Mr. Speaker, as I participate in this debate, and before I go into it, I would like to read for the record the motion brought forward by the member for Toronto Centre, so that all of us here clearly understand what we are debating.
The motion reads:
That a special committee, consisting of 12 members, be appointed to consider the Canadian mission in Afghanistan as referred to in the motion adopted by the House on March 13, 2008 (Government Business No. 5); that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party's members of the committee, providing that each party shall have the same number of members on the committee as it now has on the standing committees and provided that the said lists shall be deposited with the Clerk no later than April 10, 2008.
I emphasize the date. That is the suggestion and the motion brought forward by the member for Toronto Centre.
I have referred to the member for Toronto Centre and this is my first opportunity to congratulate him on his election and return to the House of Commons where he served many years ago. He brings with him a wealth of not only experience but more so of knowledge.
He thought about this, observing for many months and even years what was happening in this honourable chamber. In our discussions outside this chamber before he was elected, and even now that he has returned, I sense the frustration that he was experiencing, that we are experiencing and all Canadians are experiencing, something that the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam referred to earlier, that it is very difficult to get information from the government.
The member did not want to simply come here and say, “Here I am and here is an idea”. No, this is all predicated by the frustration that we are all experiencing.
I have stated before and I will say it again, I had the honour of serving as chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Today I am privileged to vice-chair the committee as well and I too experience firsthand what exactly is going on.
When the NDP member talks about waiting 300 days to get a response. That is unacceptable. That is why I stressed the April 10, 2008 deadline.
I would like to also correct the record, if I may. As I followed this debate, the member for Calgary East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, rebutted in a way that I guess the parliamentary language was acceptable. He referred to the Liberals not being in the chamber when all these debates were unfolding. It is improper to say that someone lied, so I will say that he misled the House. He put forward a false statement.
I know that I spoke on government business No. 5. I know the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore spoke on it and other members as well. When he made that statement, it was showing to me and to Canadians that as much as we are in a bipartisan way supporting our troops, yet again he is politicizing it.
Am I supposed to say that he is not even in the House right now? I would not say that. If he had an interest, he would be here. Nevertheless, I will go beyond that.
The member for Saint-Jean, who also sits on the committee, expressed his frustration earlier today. I will give an example. In the previous cabinet the former minister of national defence did come to the committee once and gave us a report.
It has been quite some time since the new Minister of National Defence assumed his responsibilities. It is like pulling teeth to try and get the minister to come before the committee and give us a report.
We do get reports from the military people. They brief us in terms of an update of what is happening in a generic way. For example, I made a comment in committee the other day that I see on television in the reports from Afghanistan scenes that are a year and a half or two years old.
We are today in committee addressing the post traumatic stress syndrome issue in terms of the health and well-being of our men and women when they return.
Let me go back to the parliamentary secretary. He said this is not necessary and there is a parliamentary committee looking into the study on Afghanistan. That really irked me and I will say why.
The defence committee worked very hard for many months when I chaired the committee and put 13 recommendations together. This was before the Manley report was even thought about.
The parliamentary secretary, on behalf of his minister and the government, has the audacity to say that there is a parliamentary committee. There really is no parliamentary committee because we know very well a booklet is put out by the government which talks about transparency, openness and open access, and yet, in a premeditated and deliberate way, before the members come to committee, the government has a plan. It asks how it is going to address the committee and it becomes very frustrating.
No wonder the committee cannot get the minister to come before the committee. One would have thought that a couple of months after the appointment to his new role, he would come before committee.
What is also very frustrating is that the committee has been trying for well over a year and a half to visit Afghanistan, so members can get a firsthand view of what is going on. The chairman of the committee went to the liaison committee and lobbied to get the support and funding to visit Afghanistan and the budget was approved.
The next thing we know, there is this obstacle and that obstacle is either a timing problem, a security problem, et cetera, but every time we turn on the tube when Parliament is not in session, lo and behold, there is a visit to Afghanistan by the Minister of National Defence. I am glad he is over there because we can never make enough visits to show our men and women there, who are putting their lives on the line, that we stand with them.
I do not criticize that, on the contrary, but it is really funny how anybody from the government can show up any time and the committee has all sorts of obstacles put before it and can never visit Afghanistan. Maybe some day it will get an answer. I am very frustrated with that.
It is frustrating when we ask for information, as the member from the NDP has asked. As was pointed out, 300 days really stuck in my mind, not for us but for Canadians.
One would say today that the member for Toronto Centre is trying to showcase. That is furthest from the truth. I have known this gentleman for many years. I have heard him speak on a one to one basis in Toronto, outside Toronto, and on television. His commentary to this very day has been nothing but, first and foremost, support for our men and women in uniform, support for our military, and ensuring that we in Canada are on the right track.
I believe we are on the right track, but there are elements within this mission that make me very uncomfortable. I have discussed them before and I will touch upon them again.
There are over 37 or 38 nations participating in this most disastrous mission. I say disastrous only because 82 Canadians have lost their lives and we pay full respect to the families and appreciate what sacrifices have been made. Other military men and women have lost their lives from other nations as well.
I say other nations. Some time ago we met with the defence committee from Germany and pointed out to it that Canada has never taken a step back to anybody. Canada, in its rich history, traditionally has stepped forward, has brought tremendous results, stood proud no matter what front it has faced, what mission it has been on, whether peacekeeping or at the front, no matter where.
We have not hesitated to do our share here. What is unacceptable to Canadians, as I am hearing, is why Canada is taking this hit. The government is trying to soften this by saying that we have the French, for example. One day France is saying that it is going to commit so many soldiers and the next day it is thinking about it. The next thing we know, we will be here next year--hopefully--a year from now will see that most likely these soldiers will never show up.
The Manley report said that we need an additional 1,000 soldiers. What Mr. Manley really said was that it would help, but that is not really the answer and the solution to the Afghanistan mission, even though we knew that the Americans had already committed about 2,500 soldiers anyway, prior to the Manley report.
One thousand soldiers will not help us address this issue, because we have heard all the United States military commanders, when they come before a media briefing, talk about the number being in the thousands. I think one statement was that 100,000 soldiers are needed to address this issue.
What are an additional 1,000 soldiers going to do for this? Absolutely nothing.
There is also something else that I have found unacceptable. I heard the other day that one of the representatives from the government of Afghanistan said Afghans are so happy because the Japanese are going to be building a new airport.
I do not know why the parliamentary secretary is winding his hands, but I am glad he has come back to the chamber to respond to the challenge I put to him. Now that he is here, I will remind him that the Liberal members were in this hon. chamber and were debating this issue. Maybe he was not here at that time to see us when we were on our feet, and I will accept that if that is going to be his response.
I remember that when these conflicts were breaking out in Afghanistan and Iraq there was a notion that all the nations that were going to participate were also going to be involved in the reconstruction. Canadians are spending billions of dollars to help build schools, roads, water wells and infrastructure and to help with training and so on.
We are doing our share, but I find it unacceptable that other nations that are not even there putting their people's lives on the line are getting these contracts to build this infrastructure. Why do we not put in a caveat as they have put a caveat on us? Why are we not putting in a caveat and saying that as for the moneys we are putting into building this infrastructure we will make sure that they go to Canadian companies?
We are seeing a sudden downturn in the Canadian economy, which is not to my liking, and I am sure not to the liking of most Canadians, especially when I read the news in my neck of the woods in Scarborough. I am really upset to learn that 72 nurses are going to be laid off from the Scarborough hospital system and over 200 employees are going to be disappearing.
I know it does not relate directly, but how it relates, if I may tie it together for members, is that if these Canadian companies are successful in getting these construction jobs, for example, or redevelopment opportunities in that country, they would then be hiring their employees in Toronto, Scarborough or elsewhere, thus generating revenue for Canada and for the provinces so that 72 nursing jobs will not be lost.
We Canadians are a very fair people. We have reached out and we have shed blood all over the globe . As I have said, we have not taken a back seat to anyone, but at the same time I do believe there is an obligation to make sure that our backyard is well looked after as well.
That is how the member for Toronto Centre always referred to this mission. We have to do it in a balanced way. We have to do it the right way.
In closing, as my time is just about up, there is one thing I would like to see from the government and that is for it to keep to its word: transparency and openness, which is really what the Manley report said, and the government committed to that. We want openness. We do not want these cue cards, as we read about in the paper, that are prepared for the Conservative members to read before they even talk to anyone or to the media. For God's sake, the member for Calgary East and all of us as members were elected democratically by our constituents.
I recall that in 1993 the Reform Party members came here with the notion that we are here to speak on behalf of our people. I would like to remind members that people send us here to be their voice. Yes, there are times when members take positions favouring their own party, but in the past on both sides of the House I have seen members stand up independently to vote against or with the government. All of us have done that. I say that proudly.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who will tell us at first hand that when we sit in committee there are no stripes, and we try to do the best we can for our men and women in our military. There is the odd time when we might have a difference of opinion, but at the end of the day we find a way to move forward positively.
All I am asking for, and what this motion is asking for, first, is that date so we can deliver. Second, I am asking the government to keep to the recommendations of the Manley report. Third, I am asking the government to maybe take a look at the 13 recommendations put together by the defence committee and tie them together. I will tell the parliamentary secretary again that yes, there is a committee, he is right, and that committee did bring forward recommendations for his information.
At the end of the day, what are we here to do? We are here first and foremost to make sure that our men and women in Afghanistan are properly equipped, properly prepared and doing the right thing so Canada once again can maintain its proud history and tradition in terms of its initiatives.
I would suggest to the government that it do what other countries do. I will use the United States of America as an example. It consistently is at the podium. Today there is a hearing in the United States. General Petraeus is doing a full presentation before a committee. General Hillier has appeared only once before committee. It is not that the man will not come. He would be glad to come any time and visit with us. I give full marks to General Hillier, but I am asking the parliamentary secretary to do whatever he can to get the Minister of National Defence before our committee so we can be briefed.
In closing, I am also suggesting that a representative, whether it be the parliamentary secretary or the minister, give everybody an update on an ongoing basis on what is happening, in the press room or wherever. The government should give an update not just to us in the House but to all Canadians because it is they who are footing the bill. I am concerned. I end with the dollars only because we budgeted so much.
I was pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of National Defence talk about new equipment, but he did say one thing that really upset me. He said that finally after 13 years of doing nothing we are now purchasing new equipment. He knows that was not an accurate statement, as does every member in this House. I asked the question in committee. When the Conservatives were talking about the $14 billion in their 2007 budget, I asked if it was new money or the money that the Liberals put in our 2005 budget. After two questions, I must say that the response was that it was the $14 billion allocated in the Liberal budget of 2005.
However, I must compliment the Conservative government. At that time, the Conservatives added a few more needed dollars. So when the minister yesterday talked about how finally after 13 years of nothing being done we are now purchasing new equipment, and I believe he said helicopters, we fully support that.
In order to show our unified support to our men and women, none of us here should being playing politics with this issue. Nobody has anything to gain from that, from our side anyway. There can only be losses. I encourage the government and the members on our side to keep the tone at that level.
