Laurie Hawn

[Vimy Ridge, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, 91 years ago today more than 27,000 Canadians went over the top and did what armies from other nations had failed to do, and that was to take Vimy Ridge from a determined enemy.

Thirty-six hundred Canadians paid the ultimate price in the four day battle and four Victoria Crosses for valour in the face of the enemy were awarded, two of them posthumously. On that day, it is said, Canada as a nation was born. It was born through the courage and sacrifice of our men in uniform.

In 91 years, many things have changed. What has not changed is the quality of the Canadian soldier, man and woman.

Today, another nation is being reborn, and that is the nation of Afghanistan. It is being reborn through the courage and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Let us all celebrate this significant date in Canada's proud history as a nation.

Whether on the muddy slopes of Vimy Ridge or in the searing dust of Kandahar, we and the world owe them so much. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

[Points of Order, April 8th, 2008]

I am not sure if this is a question of privilege or a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it relates to debate on the Liberal motion earlier. I rose to challenge the hon. member for Scarborough Centre on what I felt were some misrepresentations he made. In the course of my remarks, I said, “Our ministers have visited committees dozens of times”. His response to me was: “I say this publicly now: I will resign if he is correct, and let him resign if he is not correct on that statement...”.

For the record, ministers have visited committees related to Afghanistan roughly 29 times. I am not a math major, but I think that is dozens. However, I have great personal respect for the member for Scarborough Centre, so I will assume he misheard what I said and will not even ask for an apology. I have great respect for the great work that he does on the defence committee, so neither will I ask for his resignation, notwithstanding his kind and sincere offer to do so.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have much time so I will tell one short anecdote. I was there at Christmas 2006. On Christmas Eve, looking out from a place called Masum Ghar across the countryside, I was smoking a cigar and having a coffee with the chief of the defence staff. It was a dark night. Bombs were going off in the distance. It was not a very pretty picture.

I was at exactly the same spot this past Christmas with the Minister of National Defence, having a cigar and a cup of coffee, looking out over exactly the same landscape. It looked like a scene from the Canadian Prairies with villages in the distance with the lights on. The villagers were there and the lights were on. They were there the year before, but the lights just were not on. The lights are on and people are home because Canadians are there. The Afghans know that. I think more Canadians should understand that too.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a good one and a logical one. Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF mission are two separate missions. Obviously they have the same general aim in the country of Afghanistan. The command and control structure is separate. The forces under ISAF and specifically the Canadian Forces and allied forces in Kandahar are under NATO command. It is not a matter of U.S. command or Canadian command, it is a matter of NATO command.

At this point in RC south where those soldiers will be operating alongside Canadians, the commander happens to be a Canadian. In the next rotation it could easily be an American, Dutch, British or perhaps someone else. The command and control is separate for the two missions. The control of the forces that will be operating side by side the Canadians as requested by the Manley panel and accomplished in NATO recently will be under NATO command.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The focus of the mission of the Canadian Forces is to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police to the point where they can look after their own affairs. We are responsible for parts of that in the province of Kandahar. Other countries like Germany and the U.S. are responsible for other aspects.

The Afghan National Army is progressing very well. We have six kandaks that have been organized and are operating various levels of efficiency. A kandak, by Canadian terms, is a small sized battalion. There are three infantry battalions, two support battalions and a headquarters battalion. They are operating side by side with Canadians. They are more and more leading the missions that Canadians are helping them to plan, but the Afghans are doing a lot more of the planning and execution with our support.

The Afghan National Police is a little slower to come along. There are more challenges in that area, but we are making progress. The army is well on its way to achieving its goal of about 80,000, I believe the number is. There is no specific date to that. We are working toward that as quickly as we can. The Afghan National Police, as I said, is more of a challenge, but that is where the Correctional Service Canada people, the RCMP trainers and military police trainers come in.

We are expending a lot of effort in that area. With the additional 1,000 troops that will be coming, we are going to be able to put more emphasis in that area to accomplish the aims of the Manley panel and, in fact, the Government of Canada.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the House. I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot.

Afghanistan tops the government's foreign policy agenda, that is clear. Canada's whole mission is part of a UN sanctioned, NATO-led coalition that is helping Afghans rebuild security, governance and prosperity.

This is a complex, multi-faceted mission. It is certainly the most dangerous operation Canada has undertaken in a generation and arguably the most difficult. However, Canada has risen to the challenge and we are playing a leadership role.

In addition to diplomats, police, corrections officers and aid workers, among others, Canada currently has some 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel deployed in support of the mission. We have assumed responsibility for the security in Kandahar province, but know that success can only be achieved with progress in areas such as governance, development and reconstruction.

With a mission this challenging, the work of parliamentary committees is particularly valuable. Committees can provide thoughtful and constructive recommendations to the government. They also play an important role in informing Canadians about the Afghan mission.

The government appreciates the work of parliamentary committees that have examined Canada's mission in Afghanistan. In particular, the Standing Committee on National Defence, on which I sit, the Senate Standing Committee on Security and Defence and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

The value that the government places on the work of the committees is evident in the support that we give them. We have had government ministers and senior officials appear before committees to answer questions. We have organized committee business to Afghanistan so members can see first-hand the outstanding work that Canadians are doing there.

I would like to pay tribute to the fine work that parliamentary committees have done in relation to Afghanistan.

The Standing Committee on National Defence has studied the Canadian mission in Afghanistan closely. The most recent committee report was tabled in June 2007.

In the period before the report was released, a number of government ministers appeared before the committee to discuss the challenges in Afghanistan. The ministers who appeared before the committee include: the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of International Cooperation. The committee also heard from a number of other Canadian officials including the Deputy Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff.

Two Canadians who hold important positions within international organizations also appeared before the committee: General Henault, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and Christopher Alexander, the Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Afghanistan.

To support the work of the committee, National Defence also provides regular briefings on Afghanistan. Since March 2007, the committee has received no less than six official operational briefings from DND. Eight members of the committee visited Afghanistan in early 2007 and met with members of the Canadian mission who have been working non stop to bring stability and hope to the Afghan people.

The committee has spoken with representatives of the Canadian Forces, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the RCMP. They have been briefed about the Canada's whole of government approach, which ties together development, reconstruction, governance and safety initiatives to help Afghans build a better future.

Without a doubt, the committee's work has contributed to the informed debates that have recently taken place in this House.

The Standing Committee on National Security and Defence has also done wide-ranging and thoughtful work in relation to Afghanistan. The Senate committee's most recent report on Afghanistan was published in February 2007. The committee has subsequently heard testimony on Afghanistan from a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations, including National Defence, the RAND Corporation and others.

A week ago, six members of the Senate company visited Afghanistan as part of their ongoing examination of Canada's role in this mission by the international community. While in Kandahar, committee members were able to see the development initiatives. They also visited the provincial reconstruction team, went to a Canadian forward operating base and toured the provincial operations centre.

The committee members also had the opportunity to meet with Canadian officials working in Afghanistan, including representatives from Foreign Affairs, National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and Correctional Service Canada. Committee members also spoke with local Afghans and members of the international community.

The Senate committee's efforts to explain the challenges that Canada faces in Afghanistan have no doubt contributed to public understanding of this complex mission.

I should note that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is also working on a study of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. As with the other committees examining Afghanistan, the government will be supporting their efforts.

The hon. members of this House know that all the parliamentary committees studying the mission in Afghanistan are doing important work. They have issued a number of sensible and constructive recommendations.

Canadians are also benefiting from the work of the parliamentary committees. Their meetings and reports help explain the complex security challenges at play in Afghanistan and often underscore the dedication of the official Canadian representatives on the ground.

Less than a month ago, the House voted to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan until 2011. Included in that motion is a passage which reads:

that the House of Commons should strike a special parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and senior officials, and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan;

Parliamentary committees are important, and that is why it is vital that we get it right when we establish a new committee. We must be mindful that committees need to work effectively and serve the interests of Canadians.

For the new committee to fully serve Parliament and the Canadian people, it must operate in a non-partisan manner. There is a natural tendency for members of all parties to emphasize aspects of our mission in Afghanistan that serve their partisan purposes. This can give an inaccurate and misleading picture of what has really happened and results in a misinformed Canadian public.

Special interest groups have capitalized on the situation in an attempt to shape public opinion. The media also has an important role to play in this area. I do not expect that either interest groups or the media will change their approaches just because we have struck a special committee. That will make it more important than ever for committee members, to the extent possible, to keep open minds to all the information that they will receive.

As the Manley panel has pointed out, there are many challenges to our mission and many things that need to be done better. As the panel also points out, there has been progress in many areas and that the cause is noble and worth pursuing. The new committee needs to be able to hear and accept good news and bad news with equal scrutiny and not simply discard one or the other because it does not fit a certain party's position.

Afghanistan is the most complex mission that Canada has undertaken in a generation. The operation is following a whole of government approach, combining Canadian diplomats, police, aid workers and military personnel, among others. The mission has been examined by both the House and Senate committees with responsibility for defence issues.

These committees have made important contributions. Their recommendations have been thoughtful, while their meetings and reports have helped inform Canadians. The government recognizes the value of these committees and has supported their work.

The motion that extended Canada's mission in Afghanistan included a reference to the establishment of a new parliamentary committee on Afghanistan. We must ensure that any new committee is meaningful and doing work that benefits Canadians. With the motion and amendments as presented, I am confident the committee will get the job done.

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you mentioned that. I am pleased, in fact, to have the member mention my presence. I think people who read Hansard will see who was here and who was not here for the 30 hours of debate. I will just leave that to the folks who want to read Hansard.

The member is right. We try not to misrepresent things. When we are in committee, we try to work together, and by and large we do a pretty good job. I am disappointed that he has not carried that over into the House, because in fact he misrepresented many things. I will point out a number of them.

The Manley report said that we needed a minimum of 1,000 soldiers in the south of Afghanistan, specifically in Kandahar, to allow the Canadian Forces to focus more effort on training, reconstruction and development. That is what Manley asked for. That is what is in fact happening.

He talked about ministerial visits to committees. Our ministers have visited committees dozens of times. There is no occasion when this current minister has been asked to come that he has not come. It is simply misleading to suggest that he is somehow holding out. There have been I think 17 technical briefings on the mission in Afghanistan, all but one by this government.

The member talked about parliamentary travel. The defence committee travelled to Afghanistan in January 2007. We have had travel approved. There is no issue of delay in travel at all. It is happening according to the process that normally takes place in this House. To represent otherwise is simply misleading.

He talked about debate. We are the only government that has debated the mission in Afghanistan in this House--twice. It is very misleading to suggest that we have not had fulsome debate in this House. I was disappointed to see the member misrepresent that.

He talked about contracts, saying that we should have contracts to Canadian companies. Canadian companies can bid on any contracts they want. Nothing is stopping them.

We do not go into a mission like Afghanistan to benefit Canadian companies or to benefit anybody financially. We go into a mission like Afghanistan to do the right thing.

Responsibility to protect cannot be just words. It has to be actions. We are taking those actions. We are doing it for the right reason. We would all work better if we did not misrepresent, on either side, what is going on. I would ask the member to stop that.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, one of the people whom I have really enjoyed listening to in the House is the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs. He always speaks logically and very knowledgeably.

He brought up Robert Nault and he alluded to the Kelowna accord. What is his assessment of the government's courage in doing the right thing with reference to Robert Nault's suggested bill, which I thought was a pretty good bill, but it was not followed through, and with what I would call the mirage of the Kelowna accord?

[Afghanistan, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, clearly and firmly, the answer is no.

[Afghanistan, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear in this House. Our military mission ends in 2011.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that we went through a great deal of effort to get that resolution through the House. Anything else beyond that is strictly hypothetical and we are just not going to engage in that. It is purely hypothetical.

I want to point out that this UN-mandated, NATO-led mission is making progress in rebuilding Afghanistan. It is essential we continue this work to ensure the Afghans and their country are stable in a functioning democracy and not a haven for terrorists in the future.