Francine Lalonde

[Committees of the House, November 2nd, 2009]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

For reasons I do not wish to mention, I needed to be away from my seat during the period to present reports from interparliamentary delegations. Would there be unanimous consent to present the report?

[Foreign Affairs, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on September 22, Nathalie's spouse demanded $300,000 U.S. to agree to a divorce, give her custody of the children and allow her and the children to leave. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs defers to Saudi justice, he ignores the fact that Nathalie was never married either here or in Saudi Arabia and that this Quebecker does not have to buy her own or her children's freedom.

What is the minister waiting for to act?

[Foreign Affairs, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Nathalie Morin and her three children are being held against their will in Saudi Arabia by her violent spouse. Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this was a domestic dispute that did not concern him. Imagine the outcry there would be if the police refused to act in a case of spousal violence, claiming that it was a private family dispute.

Why is the Minister of Foreign Affairs refusing to listen to the calls for help coming from this abused Quebecker?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last spring, Canada made the decision to require visas from citizens of the Czech Republic. That rather abrupt decision was received with disbelief and confusion. Now, the European Union is threatening Canada with retaliation if the visa requirement for one of its members is not dropped.

In light of these threats by the European Union, does Canada intend to remove this requirement for Czech nationals?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

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.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

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.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

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.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

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

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

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.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

I would ask my colleagues to please listen.

Could a mistake be made? Could the life of someone who did not truly wish to die be brought to an end? The person is asked the question repeatedly and there is not one doctor who would want to help someone die if they did not want to. However, if we consider—