Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, somewhat unexpectedly, I might add, to speak to Bill C-13.
This is an important piece of legislation. Although we have discussed the matter of this particular legislation that actually could have been done through an order in council process in this Parliament, the government has chosen to turn it into a bill.
Having said that, all the parties seem to be agreeable to the bill. I would think that it will probably make its way, very quickly, to the committee stage. At that point, we will be looking at different amendments.
It seems that no matter how much care is taken in presenting legislation, whether it is government legislation or opposition legislation, and no matter how much consulting we do, we always manage to leave something or somebody out of the process. That is why it is very important that we look to the committee process and look at amendments.
Our member for Acadie—Bathurst has come up with such an amendment, which I would hope will receive favour by the members of the committee. His amendment was very simple. It was to add members of police forces. Members of police forces are being deployed. They are part of missions outside Canada.
The member for Yukon spoke previously and indicated that police officers are part of the missions in Afghanistan and Haiti. They, too, should be included in this bill. The member for Acadie—Bathurst is very committed to that idea and will present an amendment at committee.
We hope the government, in an open fashion, will look kindly on that and will support that amendment so we can better flesh out this bill. In terms of the initial costing of the bill, the government indicates that it is looking at perhaps 60 soldiers per year at a cost of $600,000.
It is rather interesting that the government does not seem to be able to provide costing figures for other bills. We just completed a multi-day series of speeches on the bill dealing with conditional sentencing. The government is not able to provide a projection of what that bill will cost.
Last week on the two for one credit issue crime bill, the government was suggesting that the cost was going to be a matter of several million dollars. The next day it was contradicted by a better, I would think, authority who said it was going to be $2 billion.
We can see that this costing issue is something that has to be projected, but the government is in a better position to do the job. It has the facilities and the ability to assess the number of people who will be affected and the cost of each program.
I think it is incumbent upon the government to be proactive in providing this costing analysis in the beginning and to not simply hit the road with a press release for the early hits and then come to Parliament to have us try to pull these figures out. In most cases, we are unable to get the figures.
In this case, I give the government credit. The minister was asked this morning, how many people would be involved in this bill, what was the scope of the exposure, and what costs would be associated with the bill? She was able to say 60 people a year at a cost of $600,000.
We appreciate the government doing that. I maintain that this is something that we should be able to have on a consistent and ongoing basis with all government bills that come before the House.
As the government has pointed out, this is not a huge or controversial bill. The government proposes to improve access to employment insurance parental benefits for military families. The new measure would extend the EI parental benefit window for Canadian Forces members who are ordered to return to duty while on parental leave, or whose parental leave is deferred as a result of a military requirement. The measure would extend the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. This is something that our party would certainly support.
As the member for Yukon pointed out, a large number of people have been affected over the years in the military.
Members of the military have a difficult job at the best of times. Imagine, as a child, being uprooted every three years and moving to another area of the country. That was the old practice. Military members can recount growing up, as children, and their family being stationed for three years in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, as an example. After those three years, the family would be sent to Germany and somewhere else after that. Whole families were uprooted. Children had to form new friendships. As someone who never went through something like that, I would think it would be very unsettling for children.
Then we hear stories about soldiers being mistreated after serving in the military. A report came out just two or three weeks ago about the Prime Minister being at a food bank for veterans in Calgary.
There are many examples of mistreatment not only in the Canadian and American military but in all militaries in general. People are wanted while they are healthy and eager, and willing to work, but as soon as they come back with post-traumatic stress disorders or another disability as a result of their time in service, they are basically ignored and thrown on the scrap heap.
We need to ensure that we provide first-class treatment to our veterans in this country and to our existing military forces. We cannot leave them in a second-class position.
I listened to the member for Yukon talk about the dangers of military service. He was on a trip to Afghanistan and he said it was a dangerous experience just getting from the airport. I have never been to Afghanistan. Since the current plan indicates that our forces will be leaving there next year, I do not plan to be over there. The member indicated that our soldiers have to sleep in tents over there because they are always subject to rocket attacks, not to mention the explosive devices on the roadside that have killed so many of them. I have to wonder why anybody would want to take up a duty such as this and put their lives in danger.
In most cases, our soldiers leave young spouses and children at home. They go on six month rotations and do not see their children during that time.
The member for Yukon summed it up very well when he said, “I have a tough job here. I only get home for one or two days a week. I have to fly all the way to Yukon and that is a long trip”. He himself said that was nothing compared to the sacrifice that our soldiers face when they go into a danger zone. For six months they are away from their children and their spouses.
I do not think it should be a surprise to anyone that social problems develop out of a situation like that. I do not know for sure but I assume that the divorce rate would have to be fairly high in situations like that. It makes civilian life seem a much easier life when one only has to show up for work at 9 a.m., work all day and work a 40-hour week and then have a weekend off. It seems like a big different.
One would wonder why people would want to do that. We do not have conscription in this country. It is a volunteer force. People obviously do it because they believe in the greater good and the cause of peace in the world. That is why we are there. We are there to make a better life for the Afghan people and improve the lot of women in Afghanistan. There is a great deal of evidence that some of efforts are in vain because the lot of women does not appear to be improving substantially in Afghanistan when we see that the government there has a very shaky commitment to that cause.
This is a mission that I believe we have spent perhaps $13 billion on so far. I am trying to do this from memory right now because I do not have notes on the subject in front of me.
I have been getting petitions from people demanding that we end the mission now. They do not want to wait even until the middle of 2011 to get out of the Afghanistan situation. The biggest argument they have is that their philosophy is that the military should be taking a peacekeeping role.
Lester B. Pearson, who was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, actually shaped Canada's foreign policy in those days and, for a great period thereafter, was Canada's peacekeeper. I can recall years ago, when Canada was involved in Cyprus where the Greek and Turkish Cypriots were in conflict with one another, Canada's role was to keep the peace. There was a peace to be kept and our Canadian soldiers did an admirable job in those circumstances.
That was the mindset of the Canadian people. They were quite willing to support their military to fulfill that role. Outside of the two wars, World War I and World War II, where there was overwhelming support for Canada's efforts, when it came to the issue of peacekeeping, that was a new role for the military. Everything proceeded along those same lines for all those years until this current situation involving the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
Even though our forces had been in Afghanistan for a period of time, some of my constituents thought they were there on a peacekeeping basis. They, in their own minds, were not conceiving of us being involved in taking an active and fighting role in the conflict.
It has only been over time and with the 150 young soldiers who have been killed over there that they have gradually begun to realize, and some of them accept, that we are actively engaged, that this is a very dangerous mission and that we will be looking at more deaths. As a result, people are starting to change their minds.
Polling done last year indicated that well over 50% of the Canadian population were opposed to our mission in Afghanistan. Many people believe we are there under false pretense. They thought our forces were involved in a peacekeeping mission but, of course, there is no peace over there to keep.
Afghanistan, as we know, has a long history of foreign countries involving themselves in its affairs. Everyone remembers the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in March or April of 1979. Once again people thought it would be a clean-cut affair and that the mission would be over in short order. Were they ever wrong. The Russians got stuck in Afghanistan for years. It cost them tremendous amounts of money. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that it was perhaps one of the contributing factors that actually dragged down and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the day in 1989.
We found ourselves essentially being dragged into a situation that was basically very similar to where the Russians left off, and we were involved in assuming that role.
The next issue is how we get out of there. We need to remember that it was the Liberal Party that got us in there in the first place. It was given two choices: go along with the Americans in Iraq or take Afghanistan. At the time, I guess the prime minister thought that Afghanistan was the lesser of two evils in terms of choices, and I think most people in the country would have agreed with him at that time, so he opted for the Afghanistan decision.
However, it is clear that the Canadian people want to see us revisit that. They do not want to see a commitment.
If the Conservative government had formed a majority government at any time in 2006 or 2008, I believe that commitment to Afghanistan would have been signed, sealed and delivered for an almost unlimited amount of time. The fact that the Conservatives have been stuck with a minority government has caused them to come to their senses and be more sensitive to the public, and that is one of the things I like about minority governments. A minority government is more sensitive to the public and recognizes that while there is a large group of people out there within its support base who are eager for longer term commitments in this mission and others perhaps, it has to recognize that well over 50% of the people out there are not in favour of extending the mission. In fact, people signing petitions and sending them to me, not only do not want it to go beyond 2011, they do not even want it to go to 2011.
I realize that the second last rotation has now left for Afghanistan and there is a final rotation coming up in October. Assuming that we do not have an election and the Conservative win a majority and they sign for an even greater extension of the Afghanistan mission, which is possible, let us assume for a moment that we withdraw from Afghanistan as planned. Let us hope that we as a Parliament have the good sense to keep our troops out of further missions for at least a year or two and give it a bit of a break.
We are already hearing discussions about the Congo. We have not even solved the first problem. We have not even extracted ourselves from the first mission that has cost us $13 billion and lasted for years and years. We are already planning to look at the Congo. Who knows how many years that will involve and how much that will cost?
