Deepak Obhrai

[April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member himself has stated, in the previous government he was a consul handling this issue, so he is very well versed in how the Government of Canada works when Canadians overseas are in need of consular assistance.

In Brenda Martin's case, specifically, this government has taken its responsibility very seriously and has used every opportunity available to assist Ms. Martin.

I can confirm that consular officials have visited Ms. Martin in prison on 15 occasions and have spoken to her by phone over 75 times. Consular officials have also facilitated and will continue to facilitate regular phone contact between Ms. Martin and her family. We have also taken care to ensure that her well-being and health concerns are addressed immediately and we will continue to liaise very closely with Mexican officials in regard to Ms. Martin's case.

The Government of Canada made numerous representations on Ms. Martin's case. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has raised this issue with the Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa on a number of occasions and just yesterday in Washington, D.C. I am encouraged by the reports coming from the media on her comments that she expects this file to move in a couple of weeks.

Both the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity have met with senior officials from the Mexican foreign ministry and the attorney general's office during their respective trips to Mexico. At all levels, the Government of Canada has expressed its concerns regarding the length of time Ms. Martin's case has been taking and sought assurances that the case will proceed expeditiously.

The member stated that he was in charge of consular affairs. I want to say one little thing for all Canadians on this issue. When people apply for a passport, the Department of Foreign Affairs will issue a booklet titled “Bon Voyage, But...”, which is handed out with every new Canadian passport. The booklet explains quite clearly what Canadians who travel overseas can expect from the Government of Canada as far as consular cases are concerned.

One of the most important issues mentioned in that publication is that when Canadians are arrested outside of Canada, they are subject to the laws and regulations of the host country. My hon. colleague is well aware of that issue. The Government of Canada cannot influence the judicial process of a sovereign country, just as we would not allow another country to attempt to influence our judicial process. We must always work within the judicial system of the country in question and find the means to assist Canadian citizens.

As the hon. member knows, we make every attempt to come to a consensus and to work with the government in question to ensure that the interests of Canadians who find themselves in difficulties are taken into account. We will provide consular services, access to lawyers and we will do anything in our power to ensure their rights are maintained. However, Canadians must always remember that when they are travelling overseas in a sovereign country, the rules of that country apply first.

In Brenda Martin's case, we are working with the Mexican authorities. He himself has visited and applied pressure. We are very hopeful after hearing the latest comments by the secretary of foreign affairs for Mexico who stated that the case is expected to move ahead in the next two weeks.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the fearmongering party sitting over there nitpicks little quotes here and there and tries to make a case for saying it does not want to be in Afghanistan. What is of interest is that all socialist parties around the world do not accept its view of this thing.

The BBC has just reported that 17 Afghan road workers were killed by militants. How do those members expect to provide security to development workers if militants keep killing people?

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, with me, and he has been quite an active member. Together we have been doing a very extensive study on the situation in Afghanistan. I hope that he gets elected as the vice-chair of the committee and that we will continue working together on that committee, collectively, as we have done in the past, and that we will address issues that are important to Canada.

I have a question for the hon. member. As he knows, we all agree about this committee. However, I think we must also look at the work we have done in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, for which a report is about to be prepared. He and I will work together to ensure that this new committee does not duplicate the work of that committee and that the work of that committee and all the witnesses we have heard before that committee are taken into account by this new committee.

I hope the hon. member can then tell his foreign affairs critic about all the efforts and all these things, because this morning when I was asking his foreign affairs critic a question I found a lack of knowledge on his part, and I can understand that because he is a new member.

My friend on the other side has been there for a very long time, so hopefully he will be able to tell his colleague this, and we can work together on that.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, just now a report has come out on the BBC that militants have killed 17 Afghan workers. When we stand here and talk about development, there were 17 workers who were building Afghanistan and militants killed them. That is the kind of challenge being faced. That is why we want security there.

Perhaps the member could comment on this. When we talk about development, we cannot forget the security component, as this story has just indicated.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's remarks. He put a lot of passion into them and I am sure he puts a lot of passion into the issue.

To keep the record straight, since this government came into power. it has taken steps to ensure there has been full debate in the House of Commons about our mission in Afghanistan. The government brought in a panel, headed by the former Liberal deputy prime minister. The member was in the House when the panel's report and recommendations were presented. The foreign affairs committee has studied the whole issue over the last six months. Perhaps the member should have asked his fellow Liberal members about what was happening at the committee.

When the motion to extend the mission was brought forward in the House, we had two days of debate. The Liberal members were absent from the debate as soon as the clock hit 9 p.m. at night. If they were so passionate about this, they would have stayed and debated.

However, after saying all those things, we need to look ahead and move forward. The House passed the Canadian motion, a cooperative effort between both sides of the House. Part of the motion called for an additional 1,000 troops. It was important for the Prime Minister to ensure that the resources would be available, as was the will of the Parliament.

Once that has been done, we move on to the next stage, which is the committee about which he has talked. We must not forget the fact that during all this time the foreign affairs committee has been studying this.

We stated from the outset that we agreed with the motion because it was the will of Parliament. I do not see why he would keep complaining and talking about it. I would rather he talk about what we are to do in the future, now that Canada is in Afghanistan until 2011, to ensure the efforts and sacrifices of the Canadian soldiers, including the money invested in the war, do not go unnoticed. I recommend he look ahead rather than look back in the past and complain.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her intervention as a defence critic. However, her speech gives this false idea to the Canadian public that her party is in favour of the mission in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NDP voted against the motion. The NDP voted against everything about Afghanistan. That party is now talking as if its members are the ones who were responsible for passing the motion. Let us make it very clear what the NDP position is. The NDP's position is that it is opposed to this motion and, therefore, to this whole idea.

In talking about transparency and parliamentary oversight, maybe she should talk to her party's critic, who is sitting behind her. There is a parliamentary committee looking into the issue of Afghanistan and her foreign affairs critic has the right in the parliamentary committee to call all the witnesses that party wants to hear from. We have not stopped the witnesses from coming in front of the committee to give testimony. There is parliamentary oversight. There is a committee right now undergoing a study of Afghanistan, with full participation of all members of Parliament.

At the same time, there has been full debate and the NDP has been very vocal. I must say that contrary to the Bloc and the Liberals who never showed up for those two nights of debate, the NDP members were here and they expressed their point of view, with which we do not agree and will never agree, but they were here to put forward their point of view, as opposed to the other two parties.

I want to tell them that there has been a debate. There has been transparency.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Security Council has passed a resolution. If the Security Council wants to lead this mission, it is for the Security Council and the UN, not the NDP, to decide how this will happen.

However, since it is a UN decision on who will lead the mission, then I do not understand what problem the NDP has about whether or not it is a UN-led mission. It is a mission driven by the UN. It is for the UN to decide how it wants to carry out this mission. Canada will abide by that decision.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for this question, because as I see it, the question makes the point about where the NDP stands, which is confusing for everyone in Canada. One moment the NDP members want a withdrawal. One moment they want to continue working there. One moment they want to talk to the Taliban. In the next moment they want to talk with some other peacekeeping forces out there, but we do not know who they are.

Perhaps the member could look at it this way. This is a UN mandated mission. This is not a NATO mandated mission. This is a UN mandated mission and the UN has given this authority to NATO, but it is sanctioned by the UN, by the world community. Under the UN banner, there are over 60 nations working there. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appointed a UN envoy to Afghanistan to ensure that the UN presence over there is giving legitimacy to this operation to ensure that the people of Afghanistan are successful.

Yes, in response to the question of the hon. member, I hope she will understand that this is not a NATO mission. This is a UN mandated mission carried out by NATO at the request of the UN.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not hear my speech. I said in my speech that, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defence said, we would be supporting the intent of this motion, and we will be supporting the amendment that has come forward because we believe in transparency, as the Prime Minister has said.

We believe in accountability. The motion, as passed, talks about it. However, my concern, and this is what I said at the beginning of my speech, is that we must build on what has been done by the foreign affairs committee and by the extensive study over there. I hope this committee will not duplicate the work of that committee, because then we would have not achieved that.

As for transparency, debate and everything, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence have been very clear. We will be continuing to do so. Again, if the member needs to know, yes, we will be supporting this motion.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, once more, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the issue of Afghanistan. I do not know how many times I have risen in the House to speak to it.

At this time, I want to take the opportunity say that current Minister of National Defence and former minister of foreign affairs has been very active on this file.

My colleague, the member for Richmond Hill, talked about selective memory and the transparency of this government. Contrary to what he has said, the current Minister of National Defence and former foreign minister appeared before the committee. The Minister of International Cooperation appeared before the committee. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Sport appeared before the committee. There has been openness and transparency.

I am a little concerned. I ask the foreign affairs critic for the Liberal Party to ensure that the committee to be formed does not duplicate the work the foreign affairs committee has done and continues to do. The foreign affairs committee is coming to the final stages of issuing a report, so much so that even General Hillier will be attending before the committee very soon to give his testimony to complete the hearing on the mission in Afghanistan.

We do not want the new committee to revisit what has already been done in foreign affairs committee. It is in the process of completing a report. When we go in camera to do that report, I hope the new foreign affairs critic of the Liberal Party will attend the foreign affairs committee and have input in the report. I hope he does not ignore the report. His attitude at the foreign affairs committee is that of a great knight who has come to save Canada. I do not think he will participate much in the foreign affairs committee because that is not the vehicle he would use for his leadership campaign.

I hope that is not his attitude as a member of the foreign affairs committee. I hope he will fulfill and take the opportunity presented to him to have input in the report, so the report will have some credibility.

The concern I have always had with the partisan politics in committee. The foreign affairs committee, with the Liberal support, brought an interim report forward to Parliament. Why it would want to do that, I do not know. It achieved nothing. We have these reports on the mission being pushed forward, but in the process, we are losing sight of what we have been hearing from people and witnesses. I hope this is taken into account by the proposed new committee.

As the Minister of National Defence has said, we will support the motion, but we will move forward and not backward, built on the basis of the report and recommendations to be submitted by the foreign affairs committee to the Parliament of Canada. I hope that is taken into account.

Today we are here to talk once more about Afghanistan and the great progress that has been made there. Since 2001, after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans came together to choose a new democratic system of government, and support of this system has been very strong.

Free and fair presidential elections were held in 2004. Over 10 million Afghans registered to vote in these elections. Under the Taliban, women were banned from public life. Now women hold 27% of the seats in the Parliament of Afghanistan.

We were honoured to host a visit to Canada by six Afghan women parliamentarians just a few months ago, and what an impression they made. All of us who had the opportunity to meet with them were taken aback by their dedication and determination to make Afghanistan a better place. If nothing else, it is a sign of hope.

Perhaps the concern most often expressed about progress in Afghanistan is the continuing issue of the security situation in some parts of the country. Sadly, Canada knows this all too well. Our engagement in Afghanistan has cost the lives of 82 soldiers and one diplomat, mainly in the Kandahar province. The Minister of National Defence said he would be attending a repatriation service for one of our soldiers who lost his life. I and all members in the House mourn his death and send condolences to his family.

Thankfully, however, Kandahar is very much the exception and not the rule in Afghanistan. Some recent statistics presented by ISAF at the recent NATO summit tell the story. In 2007, 70% of security incidents occurred in just 10% of Afghanistan's districts, which are home to less than 6% of the total population. Insofar as 2008 is concerned, 91% of insurgent activity is confined to just 8% of all districts in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the capacity of Afghan security forces grows daily. The Afghan national army is beginning to participate in joint operations with ISAF across the east and the south and is increasingly taking the lead. Canadian OMLTs, operational mentor liaison teams, continue their good work with the Afghan battalions in Kandahar.

Afghan national police training is also ramping up, both nationwide and in Kandahar. The international community has recognized the importance of this element and is dedicating new resources to the task. We all recognize that long term stability and security will come only when Afghan forces can do the job and international troops can be withdrawn.

Also, I should mention that there have been real signs of progress in Afghanistan on demining action. Through a combination of education and mine clearance, there has been a 55% reduction in the monthly victim levels in the last six years. Over 520,000 anti-personnel mines have been destroyed and over 1.3 billion square metres of land have been cleared, freeing them up for travel, agriculture and other productive purposes.

In this short time, I have been able to touch on a few signs of progress in Afghanistan. Of course, that country is not yet where it wants to be, and no one pretends that it is. The challenges that remain are surely significant. There is much work to be done in supporting and sustaining the development of Afghan capabilities in all areas. That is why the international community's assistance and presence will still be required in Afghanistan in the years to come, just as it has been in every other post-conflict society in the modern era.

My point, however, is that progress is most assuredly possible in Afghanistan. Afghanistan today is headed in the right direction. Canada will continue to stand by the people of Afghanistan on their road to progress.

In conclusion, I want to say, as I have stated, that I have been fortunate enough to participate in this debate in the capacity of parliamentary secretary on numerous occasions. I want to tell my hon. colleagues on the other side that it is not the case that there has been no transparency or no debate. There has been transparency and there has been debate and a lot of other issues have come forward. As the Prime Minister has said, now our main focus and job is to train the Afghan people so the Afghan people can take their country to the destiny they envision for their own land. Canada is there just to help.