Shawn Murphy

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I do not necessarily call it a military solution, but there has to be security and that is provided by the military. There has to be security while NATO continues to develop in Afghanistan. That is obvious from what is going on.

On the NATO issue, from everything I have read on this issue and everything I have heard in the House and in other fora, there has to be leadership in that organization. That leadership cannot come from 37 different countries. I do not see it right now. John Manley and the other distinguished people on his panel did not see it either. They were quite critical of the leadership coming from that organization.

This is a NATO initiative. If we do not have leadership coming from that organization with respect to this initiative, the initiative is going to fail.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this very important issue. When I look at the documents that support this motion and some of the debates that we have heard today, what I think the Canadian public looks for is clarity. Not only the Canadian public are looking for clarity on Afghanistan, but also our troops in Afghanistan and our international allies are looking for it as well.

Sometimes this is boiled down into simplistic statements, which I do not think are that constructive. We are now in Kandahar province in a very specific role. It will change somewhat in 2009, and end totally in 2011. I hope Canada's role in Afghanistan will not end in 2011. In the whole area of diplomacy, development and foreign aid, et cetera, there will be an ongoing role for Canada.

The issue we are dealing with will not end in 2011, 2013, 2015 or 2017. It will go on. We are dealing with a failed country. It did not fail last year or the year before. It failed generations ago. I think our country and perhaps more important our allies deserve some of the fault. Afghanistan was of interest to our allies when the Russians were there during the Cold War. That interest disappeared from the radar screen after the Russians withdrew their troops, I believe in 1989.

Between 1989 and 2001, very little effort was put into Afghanistan. We have seen what happened. The terrible conditions that existed there were well debated and well expressed in the House before Canada entered.

I want to make the important point that as far as I am concerned this will be a litmus test as to the future of the NATO organization. This is not a Canadian mission. This is not a United States mission. This is not a Great Britain mission. It is a NATO mission. There are 37 countries in NATO. Right now 2,500 Canadian troops and approximately between 37,000 and 40,000 troops are in Afghanistan.

We were a party to the Afghanistan compact, signed I believe in January 2006, which had benchmarks and time lines. Again, if we read the Manley report, one of the glaring statements in that report is the lack of leadership from NATO in this initiative.

Responsibility shared is responsibility shirked. That has to be a very important component of this debate and of debate in the NATO meetings coming up as to the role of NATO in Afghanistan. Also, Canadians want to know what are the time lines, the benchmarks and the game plan.

Again, the motion calls for a continuation after 2009 to 2011. It would refocus on training the Afghan National Security Forces for reconstruction and development and the continuing Canadian responsibility for the Kandahar provincial reconstruction initiative.

It has been said by many speakers before me that in the long run there is no military solution to Afghanistan. The solution has to come from the Afghan people, but it is the developed world that has to provide the assistance to provide the basics such as the infrastructure, the government and the economy for the country to develop as it should develop.

We have heard about the economy of Afghanistan. I understand from everything I have read that Afghanistan provides 90% of the world's heroin and that crop increased 34% last year, which in and of itself is very disturbing.

I fully support the notion that our engagement in the Kandahar end in 2011 to allow for a natural rotation of another country, not more Canadian troops. Again, that comes back to NATO. If NATO thinks we will be there forever, there will be absolutely nothing done. There will be no leadership shown by that organization.

Another issue that was raised strikingly in the Manley report was the whole issue of communications on this initiative or the lack thereof to the Canadian people. I hope, going forward, that some of the recommendations in the motion, which are supported by the Manley report, are adopted. I would like to see a parliamentary committee. I would like to see a lot more leadership conveyed to the Canadian people with clarity as to exactly what goes on in that country, what the benchmarks are and how we plan to accomplish what we set out to accomplish.

I hope the debate will lead to a lot more clarity on our role in Afghanistan. More important, and I know I am repetitive, the international debate vis-à-vis the role of NATO, the future of NATO and the leadership of NATO on this issue, has to be very distinctly set out, not only to Canadians but to all members of NATO.

As one of the previous speakers pointed out, there have been some other political developments going on in Pakistan that may assist in this whole initiative. However, a new coalition government was announced over the weekend. We do not know yet, and this is speculation on my part and anyone else's part, but that may assist in the resolution of this issue in the long run. Again, it is too early to tell.

The other issue is the outcome of the United States election, which may have a profound effect on the United States engagement in Afghanistan, depending on who wins the election. As the House knows, again, this is speculation at this point in time.

I hope we end this debate with our role being clarified, the language of our engagement being clarified and that the language being concise.

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the ninth report on Chapter 5, Passports Services — Passport Canada of February 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; the 10th report on Chapter 7, Management of Forensic Laboratory Services — Royal Canadian Mounted Police of the May 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the 11th report on the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

[Beef and Pork Industries, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to highlight the crisis that is occurring in our rural areas. Many farmers, especially the beef and pork producers who have put food on our tables and have supported their families and the local economies, are now facing enormous challenges, increased expenses, a rising dollar and, in many sectors, falling prices.

The families who have developed these industries are proud and do not want handouts but the government cannot continue to ignore the challenges being faced by these sectors.

The loan program offered by the Conservative government last week is not sufficient. One cannot borrow one's way out of debt. The beef and pork producers need an immediate injection to save the farms operated by the families who have devoted their lives to feeding Canadians. This country was built on the backs of the family farm.

I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will be in my province of Prince Edward Island tomorrow or later this week. I urge him, in fact I plead with him, to announce a program that will immediately assist our beef and hog producers.

[Points of Order, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker and members of this assembly, on Thursday afternoon last week during time allotted for members' statements, I made a number of comments that were wrong, improper, inappropriate and extremely unparliamentary.

I want to stand in the House today, apologize for my behaviour and retract those remarks.

First, I want to apologize to the House for these remarks, as they were, as I said, improper, wrong and extremely unparliamentary. Since being elected as the member for Charlottetown about seven years ago, I have attempted to conduct myself with dignity and honour, in other words, in a manner that acknowledges and respects the importance and significance of this institution. That certainly was not the case last Thursday afternoon. I deeply regret my actions.

Second, I want to sincerely apologize to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and his family. Although the remarks were rhetorical and meant solely as hyperbole, they were highly improper and ought not to have been made. I sincerely apologize to him and his family, and I do hope he accepts my apology.

Third, I want to apologize to my colleague and friend, the member of Parliament for Abbotsford. He had the floor at the time my remarks were made and they should not have been made. I should not have been saying anything at that particular time, let alone what I did say.

Also, I want to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker. You have a difficult job in this highly partisan environment. You do a good job. I did not make your job any easier. I want to apologize for my behaviour.

I also want to apologize to my family, immediate and extended, for any embarrassments caused to them. They have come to expect better of me. On this occasion, I feel that I have let them down.

I could go on and give some reasons or excuses or try to explain to the House what was going on in my mind at that particular moment. I will not, because I feel I would only detract from my apology and retraction. I want my statement to be full, frank, unqualified and without any qualifications whatsoever. In other words, I accept total responsibility for my inappropriate words.

In closing, I repeat that I do apologize for my inappropriate remarks and I do hope that all members of this assembly will accept my apology and retraction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allotting me the time to address this House.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly by challenging the premise of the question, that the debate and NATO is beyond the scope of the House. I would disagree with that. If the debate does not take place in this House, where will it take place? Will it be down the street or somewhere else?

It has to take place here. This is the House of Commons. This is where the debate has to take place. NATO, through the Government of Canada to the Canadian people, owes the Canadian people an explanation as to the strategy. How it is getting along with the strategy? How it is intending to accomplish the strategy and the end game? So far I have not seen that.

I agree with the paragraph from the Manley report that we have seen a total lack of leadership from NATO on this initiative.

I really think the debate should be had in this House. I would urge other members to talk about NATO. I would urge the government of the day to be very aggressive, not start in April but start today, February 26, on the whole issue of—

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am not the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I am the member for Charlottetown.

I make the point that the level of debate should be raised. Those who want to limit the mission should not be accused of being Taliban supporters. Those who want to continue the mission should not be accused of being warmongers.

This debate has to occur. I support the debate. I support the ability of the member's party to have the position. I do not agree with it. I debated it for 10 minutes. My position is we are part of the alliance. We have committed ourselves to be there at least until February 2009. To go forward now in Parliament and suggest that we should leave in February 2008, in my opinion, is wrong. That would be doing the very thing that I am suggesting some other countries are doing. We would be showing a total lack of commitment to the alliance and our world reputation would suffer greatly.

Again, we are part of the alliance. We have to work within the alliance. I am a strong supporter of NATO, but I am troubled by the lack of leadership on this initiative.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in this debate. I certainly supported the Liberal amendment that was tabled in the House. We are never sure of anything in the House but there seems to be a certain amount of general support. I am hopeful that the issue can be resolved around the wording of that particular motion and that we can go forward.

It is my submission that perhaps we should change the channel and continue the debate in a very frank, honest and transparent nature and talk about the future of NATO and the leadership that is presently exhibited at NATO.

We are in Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO. It is a coalition of 37 countries. It is a treaty alliance and it was an article 5 engagement. There is always this debate as to when the job will be done but when I listen to the debate and read the materials, it appears to me that this, on the part of NATO, is a long term commitment. We are dealing with a failed state with a failed generation. This has been going on for many years and we need to build the country from the ground up, which would include governance, infrastructure, economy, et cetera.

It is not a 2009, 2007-09 or 2011 issue. I submit that it is a much longer timeframe than that. When we look at NATO's involvement, NATO's main political objective was to work in cooperation with the United Nations and the European Union to support the Afghan transition authority to meet its responsibilities to provide security and order. I will not go into that strategy with the limited time available to me, but I will say that it had nine components which, I submit, were well thought out. If the strategy were successful everything would be fine.

I am troubled by what has taken place with NATO. This was clearly identified on page 38 of the Manley report, which states:

UN agency operations in Afghanistan have suffered from a lack of leadership, direction and effective coordination from UN headquarters in New York. The appointment of a high-level representative to lead and coordinate both the UN and NATO commitments in Afghanistan can help achieve more productive UN-NATO collaboration.

The whole chapter talks about the NATO situation.

Canada can act with other governments participating in Afghanistan to see that the special representative’s mandate is fully and effectively exercised.

I would like to see a complete strategy from NATO. A very important high level meeting in Bucharest is coming up in April and I think that will be the time that NATO owes it to all member countries to be frank, honest and constructive as to exactly what the plan is, how the strategy is going, at what point it is in the deployment of the strategy and whether there is an exit strategy. I would suggest that the exit strategy would be a few years down the road.

I believe that should be very much part of the debate as to what exactly is going on with NATO. As we are aware, of the 37 countries, only 4 countries are in a combat role in Afghanistan: Canada, the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands, although there is all this talk about other countries, such as France, getting involved. Other countries are in the northern provinces of Afghanistan, such as Germany and a whole host of other countries, but, as the slang phrase would go, they are certainly out of harm's way.

When we read what goes on, up until today anyway, there appears to be an unwillingness by any of these countries to get more involved in the whole strategy approved by the 37 countries. That begs the question. Exactly how does NATO think it is will complete and accomplish the strategy that it so ably set out to do when it only has the support of a few of its member countries?

Canada went in and has done a good job, and I certainly support the motion. We have to be respectful of our commitment, but this talk of, “stay until the job is done”, is foolish. A NATO alliance commitment is there. We have to play our part and put our shoulder to the wheel as to the responsibilities of NATO, but there has to be an obligation, a responsibility and a commitment from other countries that are part of the alliance. I am not sure I see that.

I look forward to the communication coming from the government. Again, that was another point the Manley panel identified. A clear message in the report was that the communications from the government was not frank and not a true communication.

When I read the reports published by the Department of Foreign Affairs, it looks to me that they were been written by Aldous Huxley. Everything was great. Little girls were going to school. There was nothing to worry about and no one should be in any way concerned as to what was going in that country. This was clearly identified as wanting by the authors of the Manley report.

Canadians want answers. The answers have to be frank, clear, serious, honest and transparent as to the long term future of this mission. That is why I speak in support of the general direction of the motion, that in 2009 the nature of the engagement changes, that it be clearly terminated in the Kandahar province in 2011 and that it be clearly communicated to NATO. Why would it go and look for anyone else to be involved in the province if there were no clear message from Canada that it wants to be part of a natural rotation? As I said in my earlier remarks, I see this going on for several years. I do not see it ending in 2009 or in 2011 either.

I hope the level of the debate will be elevated. I hope the point I have made, in my limited time in the House this afternoon, regarding NATO is part of the debate as we go forward. I hope the leaders of the government when they go to the meeting, and we all know what happens before the meeting is what is important, that those positions, policies and aspirations are clearly communicated, and not in April when the people gather in Bucharest. . However, they have to be communicated right now. People need to know that Canada wants to see more leadership and direction coming from the alliance, which heretofore we have not seen.

I look for direction on this issue. Hopefully with leadership from the alliance, people in Afghanistan can benefit and in the future the country can become a prosperous one like many other countries in the world.

[Committees of the House, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in the House today, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: fourth report, chapter 1, Expenditure Management System at the Government Centre, and chapter 2, Expenditure Management System in Departments of the November 2006 report of the Auditor General of Canada; the fifth report, chapter 11, Protection of Public Assets — Office of the Correctional Investigator of the November 2006 report of the Auditor General of Canada; the sixth report on the departmental answers to questions about government responses; the seventh report, chapter 3, Large Information Technology Projects of the November 2006 report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the eighth report of the committee on departmental performance report.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that I would agree with the premise of that. I do not think the public would want to be funding all aspects of leadership campaigns. I believe there should be perhaps further limits on spending.

I would disagree with that question. I think there is a rationale for spending limits and financing and loans in accordance with legislation that is transparent.