Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some facts and set the record straight about the Liberal position on Afghanistan and our support for the Canadian Forces there.
For many years, humanitarian aid and development assistance were the main goals of the efforts by Canada and our government in Afghanistan following the civil war.
The Liberal Party took a 3-D approach to international operations: diplomacy, defence and development. This is an integrated, global approach to achieving our goals, whether in security and stabilization, humanitarian aid, institution building or economic development.
That is why the Liberal government joined an international coalition and, in 2002, sent some 800 soldiers to the Kandahar region to help flush out the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda members. In August 2005, the Canadian Forces returned to Kandahar and set up a provincial reconstruction team or PRT made up of 250 Canadian Forces members and representatives of CIDA, the RCMP and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The PRT's role is to strengthen the Afghan government's authority in Kandahar and the surrounding area and to help stabilize and rebuild the region. It has also helped monitor security, explain the Afghan national government's policies and priorities to local authorities and facilitate security reforms.
All these facts show the commitment of members on this side of the House to our brave Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. However, we are also committed to helping Afghanistan rebuild democratically. This commitment still holds.
This is the heart of the matter. But the Conservative government's motion has nothing to do with the heart of the matter I just described. The motion before us is just a political strategy that does no credit to the Conservative government.
In fact, the first question we should ask is this: Why did the government decide to propose this motion today when the Canadian Forces' mandate does not have to be reviewed until February 2007?
The second question we must ask is: why does the government not give all the information on this issue to opposition members? Other hon. members before me have already talked about this. For example, I learned today through the media that NATO has asked Canada to lead the international military mission in Afghanistan starting in 2008. Why did the Prime Minister not inform the House of Commons of this? This is something members must take into account when considering the motion before us this evening.
The Prime Minister has created a government that does not share the information it has, whatever its importance, with hon. members or the Canadian public. The culture of secrecy is growing under this government.
Hon. members, and the Canadians they represent, must ask a third question: will the government respect the result of the vote this evening? We are told this vote is urgent and it must be held. In the Netherlands, for example, an indepth debate was held and all the parliamentarians had a chance to speak. Here, in the Canadian House of Commons, we are given a maximum of six hours. Again, we notice a culture of ultra control and of secrecy.
I asked the Prime Minister these questions this afternoon and I have yet to get any answers.
Let it be clear: we, the Liberals on this side of the House stand in solidarity with our soldiers and the Canadian humanitarian workers in Afghanistan. We want to offer our condolences to the family, parents, friends and colleagues of Captain Goddard. However—I am sorry to say so—her death must not make us go off the course we have chosen.
The information the Prime Minister and his party are giving us is not sufficient or satisfactory. We demand answers. Canadians do not want political strategies from their government. They expect a well thought out, wise and logical approach.
It is the only worthwhile approach.
That is what will help our troops and the people of Afghanistan.
