mentioned the Nyala. We know the minister will be purchasing trucks shortly. Will these trucks also have the types of protection that would be necessary?

Second, he mentioned the strategic advisory team in Kabul, which has had huge success. Will the minister tell us whether the government intends to replicate this activity in Kandahar as well to enable the governor and the region to provide similar success the civil society in that area?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that our troops watch these debates. I agree that everybody in today's world watches the debates and anybody will on the Internet. This is certainly one reason why I believe that our language, as the hon. member and others have suggested, must be very careful. We must be very careful that we do not say things which in any way would give anyone in Afghanistan the thought that we are not committed to helping the Afghan people. That certainly has always been our position.

On the hon. member's comment to us now about the amount of aid, it is illustrative of one of the problems we are having in the debate. This number he has just given to me of $310 million and $1 billion over a period of time--I am not sure what period of time--is not a number that I picked up from the Prime Minister's speech. I was listening carefully to it. Others say not. I myself will verify that during the course of the debate. That goes a long way to making sure that we have the right type of information.

That is exactly the type of thing which I hope we will be getting from this debate, an informed debate, an honest, intellectual struggle on the part of all of us to find out what is the best thing we can do for our troops and what is the best thing we can use them for in a way that would further Afghanistan.

I thank the hon. member for his comment. I will certainly research that amount for the aid program. That certainly is helpful.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

The member for Halifax disagrees with that, but I have always understood this to be the case. This is not a problem that I have with this mission. In fact, if we had gone for a one year extension, I might well have very quickly been able to say yes. It clearly is related to that.

The problem is around the two years and the uncertainty around those other issues that other members here on our side of the House have to get an understanding for. If the government chooses to use our participation in Afghanistan to promote relations with the United States, it is obviously up to the government as to whether it feels that it is appropriate. I do not think that is an issue for debate tonight.

What I need to know so that we can have an informed vote tonight in a matter of a few hours is whether we can get assurances from the government so that we will be satisfied on our key issues about aid, governance and reports to the House, which will enable us to have a coherent policy in Afghanistan and a coherent parliamentary participation as that policy goes forward.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member, but as for his information, and perhaps the defence minister will elucidate for the House, my understanding is that one of the reasons our troops are doing this mission and why we agreed to the first year is precisely because we can move from Operation Enduring Freedom into NATO. That in fact was one of the attractive assets of the mission.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes us back to the commitment that we made when we were in government, the commitment that I personally have defended on many occasions, but I have to tell the member that the defence of course was based on those conditions and on that year's commitment.

What I am seeking to hear from the government today is not these sorts of political accusations going back and forth. What I and other members of the House are honestly and sincerely seeking from the government is answers to our questions, which we have only been given six hours to get, and those questions relate to, for example, what is the relationship to the aid project? Are we making progress on the governance issues? Will the House, if we extend the mission for two years, continually be kept abreast of matters through the committee?

These are legitimate questions. These are not irresponsible positions to be taking. These are legitimate questions, and if I get satisfactory answers, let me make it very clear that I will be voting for this mission. But I think the government has to take some responsibility and say to the members of the House, “We will give the answers that are needed in order for members to do their job and tell their constituents and the troops for whom they are responsible that we are making sure the conditions in which they are being sent to war are appropriate”.

That is all we ask. That is what our democracy demands. I beg of the government to give it to us.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak for all members of the House in saying that this is certainly one of the most important and profound debates that we have had in this chamber. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that it is being held in conditions that have made it so difficult to get to the results I believe we all want, which is the good of our country, the good of our troops and, ultimately, the good of the world.

As the Prime Minister said, in recent debates in the House I and other members of the Liberal caucus strongly supported our mission in Afghanistan. We were at the origins of it. We were proud of our decision and we still are. This mission is consistent with our foreign policy review and our defence review which foresaw difficult missions in failing states such as Afghanistan where the military is not there exclusively on military missions. In fact, we foresaw in our foreign policy review precisely the nature that this mission would need to take to be successful. It needed to have what we called a 3D approach: diplomacy, defence and development. We needed the military there to set conditions for success.

While we have this debate tonight let no one misinterpret what we are doing in all parts of the House when we do our parliamentary duty to understand the nature of the mission and the chances for success. I have been in Afghanistan, as have members of our caucus.

I have seen the extraordinary feats our soldiers perform daily in difficult situations, in an inhospitable setting and in the face of serious danger.

I believe our soldiers know they are there to set conditions for success and to support our PRT, our provincial reconstruction team. We also have an aid component. One of our diplomats, the brave Glyn Berry, gave his life for his country, not as a military person but as a diplomat participating in an overall mission that was designed, not only with a military focus, but with a view to reconstructing Afghanistan so it may become a peaceful member of the family of nations once again.

I have heard from Afghans. I have heard from women and children. I, too, like the Prime Minister and others, have heard from President Karzai. We know why they support our mission and our troops. They want success across the board in building their country.

That of course was the question that we had in the last debate in this House. The question we have today is: Why we are prolonging this mission for two additional years at this time given the amount of information available to members of the House and given the present situation?

What we are looking for from the Prime Minister is not a description of the mission as one that is dealing with the insurgency or the threat to Canada. We have debated that. All members of this House participated in that debate and agreed that was the nature of the mission and the reason we went there in the first place.

I will repeat the words of the member from Markham. What I need and what those of us who have been so supportive of these missions need to hear tonight are the other conditions. What is the government's commitment to aid? There is no point in sending our military for an additional two years if this House does not hear from the government that it will be committing the amount of aid necessary to rebuild Afghanistan and recreate Afghanistan.

I hope I will hear from the foreign affairs minister or the defence minister about how we are rebuilding governance structures, how we are dealing with corruption and how we are dealing with other issues.

If we do approve the mission for two years, I would like to know from the government what role the House will play as we go forward. Is the government saying that it wants a blank cheque?

The defence committee tried to pass a resolution the other day to be involved in matters and we were told that this would not be dealt with through the defence committee. If this goes ahead, I thought I heard the Prime Minister say earlier, in answer to a question, that there would be regular updates to the House but I did not hear that tonight.

We have not been told about other things. What are the necessary benchmarks? We have been told, for example, that 2009 was chosen because that is the end of Mr. Karzai's term. What about the problems of corruption, the Pakistan source of insurgents? What about the difficult issue of other missions? I hope the defence minister will help us this evening by telling us that the government recognizes that Afghanistan cannot be the only focus of our military activities.

If there is a crisis in Haiti or a crisis in Darfur where we can make a contribution, will the government give us its assurance that it will be possible for us to respond as Canada must respond? That is why we always had short missions before and why we insisted that we have flexibility to go in and help.

Before I can make a decision tonight I need to hear a response, and I beg the defence minister to give us the facts, on whether we will be able to respond to those missions as a responsible country. Those are the issues we need to deal with.

Let me comment on the process, as the member from Markham did. We had a debate on this before. We know there is no constitutional need for this debate. Is this debate and this particular vote, held in these circumstances, one for political gain or is it to support our troops on missions?

For example, if I understood correctly, yesterday our Bloc Québécois colleagues supported the mission. But today they no longer support it because their motion was defeated in committee.

Everyone is trying to take part, but if roadblocks are thrown up at every turn, it is hard.

We have very little time. We hear that the Dutch parliament had 10 weeks; we have just six hours.

So much of what we heard today from the Prime Minister was for the first time.

We heard of Mr. Karzai's request.

We heard from the Prime Minister that a one year mandate is a possible consideration by the government. I think if the government had put to us a one year mandate, I honestly believe it would have got more support from members of the House. It would have been more understandable than a blank cheque for two years. Why now spring one year on us in the middle of the debate?

We hear for the first time about the leadership of ISAF from Jane Taber in the Globe and Mail.

Our caucus had only a few hours to discuss the motion that this government has put before the House this evening. We had a good discussion. A number of different opinions were expressed, and some common points were made. The Liberal caucus firmly supports our troops. We firmly believe in the current mission and the global goals. We also firmly believe that the government's process will not allow many parliamentarians to make an informed decision about this crucial issue. It is unfair to place parliamentarians in this position.

That said, I can speak on behalf of my caucus. We are here, and we have an opportunity to vote for or against this motion this evening, depending on what the government says. We will take part in this debate. We will listen to the government's arguments, and each of our members will vote according to the information we receive from the government.

All our members will exercise their parliamentary responsibility. Our duties to our constituents and to this august House demand no less.

I have listened to the Prime Minister. I will listen to the defence minister. I will listen to other members of the House. I will vote in favour of this mission if they satisfy me on those issues I referred to, because I believe I can only in conscience vote if in fact we are getting that right assurance, and I will vote for the mission.

But let there be no doubt. The responsibility for this process lies squarely with the government. We could have had a committee. We could have had more time. We had to negotiate the amount of time we got. Surely members opposite, in good faith, would want more time to discuss this.

Certainly no vote in the House in these circumstances could ever be interpreted as a lack of support for our troops. Let us not descend into jingoism. Let us try to find out what is best for our country and, sincerely, what is best for our troops.

I end as I began. We have seldom participated in a debate so important for our troops and for our country. I know that our members on our side will vote their conscience when we have heard the government case.

For myself, like the member for Markham, I hope the government will make that case, because we believe in this mission, but I know each and every member of the House will be seeking guidance from whatever individual divine inspiration they choose to seek.

I know also that they will vote in a way that is true to our country, to our troops in this mission, in a way in which we, who happen to live in one of the most fortunate countries in the world, can help those less fortunate than ourselves, who may be half a world away, but who are also part of our human family.