Keith Martin

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to set the record straight for the member across the way who knows full well what has taken place with respect to our procurement and our objectives to meet the needs of the men and women who serve so nobly and bravely for our country.

Let me first state a number of our key priorities. The first is to ensure our armed forces personnel get the material they need when they need it. The second is that it is affordable to the taxpayer and that the taxpayer receives good value for the money that they have entrusted us to spend wisely on their behalf.

The defence policy statement clearly states our objectives in these areas. I am glad the member mentioned the helicopter issue and heavy lift capabilities that we are trying to acquire. It is part of a much larger package of fixed wing heavy lift capabilities we are trying to pursue. This is under the umbrella of the $13 billion we have budgeted over the next five years. It is the largest increase for our military in the last 20 years.

I also remind the member that this year's supplementary estimates include an additional $1.3 billion for our forces, making the total for this year $1.8 billion. Where is it going? It is going toward equipment, maintenance, operations, training, care and wages for our service personnel. That is responsible spending of the taxpayer money.

With respect to the fixed wing and procurement, our objective is to have a procurement process that is transparent. We would like to ensure that it is clearly done in an open way. Does it mean that at times we will not go to go to sole source? No. At times we will and we will do it when it makes sense to do it under the guiding principle that our forces get the equipment when they need it.

Will we pursue an open bidding process when, as a matter of principle, we know only one particular piece of equipment is required by our forces? No. We also will try to ensure that the equipment we buy will be either purchased or made in Canada, but not always. Again, getting back to the fundamental principles of ensuring that our armed forces receive the equipment they need when they need it.

This is a much larger part of our plan as articulated in the international policy statement. We are making the investments not only in equipment, but also in training, personnel and care for our armed forces personnel.

I encourage all those people who are watching tonight to take a look at our international policy statement. I encourage them to look at the defence capabilities and at our plans for the future. We encourage people to give us input into how we can make that better. However, we have turned a corner. It is not the end. It is a down payment in the future of our forces and our ability to move forward with the goals and objectives that we want to pursue for our country and Canadians.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I want to clear something up because it is almost midnight. I have to address this to the Conservative foreign affairs critic who I asked a very simple question of at the end of his speech. The question was what would the Conservative foreign affairs critic and a Conservative government do with respect to the Sudan. He said that they would talk to other countries. They would bring this up at UN.

We have done all of that. We have also employed CIDA to provide development moneys on the ground. We have provided 100 armoured vehicles for which the African Union has asked, plus another 5 transport vehicles, or 105 vehicles in total. We have provided moneys for training of African Union troops. We have told them to let us know what they require and we will do our best to fulfill those needs. That is all that the African Union has asked of us. That is what we would do along with our diplomatic initiatives.

We have fulfilled what is in the international policy statement. What we have not heard are any coherent solutions whatsoever from the Conservative Party. That is quite frightening given the fact that we will be going to into an election in the next couple of weeks. If by some chance the member became the foreign affairs minister of Canada, with respect to the Sudan, he would talk to other countries and he would bring this up at the UN.

The Government of Canada has done that and much more, and I will not repeat it. However, the Canadian public should know that we have a plan. We are enacting that plan. It is a living, breathing plan on which we will continue to work. We will work with the African Union to try to resolve the issue in Sudan and save the lives of the people. People are being murdered there right now.

The Conservative Party does not have a plan whatsoever other than to talk to other countries.

It is a complex situation in the Sudan. It not only involves Darfur but also southern Sudan and the eastern part of the Sudan, which is ready to blow up. That does not excuse inaction by anyone, but we are doing all we can right now at the United Nations, at the African Union and mobilizing European countries to get involved and to put pressure in every which way to try to save lives in that country.

I hope that within my lifetime we will see a day when we will truly be able to prevent genocides and conflict before they happen and save lives.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would like to address my colleague on a couple of points that he made about consistency in policy. Our policy of combined defence, development, trade and foreign policy is encompassed in our international policy statement, which anyone can read on the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of National Defence websites. The international policy statement clearly articulates what Canada's overarching policies are, be they in defence or foreign affairs.

I understand the issue that he has brought forward in regard to why some countries are dealt with in certain ways and others are not, but I think I can best articulate it if I summarize what we as a government try to do when countries are in need. We try to do what we can where we can. Is he suggesting that somehow we need to have a more robust involvement in the Sudan, a country, I might add, that by any stretch of the imagination we are not neglecting? We have our diplomats involved. We have our international development arm involved. We have our military involved.

If the member is suggesting that we march troops into the Sudan to end the conflict there, let me put that into perspective. In Iraq, I think the U.S. now has slightly over 100,000 troops. It is a country much smaller than Sudan. As for the actual estimates on the part of generals who advised President Bush when he was deciding to go into Iraq, he was warned that he would need more than three times the amount of those troops in order to stabilize Iraq, a much smaller country. Let us do the math. The United States needed more than 300,000 troops to stabilize Iraq, not 100,000 troops, and it is a country that is much smaller than Sudan.

Obviously we as a country cannot put that kind of troop involvement in there, but what I am saying to the hon. member is that we are trying to use every tool in our box to bring stability to that country and prevent the killings, which the member quite rightly mentioned are occurring today. We would like the international community and particularly the African Union and those countries that are part of that to make the commitments, get involved and put the pressure on Khartoum or, quite frankly, take the actions that are required to stop the killings and the mass rapes.

They need to do that in other countries. For example, there is Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is committing awful atrocities. Why is South Africa not getting involved in stopping Robert Mugabe when it could do that in a few days by simply turning off the energy tap? Why does it not choke off his supply of resources and prevent that thug from murdering his people in a country that was once very beautiful and stable? He has destroyed a country.

On the continent of Africa, we need African countries and African leaders to say goodbye to the past and hello to the future and engage some of their leaders on the continent who are engaging in such behaviour. I will add the government of Khartoum to this collection of cabals of thugs, murderers and pathological liars who are murdering their citizens for their own gain. The African Union has to get involved.

In closing, let me say that we will support them in trying to build stability on the continent. I want to emphasize for the hon. member that we have put in a significant doubling of aid to Africa.

My question for the member is quite simple. He criticizes us for our policies, which are articulated in the IPS. Since we are going into an election very soon, what is the Conservative Party's policy toward Sudan? What specifically would he do as the current foreign affairs critic? What would he and his Conservative Party do to stop the killing in Sudan if they were in government? I would like to hear specifics from the hon. Conservative foreign affairs critic. What specific solutions would he provide tomorrow as the Conservative foreign affairs minister?

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the comments from the Conservative foreign affairs critic on the issue of Sudan. He has not provided any solutions to the terrible conflicts affecting its people, but I want to reiterate for him what Canada is doing in trying to resolve this issue.

We have taken three major courses of action. First, we have used our diplomatic tools. Our diplomats have tried to resolve this issue at every venue possible. We have engaged the United Nations. We have engaged the African Union. We are trying to support the African Union, which morphed out of the Organization of African Unity, its extremely ineffective predecessor. At the end of the day, Africa and other countries must get together to solve the problems in their own backyards. That is what they want to do. Canadians and this government are very supportive of that.

We have supplied diplomatic tools for the Sudan. We have put pressure on every venue to try to end this problem, including the government in Khartoum. We have provided considerable aid and development moneys to the Sudan, not only to the country at large but also in the south. The government has also provided military assistance in terms of troops, equipment and training.

If the member is somehow suggesting that Canada should march into Sudan, the second largest country on the African continent, and put our troops in that particular environment, I have to tell him that we would be making an absolutely disastrous mistake. Our troops would suffer terrible casualties. We would be walking into a military catastrophe. We would be making things not better but worse all around.

We are committed to trying to resolve this issue through every way possible. The group that has been tasked to try to resolve this is the African Union. The member should understand that this organization wants to take this issue on. It is trying to take it on. Canada and our military are supporting the African Union and has offered any support it requires. We will continue to work with it.

Does the member not acknowledge the fact that Canada is doing all of these things? Is he suggesting that Canada send a contingent of peacemaking troops into the Sudan? If so, how many people would he suggest we send?

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am glad that the Conservative foreign affairs critic has brought up this vexing and challenging foreign policy problem. It is one of the major challenges the world faces today, but I want to take some of his comments out piece by piece.

In Kosovo we were part of NATO. NATO decided to prevent a larger conflagration as to what happened in the other parts of the former Yugoslavia and in particular in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Croatia. To prevent that we joined the NATO force and we did bomb. Our pilots did an extraordinary job.

With respect to the African Union in Sudan, the member is quite right. This is a massive problem. We have said to the African Union that we will give them what they want and need to not only prevent what is going on in Darfur but also to increase security in the south. One of our senators did an extraordinary job in working with other countries to secure and terminate an 18 year conflict in the south that killed two million people and created four million displaced persons. Canada was directly involved in brokering that peace accord.

We have not succeeded in Darfur. As the Conservative critic said, people are still being murdered. Rapes are still occurring. It is the government in Khartoum that is directly responsible for instigating that problem.

We have offered Grizzlies and military expertise to the African Union. Some of our troops are there right now. We will offer more, but the African Union has to say yes because we want to work with them. It is their responsibility to sort this out, but we will help them. We have said very clearly that we will be there, that we want to be there to help them save lives on the ground in that country that has suffered so much.

On the issue of Iraq, the member knows full well that his party wanted to go into Iraq and wanted to send our troops into Iraq. That is well known. He knows that and I know that. That was his party's decision. We know now that marching into Iraq would have been a disaster because it is a disaster right now. Our party, the government, would not have done that. We would have continued to support the United Nations' sequestering of Saddam Hussein and to move along with a continued investigation and search for weapons of mass destruction that we know do not exist.

Lastly, on the responsibility to protect, it was this government and the Prime Minister who forced the responsibility to protect doctrine at the United Nations this year. Through our diplomats at foreign affairs and our entire service at the United Nations, including our ambassador, Mr. Rock, we forced on the table the responsibility to protect. Is that enough? No, because the RTP must be something more. There must not only be a responsibility to protect but there must be an obligation to act.

It was Canada that put on the board the responsibility to protect in the United Nations and which is now a pillar of foreign policy in that organization that needs so much reform. It needs change. It needs to adapt and it needs to become effective. I think the hon. member would agree that the next step we must take is we must add to the responsibility to protect an obligation to act, a rules based mechanism to prevent and save lives in the face of genocide.

From Raphaël Lemkin until today one of the greatest failings of the international community has been not to stand up, take action and save lives in the face of a genocide.From World War II to Cambodia, Rwanda, the Congo, the Sudan, Sierra Leone and on and on it goes, the world has failed to act to save lives in the face of despots and their cronies who are willing to kill and murder people.

We have taken a strong step forward in trying to put the focus of the international community on saving lives and preventing conflict. That is the future. That is where our foreign policy is going. That is our challenge not only as Canadians but as Canada is a member of the international community.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank all members for giving their speeches and interventions on this extremely important and serious issue of Afghanistan and the involvement of our Canadian Forces in this endeavour. We wanted to open up the debate so the public would be informed, aware and knowledgeable about not only what our troops are doing but why they are doing it in a place that is so far away and so forlorn.

Above all else, I want to thank not only the Canadian Forces members who are in Afghanistan today and their families who make the supreme sacrifice of giving up their loved ones to work half a world away, but also the Canadian Forces members here in Canada who support our troops far away, the civilian workforce at the Department of National Defence and all of the people who ensure that this very large and important organization in our country, the Canadian Forces and our military, are able to engage in the work they do not only here at home but also abroad.

Our Canadian Forces are true Canadian heroes who exercise their duties with the highest level of professionalism, courage and behaviour. It is something I have witnessed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I must say that it has been my honour to serve the members in the forces who are the best and finest people our country has to offer.

I want to clear up something that the foreign affairs critic for the Conservative Party mentioned about the amount of moneys being spent. I thought I made myself clear when I said that we put $500 million into the budget this year for our forces. We now have $1.3 billion in the supplementary estimates that will only pass if the opposition members allow them to pass.

These moneys include $418 million for equipment, $322 million for pay increases and health benefits for our CF members, $278 million for this Afghanistan operation, and $71 million for troop expansion because we will be increasing the numbers by 5,000 in the regular forces and 3,000 in the reserves. I want to emphasize that this is merely a down payment for what we will do to strengthen our Canadian Forces.

Why Afghanistan? Many comments were made earlier as to why we are half a world away. The reality is that the country is situated strategically in such an important area. It is surrounded in part by nuclear capable countries, other areas of great uncertainty, particularly the CIS states that are close by, and it is close to the Middle East which is an area of great instability.

Our forces are in Afghanistan because to allow Afghanistan to go back to being a failed state would not only be a regional disaster but an international disaster. We must not forget that the Taliban was in power and that it was an area where the Taliban was supportive of al-Qaeda, the group responsible for terrorist activities around the world. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a staging point for terrorist activities in the region or, indeed, here in Canada.

We are in Afghanistan with troops from other countries because failed and failing states, as we know, can and do breed terrorist activities. That is what will happen in Afghanistan and that is what did happen. We as part of the international community are determined not to go back down that road.

One of the major dangers and threats to the country, quite frankly, is the fact that more than half of the GDP of the country is due to heroine coming from the production of poppies and opium. We have had some success. Afghanistan has seen a 21% reduction in opium production but there is much more to be done. Warlords get involved which provides insecurity in regions and opens up the country to going back to a failed state. Kabul, the capital, will lose control over the country and all the work we are trying to accomplish at the end of the day to allow Afghanistan and Afghanis to maintain control over their country and provide the basic services and a sustainable economy for the long term will be for nought.

There is no doubt that our troops are engaging the Taliban in full combat actions, which is dangerous and their lives are in danger. However we have given them all the equipment and the best equipment they need to do their job. Nothing is perfect and that is an unfortunate situation but they accept those realities. However our job as the government is to ensure they have the personnel, training and equipment to do their job and we have done that. Whatever else they need they will get.

We also need to ensure there is a demobilization of former armed personnel. We need to demobilize and integrate the former troops as part of rag tag rebel groups. We need to reintegrate people who were part of the Taliban in the past. We also need to remove and destroy those weapons because that is part of our role.

We also need to ensure there will be an alternate economy, which is why CIDA is there, and our Canadian Forces are there to ensure that CIDA can work effectively and safely in the country.

We also need to ensure the Afghani people have security on the ground. If we cannot teach and train the Afghani people to have their own viable, effective force to provide security on the ground, we know that without security a country becomes a felled state. Our RCMP officers are doing a yeoman's job of training Afghani police forces but they are not only doing it for Afghanistan. I had the privilege of visiting our RCMP officers in Ahman, Jordan this past summer where they are training Iraqi police forces for Iraq. Without effective police forces on the ground, a country cannot have a sustainable economy.

Comments were made earlier today about the need for troops in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has one of the worst education systems and one of the worst health care systems in the world but a committed population that wants to change that and a committed international cadre of countries that also want to change that.

It is, as I said, a very dangerous mission, but it is one that we must succeed in at the end of the day, which is why our troops are on the ground. It is all part of, as we heard before, the three Ds.

One of the previous speakers wondered why so much investment had been put into our military and somehow suggested that all that work was combat. It is not. Part of it certainly is, but on the sharp edge of where our forces are in Kandahar, where there are insurgents, where the lives of our troops are in danger and where we are trying to give Afghanis a secure health care system and a better economy, then our troops need the combat capabilities to do their job. They will be engaged against these insurgents. Some of our allies have been murdered in Kabul through bombs. These are ongoing and omnipresent threats to our troops. Our responsibility as the government is to do all we can to ensure our troops are protected while they are there and that is our commitment. We can do no less.

Comments have been trotted out about the under-investment in our Canadian Forces. I freely admit that historically our Canadian Forces have been underfunded and the investment has not gone into them as it should have. However we have turned a significant corner over the last year and we have managed to put nearly $13 billion into our armed forces over five years. The reason it is ramping up is that we have the agreement of the Chief of the Defence Staff that those moneys will be given to the forces in a way that those moneys can be used effectively. The $1.3 billion in the supplementary estimates right now are for extra needs that the forces can use immediately.

In closing, I want to again thank our Canadian Forces for the work they are doing abroad and at home. On behalf of all Canadians, we honour the commitments they make for our country and their courage and bravery. We give thanks to those veterans who served before, as we just did on November 11. They are Canadian heroes.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is the foreign affairs critic for the Conservative Party but I have to correct him on a couple of points.

I am not sure if he is aware that in the 2005 estimates, if the opposition chooses to join us, they would agree to spend an extra $1.3 billion on our armed forces for 2005. That is in addition to the $500 million that we put in this year, a number that is going to ramp up over the next five years to a total of $13 billion. That is only a small down payment of the government's commitment to reinforce our armed forces, to give them the personnel, troops, training and equipment they need to do their job. The member has to recognize that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance have put on the table this week an extra $1.3 billion this year alone for our armed forces.

On the issue of recognition, he also has to acknowledge that the Minister for Veterans Affairs declared 2005 as the year of the veteran. That is a clear acknowledgement of the desire on the part of our government, and indeed I would say the whole House, to recognize the sacrifice, the commitment, the courage and the bravery of our armed forces. It recognizes the sacrifice and commitment the armed forces have given, are giving and will continue to give in the future, be it in Afghanistan or in other parts of the world.

He mentioned that the purpose of the military is to deter and destroy. That is certainly part of its role but the type of asymmetric threats we face today go beyond the need simply to do that. As the former minister for international development mentioned in the House a little while ago, for a country to stabilize itself, security must be defined in a much broader context. Yes, our armed forces engage in combat and they do an excellent job. Yes, they engage in peacekeeping or peacemaking, which is war by another name. They also enable places to have security. They enable food to get to the hungry. They enable medications to get to the sick. They enable people to carry on with their lives in an area of insecurity. Our forces enable that to happen.

Recently the DART provided potable water in Pakistan. A person in an earthquake zone who did not have potable water and was going to die of thirst would be very thankful for Canadian Forces soldiers who would be able to provide the potable water that would save the person's life and the lives of his or her family members. That is something our armed forces are doing right now.

Our armed forces cleared roads to enable convoys of NGOs to get into areas that previously were unreachable because of the earthquake. Our armed forces were able to lift that capability into the earthquake zone and open up those roads, which enabled lifesaving material to get to the people who needed it.

Does the member not acknowledge the fact that the government would like to put in $1.8 billion if he and his party would agree to it this year? Would he not also agree that we have acknowledged the extraordinary contributions and will do more for our armed forces by declaring this year the year of the veteran? Would he also acknowledge that in Afghanistan and other parts of the world the role of the armed forces is more than the World War II vision, but something that is more holistic and involves everything from getting aid to an area to full combat capabilities and everything in between?

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, my question with regard to Afghanistan relates to the hon. member's experience when she was minister for CIDA.

We know that the situation in Afghanistan for decades has been one of insecurity for the people who are there, and now because our forces are there with a multilateral coalition of forces, the people of Afghanistan have a chance for security.

The hon. member knows full well the inability of citizens and civilians in areas that have failed or are failing to get access to basic health care and basic services. If our military were not there with other coalition forces, would the people in Afghanistan, particularly in areas outside the major centres, have access to basic medical care and basic nutrition that is essential for them to survive, for their children to have proper nutrition so they can think and go to school, and for women to have children with normal birth weights as opposed to low birth weight infants and high infant mortality and morbidity statistics?

Is not the reason that our forces are there is to provide security on the ground so the people of Afghanistan will be able to build a structure and they will be able to take charge of their country in a secure environment and be able to provide the basic needs that any stable country requires?

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Madam Chair, the question is quite simple actually and it is in the interest of the public. A lot of people want to know what new investments have taken place in the military and our armed forces. They would also like to know in what context Canada is functioning with respect to other countries in the region of Kandahar.

Would the Minister of National Defence inform the public of the new investments the Canadian government has made in our armed forces that are very germane to this important mission in Kandahar and the context in which Canada is working with its allies?

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Madam Chair, there have been some questions at least from the public that need to be clarified in terms of the investment that the Government of Canada has made in our armed forces.