Peter MacKay

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Edmonton Centre, I would like to congratulate my colleague and thank her for her participation as an independent member.

I completely agree with the comments she has made in the House of Commons. She obviously has a good understanding of the situation and of Canada's reasons for participating in this international mission. It is also clear that she understands the contribution that Canada and other countries are making to this NATO and UN mission, as well as the collaboration that goes on to improve the quality of life of the Afghan people.

I would like to ask her a specific question. Does she think it is possible to have more development or to make an effort to improve human rights without security? Is that possible? My question is simple. Does she think there is a real link between the efforts of the military forces on the ground in Afghanistan, the efforts to increase development and the efforts to rebuild Afghanistan?

I think it is impossible to do all those things without security.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very much in keeping with the theme of my colleague who just posed a question. It occurs to me, in a very practical and fundamental way, that just as one would not be able to do community work in a major city in this country without the protection of the police, or respond to a rash of fires without a fire department, what the NDP seems to be proposing here is that somehow the social situation in Afghanistan will improve if we allow for the security to be withdrawn.

Along the same lines, if there are fires we ban the fire department. If there is a rash of crimes, gun activity and violence, we do away with the police. This is what is so completely irrational and contradictory about what the NDP is espousing.

Unlike all other socialist countries in the world, whose parties at least seem to have some moderation and connection to reality, in this country it appears that the NDP has lost its moorings completely in terms of reality.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments and his remarks. While I fundamentally disagree with much of what he said, and he quoted quite selectively from a number of individuals and statistics that point to what he describes as a failure in Afghanistan, he seems to be overlooking a tremendous amount of mounting evidence of positive progress that is there.

I have to ask him to at least acknowledge the six million children in school, a third of them being girls, the tumbling infant mortality rate, and the increasing GDP. There is enormous statistical evidence that points to the positive change that we have seen in the last six years.

I would point as well to his reference to the casualties as being in some way a benchmark to support his case. While tragedy in each and every instance of loss of life is undeniable, there is a reality that we are now in Kandahar province where the battle or the insurgency is fiercest. So there are some statistics that when glossed over really do not paint a proper picture.

The member quoted from a number of individuals in his remarks.

It is good to see you in the chair this evening and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are following this debate intently. I enjoyed being at a legion in your riding at one time and meeting with some veterans.

Allow me to quote the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who only last month, when posed the question of what would happen if countries were to make an about face or rescind the Security Council resolution which is what empowers nations to in fact be in Afghanistan participating in this international mission, said, “To do so, to leave, would be a misjudgment of historic proportions”.

This is coming from the UN Secretary General, and again, this is often absent from the speeches and the remarks from members of the NDP.

The person I really want to quote is an Afghan and that is Dr. Sima Samar who is the head of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. She has commented of course from I would suggest an important vantage point as the head of that important body in Afghanistan, a body that we work with quite closely, as do our international partners. Her advice was simple on the discussion of what Canadians and others should do. That was “finish the job you started”. She went on to say:

It's not just for protecting Afghanistan, or protecting Canadians. It is about the protection of humanity. This is a human responsibility. It isn't possible to escape this kind of responsibility.

I guess my questions then flowing from that quote are: How can the NDP deny the responsibility that Canadians have, having commenced this important effort, to rebuild this country, to offer humanitarian aid, all provided under the security of the Canadian Forces and the international security forces who are there working with the Afghans themselves, to build that capacity in their own country? How can the member possibly deny the reality that this cannot happen without the protection of Canadian Forces and if those Canadian Forces were to leave, as his party and his leader and he himself is suggesting, what would happen to the humanitarian effort and more importantly, what would happen to the Afghan people, the men, women and children who are protected by those military forces?

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague who, as a young man, shows tremendous insight. In his last statement he has said that we have embarked upon a mission like others that will produce a whole new generation of veterans within the country. The member opposite, who made the previous point, also touches upon the fact that it is incumbent upon the government and a grateful nation to demonstrate the type of support those men and women will require upon their return.

The member would know, and the previous government recognized this as do we, that this requires investment. Close to $100 million are specifically dedicated to the issue of support upon return. This is the stresses and strains that require specific psychological treatment. Operational stress disorder requires a very special approach. We are seeing that in places like Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax and others across the nation. It requires a whole team of counsellors, psychologists and occupational stress therapists. There are many strides and new innovative ways to help treat that type of trauma.

I am proud to say that this government and the previous government invested. We have doubled the number of individuals in our country and those in theatre who are embarking upon that very important support. The system is growing and will continue to grow with the support of this government and hopefully members opposite.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the parliamentary secretary's reference to Canada's leadership role and the heavy lifting, so to speak, that we have done, not only in Afghanistan but in other parts of the world, and his reference to our recent efforts to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon during a very volatile period of time, it does demonstrate that in the last two years we have seen a reinvigorated Canada.

We have seen the Canadian military, in particular, given not only the necessary equipment and financial resources and support, but the respect that is certainly afforded our men and women in uniform and a degree of gratitude and outward expressions of appreciation that we have not seen, certainly I have not seen in my lifetime nor, I suspect, have you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague from Edmonton, who spent a good part of his life representing the Canadian Forces, being a person of considerable ability, intelligence and intellect going into the Canadian Forces and dedicating his life to that cause, speaks from a very unique vantage point when he talks about the transformation that has occurred in the last few years in particular. This is something that showers those men and women with the glory and with the necessary outward expressions of appreciation and affection that is due to their effort, particularly given the enormity of the role they are playing in Afghanistan today.

I wonder if my colleague would note the same thing in his community, with red rallies, with sporting events and just people on the street passing soldiers and airmen and airwomen in the airports, when they see them in uniform, when they see an opportunity to express their thanks, that appears to be happening in abundance. It is long overdue and is something that our country can be proud of. We are seeing people every day in small towns and big cities embracing that important role played by Canadian men and women in uniform.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, complying with international obligations is of course always a focal point of a mission such as this.

When it comes to the issue of detainees, Taliban prisoners, we have actually increased our visits. We have ensured that in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the enhanced agreement that was signed between Canada and the government of Afghanistan, we communicate as clearly and as often as necessary, and as is humanly possible, to the Afghans their obligations under that arrangement.

These increased visits include such things as embarking upon more intense training around interrogation methods. These efforts are being made within the penal system to raise their capacity and this is happening at a much more rigorous pace.

Just like all of the other levels within the mission, we are putting a great deal of emphasis on seeing that both Afghanistan, and of course Canada, are meeting those international obligations.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I found myself agreeing with much of what my colleague had to say.

He referenced the previous speaker and the fact that he felt that it was very much in Canada's strategic interest to be there. He went on to discuss some of the very real contributions that are being made, not the least of which is in keeping with the values and principles Canada is projecting in Afghanistan.

The previous speaker, of course, spoke of pathetic. What is pathetic are some of these pedantic, professorial, preaching or pseudo-intellectual remarks and then slinking out of the chamber, but I digress.

I want to come back to the hon. member's questions that he posed to the government, questions that we have heard and I believe we have answered throughout this debate and at various times in the chamber in question period.

With respect to public notification, NATO follows very closely the goings on in all NATO member countries. I have had numerous occasions to speak to Secretary General “Jaap” De Hoop Scheffer about the debate that has transpired here. Clearly, we want to wait until this motion has been dealt with by way of a vote. At that time Canada's intentions will be very public.

With respect to the end date of December 2011 versus July 2011, this is also in keeping with the issue of notification and allowing for the troop replacement that might be necessary in such an instance. That is the difference of the six months in the July versus December determination.

With respect to the 1,000 troops, that number was arrived at in keeping with the recommendations of the Manley report. The Manley panel consultations involved speaking with military and civilian experts to determine that in Kandahar province the equivalent of a manoeuvre battalion or battle group, which is roughly 700 to 1,000 troops, would be required to stabilize the military effort. In this instance we are seeing an additional 2,000 American marines coming to Kandahar province beginning this month.

Looking at the issues of equipment and troop contributions as to when that will take affect, the original commitment and the wording in the motion references February 2009. That would be the time in which we would have to achieve those levels of additional support in both equipment and troops.

Finally, with respect to compliance, we are talking about meeting these elements to achieve what we feel will be further security around this mission to provide for greater humanitarian aid work, greater reconstruction on the ground, and greater development. All of this being the total government approach that is being taken with respect to Afghanistan.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen from the hon. member a fairly impressive degree of pomposity in his commentary. There is one thing that I find a paradox and a perverse argument that the member made here and we have heard it from other members of his party. It is their adherence to the belief that somehow the rights, the protections, the ability to provide humanitarian relief, the ability to continue to rebuild that wartorn country is somehow going to mysteriously happen without the assistance of the international security force, without the ability to provide the security, that this will somehow fall from the heavens as if twice blessed upon the people below, as if somehow this could happen mysteriously.

We hear from the NDP members repeatedly their genuine belief, and I do believe it is genuine, that they want to promote women's rights, that they do embrace the diversity that exists within Afghanistan, the religious diversity, the cultural diversity, that they do support the women who were here last week. No one doubts their sincerity in that regard.

What is absolutely irreconcilable is to suggest that those same women who will return to their country could enjoy those protections and those rights and that ability to participate in the democratic society that has been created in Afghanistan. I was reading today about a young woman from Afghanistan who is going to compete in the Beijing Olympics. I heard from the ambassador of Afghanistan today who told a horrific story about a grandmother and her grandchild who were nailed to a tree by the Taliban as a form of assassination, public extermination of human life. We heard about people being thrown down wells, children being barred from education, absolutely atrocious human rights abuses that should be before war tribunals.

How can the member seriously suggest that to go back to that type of life which is what would happen without the presence of the international security force, how can he reconcile those two positions when he stands here today and lectures us in such a haughty and pompous way? How can he suggest that could happen?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend from Avalon for his remarks and his presence tonight to take part in what is a historic event.

He has recited quite accurately some of the improvements and changes for the positive that we see happening in Afghanistan. In particular, he personalized it quite rightly by comparing it to his young daughter's own future in Canada and compared to what young women in Afghanistan face. The improvements they see in their lives are a direct result of the contributions of Canadians and the allies.

I think he was headed in the direction of discussing some of the other important improvements in the area of the economy. There are businesses now opening. Merchants are able to trade their goods both internally and externally. The infrastructure is improving so that those same merchants can bring goods to neighbouring communities and people are free to seek out new economic opportunities. The micro finance credit is another area, of course, where women in particular are the direct beneficiaries.

I wonder if the member would take the opportunity to reflect a little further on the situation where some of the economic principles are taking root and some of the opportunities that will flow from this. He mentioned the GDP, for example, of the country expanding. I wonder if he would expand a little further on how the economy and the GDP is benefiting from Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would say in advance that we appreciate the support of the member opposite and his party. Perhaps the biggest contribution the Liberal Party made to this debate was the work that was done by former deputy prime minister John Manley.

He and the panel were the source of this 1,000 troops. I presume, and I have had discussions with Mr. Manley on the subject, that the 1,000 troops is a recommendation that they received from their consultations, extensive as they were, with NATO and military personnel in theatre and with military personnel in Canada. Clearly we are always going to require more when one looks at the enormity of the challenge, more aid work, more development, more security. Therefore, many commentators will say the number perhaps should be higher.

I point out for the member opposite that we will receive the support of 3,200 marines starting this month in Afghanistan, 2,000 specifically earmarked for Kandahar province. That will be an enormous contribution albeit for a time limited period of seven months. However, I am confident the discussions we are having with NATO are going to yield more soldiers, more contributions to Kandahar province to meet the February 2009 timetable that has been set for the provision of other troops.

I am also very confident that Canada's position is well known. The NATO allies have been approached directly by myself and others repeatedly at international conferences. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just returned from discussions in Brussels. I am confident we will meet those commitments as outlined in this motion.

Again, I thank the member for his contributions to this debate.