Jay Hill

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Certainly I think he was speaking from the heart, especially at the end of his remarks when he was talking about the soldiers and the families of the fallen.

I could not agree more with him that this is a reckless and irresponsible motion. It puts our soldiers who are still in theatre at a greater risk. It is of comfort only to our enemies, not our armed forces personnel.

I would also draw for the member a similar perspective on the motion on which we just voted and the hon. member supported. February 2009 is still almost two years away. There is a lot of work to be done. As he just admitted by his own remarks when he talked about a tragically injured soldier who had returned home, he still supports the mission. He still supports the objectives and the goals and the things we hope we can accomplish in concert with the Afghan people.

I would point this out to the hon. member. We are debating a motion today that I agree is completely irresponsible. In fact, I would use the term ludicrous. It is irresponsible to send a signal that we want to pull out immediately. It is also irresponsible to send a signal to the Taliban and to our enemies, the terrorists, who are fighting our brave young men and women in Afghanistan, that if they can just hold on and inflict as much damage as possible to February 2009, then no matter what happens in February 2009 we will pull out, no matter what stage the conflict is at. That, too, is completely irresponsible.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will try and keep this very short and allow my colleague time to address my concerns.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam from the NDP was saying how in her assessment this mission was senseless and that it was misguided. Somehow the NDP seems to be living under this illusion that we can somehow deliver aid and assistance to the Afghanistan people without providing security.

She also said, and I wrote it down because I wanted to make sure I got it accurately, “There are better ways to achieve security”. That is what she said.

I know my colleague had a long and distinguished career in the Canadian Forces. I wonder whether, with his experience, he would be able to identify any ways that the Canadian Forces could actually achieve security through better ways than what they are attempting to do now because the NDP has failed to do that in the debate thus far?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. I know many people want to ask this particular member a question. I will try to keep my remarks short.

The member says that the mission is failing. I wonder if he could enlighten the House on what expertise he might have in military matters and specifically how he is able to judge the success or failure of a military mission?

When I was in Afghanistan and had the privilege to interact with our front line troops at Christmastime, certainly they believed that they were achieving some great successes. Yet this particular member would say that the mission is failing. I wonder what he bases that upon?

I want to quote from the actual motion and if we are to immediately begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now from the “counter-insurgency mission” which is the motion before the House today, I would ask who is to take our place? What negotiations have gone on if we are going to immediately pull out and which of our allies is going to take our place? Who is going to hold the line, as it were?

A person does not have to be overly bright to understand that all of our allies, and especially the Afghan national army, are under tremendous pressure. The Afghan army has been taking countless more casualties than even we are.

Is the situation tragic? Yes, of course it is. I do not believe that the mission is failing and neither do our troops that are on the ground there. Our troops believe in the mission. They believe that they can accomplish the goals that have been set for them and that they set for themselves.

I would ask the hon. member, on what does he base his assessment that the mission is failing?

[Committees of the House, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once again, as with the previous motion, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the chamber to pass the motion that is presently before the House to allow for this extension of time.

[Committees of the House, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to pass this extension motion unanimously.

[Canada Elections Act, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think, were you to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present this evening voting yes.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to adopt the amendment unanimously.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. To the troops on the ground in the forward bases that I was so privileged and honoured to talk with that are engaging the Taliban in active combat, as they are today, that are pushing back the Taliban to win the rights and freedoms for the people of Afghanistan, I am keeping my promise.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the agreement that we have entered into with the government of Afghanistan and our allies, the Afghanistan Compact, very clearly lays out the conditions of success. The key there is the conditions of success.

That is why I return to my earlier point. There is a struggle here against an evil, the likes of which are the Taliban. For that member to suggest that we can negotiate with people that would come into a school and behead a teacher in front of a class because that person dared to teach a female child, a girl, that somehow we can negotiate with that type of evil, is ridiculous. There is only one way and that is to engage--

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I singled out the part of the motion that I find personally the most reprehensible and the most offensive.

The member talks about conditions. What are the conditions for extraction? What are the conditions for ending the mission? As one of my colleagues who spoke before me said, the condition is success.

This is the part the Liberals do not understand and that I was trying to communicate. I hope, for the viewing public at home today and those in the gallery, that I am doing a reasonable job of trying to communicate this. When someone is in a life and death struggle against evil there are no conditions for withdrawal. It is either win or lose and that is how simple it is.

For the other parties to somehow suggest that we can set some parameters around a fight against evil is extremely shortsighted. It does a complete disservice to both the men and women in Afghanistan on the front lines and their families back home.