Jim Karygiannis

[Committees of the House, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose the same question to my hon. colleague that I posed to the parliamentary secretary and I heard absolutely nothing from the parliamentary secretary as far as family values are concerned.

We have known that there are families who have been broken apart. I have in my riding a family where the husband met the wife. She was a refugee claimant. They got married and had two Canadian children. CBSA knocked at their door and said, “We're sorry. You have to go”. When the mother left, she took her two Canadian children with her because obviously the father could not look after them. Someone had to go to work.

I am wondering if my colleague would share his views on this matter. Does he think this is appropriate? Does he think that the Conservative Party is going too far? Are we using the CBSA to divide families? Is this a humane aspect and is this a way to keep families together?

[Committees of the House, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to the parliamentary secretary speak about uniting families, the integrity of the system and compassion.

I want to put to him a specific question regarding a constituent of mine, Mr. Masood Firoozian. He came to Canada, married his wife and applied. This was in 2006. The file was sent to the Vegreville case processing centre, which referred this file to Etobicoke. That was in March 2006.

In August of 2007, Etobicoke answered me and said:

This spousal application was referred to Etobicoke CIC from CPC Vegreville in March.07. It will be 12 to 14 months before this file will be assigned to an officer....

Fourteen months have gone by. He went back to them. On 16/04 a letter was received that said the spousal application was referred to Etobicoke, not in March 2007, as they said, but in January 2008. It was a total misrepresentation. It further stated:

It will be at least 12 months before this application will be assigned to an officer for review.

The fellow came to Canada and married his wife and he is still in status. Now his wife has to undergo a serious operation that will have her laid up for six months.

My question is very simple. He applied for an open work permit in order to be able to look after and provide for his family. His wife is going in for an operation and he wants to get a work permit, yet under the Conservative government we are not allowed to move to get him an open work permit so he can work.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. I have already sent a letter to the minister on this. Will he intervene on Mr. Masood Firoozian's behalf in order to make sure he gets an open work permit so that when his wife is in hospital for the next six months he is able to look after his family? If the parliamentary secretary wants to put his money where his mouth is, he will stand up and say that he will intervene.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I was making my speech I stated that in the years under the Conservatives the application records have gone down, especially out of mainland China where we used to get tons of people applying to come to Canada. In my riding of Scarborough--Agincourt, a great number of people are applying from mainland China to come to Scarborough. Their applications dropped by about 50%. The real issue is, indeed, the backlog and we need to deal with that.

It is very simple. We should allocate resources where they are needed. We should expedite cases where we should. For example, a spousal case out of Colombo is taking two years, where in other places it takes six months. Although the issue is the backlog, it is also a matter of taking resources from different posts and putting them to posts where we need them to deal with the processing of applications.

Maybe the minister will do something about reallocating the resources instead of having SWAT teams. She has SWAT teams of retired immigration officers who are going from country to country to deal with the backlog. These people are not getting paid normal wages. These people get paid exorbitant wages and are put in fancy hotels, which costs the department an arm and a leg.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back about a year ago today when the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was discussing at the time undocumented workers.

We were looking at the plight of individuals who have been here for a number of years, some for five, six or ten years, and were working underground and being exploited. They were trying to get themselves normalized in Canada. A motion that was in front of the committee was brought to the House. The motion stated that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration study the motion and that undocumented workers should not be deported from Canada until the committee had an opportunity to finally look at it.

I came to the House and asked for unanimous consent to move that motion. The Conservatives did not stand up and oppose it, nor did the Liberals and the Bloc. The only person who ran in huffing and puffing and said that she would not give unanimous consent to the motion was a member of the NDP. The NDP found faith by siding with the Conservatives in wanting to throw undocumented workers out of this country. The hon. member should take that up with his colleague from Trinity—Spadina because she was the only one who ran in here and opposed it.

How does the member and the NDP dare to stand up and give this side of the House lessons? They should look at themselves in the mirror and maybe when they get up in the morning it will crack.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I listened to the parliamentary secretary. Half the time he seems to know what he is talking about and the other half he is out in left field.

This time the parliamentary secretary he is out in left field. He knows very well that the number he has quoted about people coming into Canada is fudged. He knows very well that the number that he has quoted is blown up and includes foreign workers, people on TRVs and I could go on. The real figure is that this year the government will let in less immigrants than in any other years.

The parliamentary secretary knows very well that the only place to discuss this is in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is the only place where we can have a fair discussion and call the minister there. She has not shown up time after time when the committee has invited her. The only place where we can have a fair discussion with stakeholders, community groups, refugee associations and even us as members of Parliament is in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Will the parliamentary secretary do the honourable thing and ask his minister to send this bill to that committee or are the Conservatives going to hide behind everything and send it to the finance committee? I would ask them to have the guts to do the right thing.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed nice to be the first one up on this Friday morning.

It is with a heavy heart that I am participating in this debate on Bill C-50. For years the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been struggling to keep up with the number of applications submitted from people who want to come to Canada. However, it would be worthwhile to take a historical look at this department over the last two decades. It has always had its difficulties; however, in the last two years it has been totally dysfunctional. Conservative minister after Conservative minister has tried to resolve the problems they are facing, yet they are finding themselves in more trouble.

I am not going to say that under the Liberals the department was perfect. It had its challenges. However, in the last two years, the department has become the challenge.

When the Liberals took office in 1993, we inherited a country that was in total chaos and almost bankrupt. The inflation rate was running amok. The deficit was $42 billion and we had a debt to the tune of $600 billion-plus dollars.

We had such a bad credit rating at that time that it drove international investors and creditors away in hordes. Not only did it drive creditors and investors away, it also deterred prospective immigrants from wanting to apply to come to Canada. In 1993, we had an inventory of almost 50,000 applications from people waiting to come to Canada.

However, over the years the situation in Canada changed and times became better. The annual deficit was no longer around. We started paying down the debt. For the first time in a few decades, Canada started having surpluses and the good times were here again under the Liberals. Our credit rating went up and investors started investing in Canada again.

As Canada started attracting investors and money from overseas, we also started attracting new immigrants and more applications, applications by the thousands. Canada became a destination of choice for most immigrants. Many immigrants could have chosen to emigrate to the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany or Australia, just to name a few. However, many of these people chose Canada.

The rest is history. Our inventory application levels increased. Waiting times started to become longer. People had to wait a few years in order to come to Canada and start their new lives. However, people waited patiently, and even to this day people are willing to wait a little longer in order to come to their first choice of destination.

Just recently, a few weeks ago, I travelled to India and met with many people: university students, professionals and business people. They expressed to me that their first choice of place to emigrate was Canada. Although it would still take a few years before they could emigrate to Canada, they told me it was still worth the wait.

Let us fast-forward to today and examine the department under the Conservatives, especially under their two ministers. Under the previous minister, we had a department that came under a lot of strain when the crisis in Lebanon occurred. The then minister of citizenship and immigration and his counterpart, the then minister of foreign affairs, totally botched the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon.

Then the Conservatives started fearmongering that we were evacuating people who had no business to be evacuated, and that these people, although claiming to have residency in Canada, returned to Lebanon as soon as things were good again. Reports were slipped to the media about thousands of people who returned to Lebanon, people, they said, who should not have been evacuated.

The real truth, however, was the fact that the protocols developed in the departments, under the Liberals, to look after Canadians and their loved ones abroad when a natural or a man-made disaster occurs were completely ignored and misplaced. The Conservative ministers were running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off and did not know what to do.

During the Liberal regime, there were protocols in place such that should there be a natural or a man-made disaster, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was ready to respond. Let us look at some examples. Under the Liberals, when the tsunami struck in South and Southeast Asia, family class applications were expedited and placed at the front of the line. Similarly, when the earthquake struck in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, these protocols were put in place, and again family class applications were expedited.

However, when the man-made disaster occurred in Lebanon, the Conservative ministers were slow to react and the tested protocols were shelved and ignored. The Prime Minister even went to Cyprus to pick up a few stranded Canadians. If someone were to ask me, this was an expensive photo op.

Then we had the disaster of the lost Canadians. The minister and her department's officials mismanaged that particular file.

They even went so as far as to mislead the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. When the minister and the deputy minister came in front of the committee, I asked them if they had advertised about Canadians who might have lost their citizenship. Both the minister and the deputy minister went on to mislead and outright distort the truth by saying that they had advertised in different media outlets on this matter. When a few days later they were pushed to reveal facts and figures, the minister and her deputy sent a letter of explanation to the committee admitting that they had given us false information about advertising.

The mockery of this department under the Conservatives continues even today. A few months ago, I asked under the access to information about the real figures in inventories and waiting times since the Conservatives took power. The real nightmare was then exposed. The question posed was:

With regard to Immigration Applications for each Canadian High Commission, Embassy and Consulate around the world, present and for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, in actual numbers:

(a) How many Spousal Sponsorships, Parental Sponsorships and Independent Applicant cases are or were in inventory;

(b) What is or was the length of time required to process these applications--Spousal Sponsorships, Parental Sponsorships and Independent Applicants?

The Conservative government had assured parliamentarians that processing times would decrease. Instead of seeing an overall decrease in processing timelines, what I discovered was an overall increase.

I was able to determine a decrease in processing times and the number of cases in the regions of Europe and South America, but a dramatic increase in processing times and the number of cases in the regions of the world such as the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia.

Close to 50% of our total inventory of applications comes from seven countries. To be exact, Beijing contributes 6.45% of our total applications; Colombo, 1.29%; Damascus, 5.27%; Hong Kong, 6.66%; Islamabad, 6.16%; New Delhi, 18.87%; and Manila 1.7%. Exactly, that is 46.51%.

During the last two years of the Conservative regime, the number of cases decreased by 1.93% and the time processing has increased by 20.79%.

Here are some of these nightmares. For Colombo, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 53.65%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 36.36%. While the processing timelines in Colombo have gone up overall by 20.83%, the amount of processed cases has dropped by 1.74%.

Beijing is the real nightmare. Skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 36.17%, spouses' and partners' processing timelines increased by 25%, and dependent children's timelines increased by 33.33%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 4.07%. Parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 54.54%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 29.68%. Overall, in Beijing the processing timelines increased by 40.78%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 48.05%.

For Damascus, skilled workers' processing timelines have increased by 20%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 11.76%.

For Hong Kong, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 25.45%, while applications dropped by 6%. Parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 28.57%. In Hong Kong, while the processing timelines went up by 10.28%, the processed cases dropped by 28%.

For Islamabad, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 43.18%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 8.1%.

For New Delhi, skilled workers' processing times increased by 38%, and spouses and partners' processing timelines increased by 66.66%, while the amount of cases processed has dropped by 10%. For dependent children, processing timelines increased by 66.67%, while parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 21.62%. Overall in New Delhi, processing timelines increased by 11.45%.

In Manila, parent's and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 51.85%. Overall, processing timelines increased by 5.88%.

Finally, the minister finally had a revelation. She noticed that the train had run away and that she needed to do something. What to do? What to do? Let us ask the bureaucrats, it was decided, and here comes the nightmare: some bright individual wanting to have a quick passage of the legislation placed it in the budget and called it a motion of confidence.

Let us examine what this piece of legislation, Bill C-50, will do specifically. I will be very brief, because other people before me have examined what is in store for us under this legislation.

This legislation has amendments that would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for processing immigration applications and requests.

Bill C-50 puts too much power in the hands of the minister to cherry-pick the kinds of immigrants that the Conservative Party would find acceptable. It eliminates the right of every application to be given fair review and consideration, regardless of background, country of origin or skill set. The amendments put no limit on the minister's new discretionary powers to make them consistent with existing federal-provincial immigration regulations.

The minister would have wide-ranging new powers allowing him or her to give the following instructions with respect to the processing of application requests: establish categories of applications or requests; establish an order by category or otherwise for processing; set the number of applications or requests by category or otherwise to be processed in any year; and provide for the disposition of applications or requests, including those made subsequent to the first application or request.

In addition, immigration and refugee officers shall comply with ministerial instructions before processing or when processing applications or requests. Applications not processed may be returned, retained or disposed of in accordance with the instructions by the minister. This does not constitute a decision not to issue a visa or other document, or grant the status or exemption in relation to which the application or request is made. Instructions shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Nothing in this section limits in any way the power of the minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this act.

These amendments essentially give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration carte blanche to decide which applications to process, which to hold, and which to return without even processing. Particular immigration categories will be adversely affected, such as the family class and permanent resident status made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, H and C grounds.

The amendments will reduce the incentive for the government to do what it should do: dedicate the necessary resources to increase departmental and human resource capacity to process the number of applications received each year.

However, the bright individual on the government side decided to go a little further. The bright individual decided that the government would take this piece of legislation out of its regular place and refer it to the finance committee.

The place that this bill should be debated is specifically the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister responsible for CBSA can be invited. Also, community groups, stakeholders, lawyers, immigration practitioners and others would have an opportunity to testify and give evidence on whether they would be in favour and/or against this ill thought out piece of legislation.

However, that will not be the case this time. The Conservatives have decided to circumvent all of this, put the bill in front of the House, declare it a motion of confidence, and get it passed in order for the minister to look after the backlog of immigration cases, so she says.

I have news for the minister. Whether she will open her ears and listen, however, is another story. This piece of legislation will be challenged in court and struck down. This piece of legislation is not charter compliant, although she claims it is.

I would like at this time to refer to a few famous Conservative quotes on citizenship and immigration. Maybe my colleagues across the way will open their ears and listen.

The first quote is as follows:

You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

Who said that? The present Prime Minister.

The second quote is as follows:

Well, I've always believed that we have to be a lot tougher with undocumented refugee claimants. Whether the best thing is to send them right out of the country or simply detain them until we get more information, we can look at either, this is a problem that does need to be fixed. Particularly post 9/11, we can't take these kinds of security risks.

Who said that? The current Prime Minister.

If members were to take a look at www.oneconservativevoice.ca., they would see another quote, “Another potential threat to domestic security is Canada's refugee determination”.

When the Prime Minister was the chief policy officer of the Reform Party, his party platform stated that “immigration should be essentially economic in nature” and should not “be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”. This was stated in the Platform and Statement of Principles of the Reform Party of Canada dated August 14, 1988.

I have another quote: “Multiculturalism policy has been an abject failure...immigration continues to change the country's face more extensively than at any time since the turn of the century”. Who said that? The member for Kootenay—Columbia as reported in the Calgary Herald.

The Canadian people simply do not trust the Conservatives to deliver on immigration and, frankly, neither do I, so I will be voting against this misguided legislation.

[Half-masting of Peace Tower Flag, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to stand in this House to support this motion put forward by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, which I had the pleasure of seconding.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to show respect and to honour Canadian Forces and other Canadian government personnel who were killed while serving in overseas peacekeeping, peacemaking or humanitarian missions, the government should lower the flag on the Peace Tower to half-staff for the day following their demise as a remembrance of their important service to Canada and Canadians and that a moment of silence to be observed in the House, if the House is sitting on that same day.

Most of us come from different parts of the world and we make Canada our home. Many new immigrants have a great interest in this country and many of us serve our adopted country in many different ways.

Throughout the years, we have seen many young individuals rise to the call of duty and serve our great country. These are people who serve our country and sometimes surprise the rest of us. As recently as a week ago, a constituent emailed me some pictures of Sikhs and their proud participation in our armed forces, and their proud participation in World War II.

I had the opportunity not long ago to travel to Europe and visit the Commonwealth cemeteries, and witness firsthand the different names of the ethnic representations of our young men and women who had given their lives in the service of our country.

Canadians have participated in many wars since our country was founded in 1867 in support of democracy, rights and freedoms. Canada was among the first nations to provide peacekeepers in order to provide safety and keep the warring sides apart.

I have personally witnessed the great work which our peacekeepers did on the Island of Cyprus and other parts of the world. For close to 40 years, Canadian peacekeepers stood between the two sides in Cyprus walking the green line and keeping the two sides apart.

Although the flag has not flown at half-mast in the past when one of our soldiers or diplomats has given his or her life for our country, it is time that we change this.

Lowering the flag to half-mast will be the ultimate sign of respect. Canadians support our troops with lapel pins, bumper stickers and wearing red every Friday. We line the bridges on the Highway of Heroes in silent tribute when the remains of our soldiers are returned home.

The least we can do for our fallen soldiers is lower the flag to half-staff on the top of the Peace Tower. We can, and should, start a new tradition.

Canadians are looking to this government to support their efforts, and to show respect and sympathy for the fallen soldiers and their grieving families. After all, it is all of us who have sent the young men and women to serve our country.

We lower the flag for Privy Councillors when they pass away. Being a Privy Councillor myself, when I pass away, the flag will be lowered to half-staff on the Peace Tower.

However, that was not the case for a member of my extended family, Sergeant Christos Karigiannis, who was killed in action in Afghanistan last summer in June.

Sergeant Christos Karigiannis was called upon to serve our country in Afghanistan. He did not question our decision to be in Afghanistan. He did not question the merit of the decision taken by this House of Commons in sending him to Afghanistan.

Christos Karigiannis did not question, argue, or hesitate to fulfill his call of duty. He gallantly laid his life in order for us to be safe and enjoy our freedom and democracy. He gave his life fighting for democracy half a world away.

The least that we could do for our soldiers, the men and women we ordered to protect our way of life, is to honour them. Our fallen soldiers have paid the ultimate price for their service to our country.

I urge all members of this House to show the ultimate respect to our fallen soldiers and diplomats, and agree for the flag to be lowered to half-staff on top of the Peace Tower when we lose an individual in the call of duty.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I said when I started my comments that this was a very difficult position for me to articulate, having lost a member of my extended family in Afghanistan.

I also visited Afghanistan. I was not put in a military camp and restricted in my movements. I had the freedom to move and to talk with individual Afghans. I had no security.

I saw the difficulties the Afghan people were encountering. I saw what they wished for, an education for their children, a roof over their heads, probably a car and a better life tomorrow. We must engage the international community, especially NATO, so once we leave Afghanistan, someone else is there to take over from us.

We cannot say we are leaving right now. We cannot pack up our bags and say that the war is not going well and that we are not going to play any more. We have made a commitment. We have spent a lot of money. We have to give notice. Giving notice and saying that we need to change the engagement from peacemaking to peacekeepers is difficult because there are no two people to divide. We can say that in two years we will be gone, but we might leave some of the troops behind to do some work in aid. That is an excellent position for us to take. To say that we will leave right now is not a position we can take.

My hon. colleague talked about what happened when Spain left Iraq. Let me remind him what happened in Spain. A train was bombed. There was a change in the government and it said that it would move right away. That was not Afghanistan. That was Iraq.

Afghanistan is a totally different situation from Iraq. We are not in Iraq thanks to the Liberals.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his condolences.

I was a little confused. He said that they do not want to come to the table, and as Karzai extends his hand, maybe tomorrow they will be willing to come to the table.

I have read account after account. I have seen that Karzai has made some overtures to them, and I could be wrong, but I have not seen anywhere that we seriously have engaged the Taliban. Maybe we are not ready to engage them. Maybe we need to exterminate them all.

However, I do want to speak about another set of difficulties that exist just a little south of Afghanistan, where we have listed these people as extremists. They want to talk. They want to negotiate. They want the government to get involved, and it is doing nothing. The only thing the government is doing is listing these people, and that is the LTTE. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is fully aware of the LTTE, the troubles that are happening in Sri Lanka and the killings on all sides. The LTTE reached out to us and asked us to assist them. The only thing the government did was list them and turn a blind eye to them.

The Conservatives can suck and blow all they want, but unless they engage, unless they speak and unless they bring them to the table, they will accomplish nothing.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great delight that I participate in this debate on the one hand, yet on the other hand it is also with great difficulty. Not long ago a member of my extended family, Sergeant Christos Karigiannis, was killed in the line of duty. I know firsthand what a family goes through.

When the Manley report was engaged and it was reported in late January, not wanting to skew the issue on one side or the other side, I sent a general questionnaire to my constituents saying that we had been in Afghanistan for so many years. I asked my constituents some questions and also for their comments. In the time that I have, I would like to read some of these comments and invite my colleagues to also engage their constituents because empowerment of the constituent is a very important thing.

I would like to read what Elizabeth wrote to me. Her email came to me on Monday, February 11. She wrote:

Canadian commitment to Afghanistan mission to support and defeat Taliban and other political issues is honorable mission. Canada always and has been peace full country. The land of opportunity and better living to all citizen but I feel this mission left Canada in between conflict of political issues that will reflect our security in Canada.

Canada did not create this situation in Afghanistan and loosing our troops for difficult and almost hopeless mission there is not point for our troops to be there.

Also I feel Afghanistan should be ready to make the changes in there country, if Afghanistan is not ready to make the changes, it will be difficult to our troops bring the peace in that country.

Yes, I feel Canadian troops should come back home and return to their family and country that they cherish and serve.

I don't want my words to be misunderstood all I want to say is

If Afghanistan is ready to make the changes then yes let our troops stay and help them to achieve the goal and better living and I assure you there will be less Canadian soldiers to die in mission than now.

On the same day Patricia wrote:

I agree that we need more support for our troops in Afghanistan; however, I believe that leaving Afghanistan in 2009 would be a death sentence to the people of Afghanistan. We committed to helping the country and we cannot leave until the job is done or it becomes apparent that we cannot do any more good.

It is a shame that we have been forced into a combat position, since we are primarily peacekeepers; however, I do not believe it's in the best interest of Canada or Afghanistan to abandon them. We need to finish what we started.

Zakir wrote:

Should Canada remove its troops from Afghanistan immediately: NO--to do so is to lose to extremists and set a bad example. We can only leave when the Afghan govt. can support itself. We can only reduce if others pick up the burden. If NATO will not support, we must leave immediately.

First of all, let me start by saying I believe the original Canadian commitment to the Afghanistan mission in support of the effort to defeat the Taliban is a just and worthy mission. The mission and the cause remains even more valid today and perhaps even more vital as Afghanistan once again titters on the blink of the precipice of chaos with the Taliban once again regaining ascendancy.

On February 11, R. K. wrote:

Should we provide humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan? Yes.

Should our mission be extended a day longer? No.

Should we remove our troops? Yes.

This is where he qualifies his answers.

1-Afghanistan has no link with 911: it has not committed any crime against Canada or US or any other country. They inherited Osama, as he was stationed there already, based on what I read in newspapers, with CIAs help. Infact, Afghan Jarga after 911 offered to hand over Osama to Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi which US refused arrogantly. Instead they choose to do carpet bombing day and night and destroy the already one of the poorest country's left over infrastructure and people homes. Today we have no proof that he is there anyway.

2-War on terror is infact a criminal case against the 911 perpetrators and should be run in court of Hague and not in battlefield. Like we did with Serbian leader forgot his name. And we should issue warrants to arrest the criminals. But US never went to International court, infact it set up illegal courts and illegal jails. After all we are in 21st civilized era and not in Genghis Khan's age. Are we?

Muhammad F. wrote in an email on January 26:

I agree to the point that Canada should shift its role from military to civilian in Afghanistan. Power can not be a solution when majority of the inhabitants of land are on opposite side. I think the problem is that we try to see them according to our wish and want them to live the way we like to live. It can be true for other creatures where one can train them to live in an unfamiliar way, away from their natural tendencies but for human beings this can not be true.

In my humble opinion, Canada should emphasize other stake holders to negotiate with all major parties in Afghanistan, listen to their point of view, promoting a dialog and help in reaching a solution which is acceptable to majority regardless we like that majority or not. If freedom of expression, exercise of basic human rights and democracy is valuable to us then we should let other nations do the same as long as they don't unite on injustice.

On January 25 Ralph wrote:

I like the remark--“When bellies are full, no one will hold a gun”.

That, basically, is my view with regards to the present conflict(s) in the middle east. Today, we are fighting a “ghost”. Our troops very often never see their attackers. We, in the West, do not understand nor seem to want to understand their way of life which is so much different that our way. Tribal chiefs reign supreme. It is a society much like our own European society was, some 800 to 1,000 years ago. How do we fight when we do not really know the enemy. I have said many times to others, that it is cheaper to provide bread than bullets to kill. Then you make friends — not enemies. We are in this thing pretty deep and it will not be easy to change our strategies but it can be done.

We must — make friends with everyone. We must not dictate as to how they must govern. We should teach human rights and that will not be easy. If we can gain the trust of the Taliban and try to help them to appreciate that human rights with dignity and fairness to all citizens (in particular the oppressed women) is a must in a civilized society, then, we just may win this war without any further blood shed.

On January 22 Benny wrote:

Thank you for your hard work trying to help solve the Afghan situation.

Although I watch the news quite often, all issues related to Afghanistan seems to be all Canadian. I have not noticed any activities of other nations in that country. Are we the only country fighting there? I hope not.

My poll contained simple questions: “Should we provide additional assistance to Afghanistan?” Over 70% of constituents said “yes”. “Should we extend our mission longer?”. About 45% said “no”. “Should our mission be changed from peacemaking to peacekeeping?” Some 75% said “yes”. “Should we move our troops immediately?” Again, 45% said “yes”.

As a parliamentarian, an individual who has been elected to represent his constituents, I listen to their wishes. I hear the motion put forward by the government. I hear our motion and I feel comfortable in noticing that the mission says that we should extend for another two years and engage other countries and say to them that it is not only Canada's war, it is also NATO's war.

This is a war that also needs other men and women in the theatre. This is a war where engagement should also be done by other members of NATO.

I use the word “war” because we are in that situation. I am not sure if peacekeeping is the right word because we are not in a place where people are on difference sides and we are in the middle keeping the peace. On the Island of Cyprus we were there for about 30 years plus. We had the invading Turks from the north and the people who lived in Cyprus divided by the green line. Canadians travelled from one side of the country to the other on that green line, in the buffer zone, keeping the peace between the two factions. We lost many soldiers there.

In this situation, we are not keeping the peace. We are there in an engagement, Yet, when we help build schools, roads and other reconstruction, it is a little difficult to tell the troops not to engage and if they see anybody to come back in tomorrow. It is difficult to come to grips with a situation like this.

I lost a member of my family in that conflict. He was a young man who did not have the opportunity to witness life, a young man who gave his life for this country, a young man who, when he was asked and the call came in, did not hesitate. He did not say, “Why am I going there?”. He did not say, “I think you guys are wrong up in Ottawa. I think Canada is making the wrong decision” or “Why are we there when other countries from NATO are not?”.

The young men and women of the armed forces we have ordered in the engagement in Afghanistan do not question why we send them there, yet in the House, we take political sides. It does not matter if we are on the right side of the Speaker or the left side of the Speaker, the NDP or the Bloc, we all have our motive for wanting to either extend the mission, end the mission, or bring some sort of cohesion to the mission.

It is with great pride that I speak here tonight on this matter, not only because I am a parliamentarian and we ask constituents to give us their views. It is also because I had the experience in 2003 to go to Afghanistan, not with the government, not with the armed forces, but on my own. I am probably one of the few parliamentarians who went to Kabul on his own. I was there with friends. We had an opportunity to meet with President Karzai. We also met with parliamentarians and with women parliamentarians and saw the work they were doing. We spoke to them about their trials and tribulations and their wishes. Their wishes are not any different from ours. They want a better tomorrow for their children. They want a better tomorrow for their grandchildren. They want to have peace. They want to have some money in the bank. They want to have a better living. They want to have a car. They want to have a house and a roof over their head.

What I witnessed at those early stages of the engagement of NATO in Afghanistan was that a certain part of town was rebuilt and the south part of Kabul was totally destroyed. There were still remnants back then, and there are more now, of the Taliban. However, one of the things I would like to encourage the government to do, as well as other colleagues in the House, is to have the engagement of the Taliban.

The Taliban are right now outlawed and we cannot talk to them. That is the government's prerogative. However, if we are fighting ghosts, if we are not bringing them to the negotiating table, if we are not speaking to them, if we are not asking them to partake, then what are we doing? We can continue to carpet bomb and we can continue to destroy.

Maybe we should think about engaging them. I know the Taliban is a terrible word. Imagine Osama bin Laden being in government. I have problems with that. However, there are other factions of the Taliban that we can engage, speak to and invite to be part of.

I will add one more comment, and I ask my hon. colleagues to think about it. When soldiers die, we fly them in to the Trenton air base. Then we drive them along the Highway of Heroes. A lot of our men and women, be they in the military, or in the police, or in the fire department, line up, as do seniors and young people, and they wave the flag as the remains of the soldier pass by. I think it would be very befitting if we also think about lowering the flag on the Peace Tower every time we lose a soldier.

As a privy councillor, as with a lot of colleagues, when I pass away, the flag on the Peace Tower will be at half-mast. I would trade that honour for my cousin who died, any time. It was with great dissatisfaction when Sergeant Christos Karigiannis passed away that the flag was not lowered. It is with great dissatisfaction that when our men and women give their lives when we have asked them to go there, when we have put them in harm's way, that we do not have the fortitude and the will to lower the flat at half-mast.

There is a motion before the House, and I would encourage all my colleagues to look at it and to support it.