Steven Blaney

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, development and diplomacy are required to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Even a former colleague of the member for Joliette, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, clearly indicated that security is needed for children to be able to go to school and in order to build drinking water treatment systems. We know that the 3 Ds are required in Afghanistan. We also know that the Bloc Québécois has adopted a 3 I approach: inconsistency, irresponsibility and improvisation.

I would like our colleague from Joliette to explain the comments of some of his colleagues who, with their fancy footwork and backtracking, are being political opportunists. Why is the Bloc Québécois dabbling in political opportunism? In June 2004, their leader stated, “Let us be perfectly clear...we must work tirelessly to track down and bring to justice those responsible for these barbaric acts.”Why does this no longer apply in 2008?

In 2006, the member for Saint-Jean stated, “All this suggests to us that they are on the path to success and more needs to be done to get there. We probably have to stay in that country for quite some time.”

I could give you many more quotes along those lines. Even in this House, in 2007, a member said that a sovereign Quebec would participate in international intervention in Afghanistan. Where is the Bloc going with the mission in Afghanistan, if—

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. He often has an informed opinion about how things happen.

However, I would like to remind him that in 2001, when the previous government began the mission, Parliament was not consulted and there was no debate, contrary to the Conservative approach, which holds that it is important that Parliament support soldiers on mission abroad. That is why we are engaging in our third debate in less than two years, a debate that we hope will be as informed and open as possible. In the same way, we wanted the Manley report to be debated in the Standing Committee on National Defence. Unfortunately, the opposition refused to invite the people concerned to the committee.

My colleague mentioned an important aspect of governance: making sure our Afghan partner eliminates government corruption. He also mentioned the challenges of regional stability and porous borders.

But he is well aware that our Prime Minister is going to Bucharest with two very clear demands, which he has already begun to state: there must be additional troops in Kandahar and additional equipment, especially helicopters, so that our soldiers can move safely through areas where there is violence.

Given that the demands will be clear in Bucharest, why has my colleague opposite finally come around to these dates? What led his party to agree with our position that it is not necessarily up to parliamentarians to decide how things are developing in the field, but that we have to proceed according to what is happening in the field?

I would like to know how the Liberals came around to the government's position on continuing the mission in Afghanistan.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member. I would say to her that a lot of progress has been made in Afghanistan, especially with regard to women and children. In Afghanistan six million students, including many girls, are now attending school. Not many girls were attending school when the mission started.

Another important point is the giving of financial tools to women so that they can build their own economy with micro-financing. More than 400,000 women in Afghanistan at this point are taking advantage of this program. Their repayment rate is 90%. This is no surprise because we know how well women take care of money.

We asked for a debate in the defence committee. We wanted an open debate on the Manley report because we think this mission is important. It involves not only our reserves, but our Canadian men and women in uniform. They are taking tremendous risks. We think it is very important to have an open and frank debate on the mission and its future.

Development and diplomacy are very important in that mission but they can only occur if there is security. I think our role as members of Parliament is to provide security to the Afghan people. In that way we can build for their future.

Should we put greater emphasis on diplomacy, reconstruction and governance? Then the military mission could increasingly shift to the training of the Afghan national security forces. In that way we would not be saying that we just want to leave, but it would be because the Afghan people would be living in a safe country.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague opposite, the member for Bourassa. I also want to point out how interesting it is that he mentioned the importance of respecting rights and freedoms in countries that Canada helps.

In his speech, the member talked about the problems facing Afghanistan. He emphasized one point, which was that winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people is central to the success of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan. The question is, how do we go about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people? I think we do it by giving them hope and assurance that the countries involved have made a serious, credible commitment and will not take off when the going gets tough.

The concept of rotation has to be clarified because Canada has established a solid foundation in Kandahar. We have laid down the law, and we have made the region peaceful and secure. That much is clear. It is clear that we need more troops to continue our work and enlarge the safety zone around Kandahar, but it is also clear that our soldiers know the lay of the land and the region. They also know the people, and they have contacts there. Thanks to Canada's military tradition of peacekeeping missions, we have the ability to develop relationships with the people we are helping.

My question is this: should we not pursue this diplomatic offensive with renewed international leadership within the context of the Afghanistan compact? Should we not intensify our efforts—in an intervention not unlike the Marshall plan for Europe—to ensure that by 2011, Afghanistan is able to take on the responsibility for its own security, and the country's economic conditions have improved?

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's convoluted attempt at explaining the Bloc Québécois about-faces these past six years. I find it deplorable that their position changes according to which way the wind is blowing or what the polls indicate. I have all kinds of examples of contradictory statements made by Bloc members. The leader himself said on several occasions that he supported extending the mission and then he backtracked. He said things that were not true.

We have to consider all that has been accomplished in Afghanistan. For example, the gross domestic product has doubled and micro-financing is taking hold in Afghanistan. Almost 418,000 small loans have been made. All experts in international development, particularly in poor countries, acknowledge the power of micro-financing in rebuilding economies. In addition, these loans are being made to women and 90% of the loans have been repaid. We are talking about 418,000 loans. In 2004, 9% of Afghans were receiving basic health care and now 83% are entitled to such services.

Canada is supporting 4,000 schools.The member only needs to go to the Galeries de la Capitale shopping centre to see a travelling exhibit that has toured the country. He does not have to go to Afghanistan. We did not go to all those places in Afghanistan because of security, but that does not prevent the work from being carried out in the field. Six million children have gone back to school. The infant mortality rate has decreased. Five million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the arrival of UN troops.

There sits a party that wants to break up Canada and that, one day, would like to have a say in this matter as a nation. The leader of that party even said, in January 2007, that a sovereign Quebec would have participated in international intervention in Afghanistan. The member himself said, in February 2006, that he was in favour of extending the Canadian Forces' mission.

My question is simple. After all these about-faces, how can the members of the Bloc Québécois present one coherent position on the Afghanistan mission? More importantly, how can reconstruction take place in Afghanistan without security?

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the same committee with my hon. friend opposite, and I have to say that I do not share his point of view in the least.

On the contrary, the mission must be adapted to the context. It is clear that the context in which the mission in Afghanistan is taking place is completely different from the context of previous missions. As well, the Canadian approach has sometimes not produced the expected results. We have only to think of the tragedy in Rwanda, for example. God knows we do not want to go through that again.

As my colleague knows, I also have a problem with the position taken by him and his party, which strikes me as irresponsible and inconsistent in many respects and which also reeks of improvisation. In June 2006, my friend said, “I believe that if we leave, the Taliban will come back and the people will be in a bad way”. I really believe that, contrary to what my colleague says, the Canadian mission is adapted to the needs on the ground. Depending on how the situation evolves, we will be able to put more effort into development and diplomacy.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I actually sit on the defence committee with the member's colleague from Vancouver, the member for New Westminster--Coquitlam. The defence committee is studying the issue of our military returning from their mission.

Our troops returning from Afghanistan have clearly had some out of the ordinary experiences. They should be given all the help and support they need to maintain good mental health. As I just said, the committee is currently studying, for example, possible post-traumatic stress syndrome.

According to all we know so far, it is normal for soldiers to have reactions after returning from a mission. The army is there, though, and very familiar with these reactions. There is a solid health services structure in place. If the committee’s work turns up any recommendations that should be made, we will pass them along to the government. For the time being, though, everything seems to indicate that our soldiers are getting the help they need.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I wish to share my time with the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton Centre.

Last night, I was at the Quebec City airport to welcome some one hundred soldiers returning to Valcartier from a dangerous and demanding mission in Afghanistan. Accompanied by General Barabé, commander of Land Forces Quebec Area, I personally greeted each soldier as they returned to Canadian soil. Their faces showed signs of fatigue, but they also reflected a sense of duty done and, above all, feverish excitement at being reunited with their families after so much time apart.

I am thinking of them now as I take part in this debate on the motion concerning the future of the mission in Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers are there at the request of the Afghan people and their president, Hamid Karzai—who has visited us here in the House of Commons—and with the support of the United Nations, working alongside many other nations, including France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and our neighbours to the south.

First, I would like to stress that Afghanistan is not a Conservative nor a Liberal mission. It is a Canadian mission.

For several months now, reservists and soldiers from Chaudière-Appalaches, Charlevoix, Quebec City, the Gaspé and elsewhere in Quebec have been deployed in Kandahar and the surrounding area to spread and protect the universal values of democracy, peace and freedom. These Quebeckers went willingly to secure a better future for the Afghan people, who have been shaken by decades of terror and violence.

Today, I would like to salute these men and women from Quebec. I want to salute the courage, tenacity and loyalty they have shown during difficult times and under dangerous and exhausting conditions.

I would also like to honour those who were left behind: the spouses, friends and family members of our soldiers and reservists who remained here in Canada with the children and who have been waiting and hoping, wondering and worrying, for their loved ones to return. It is a great relief for them to have their loved ones back, safe and sound.

I am thinking, for example, of the secretary treasurer of Sainte-Justine, in Les Etchemins, whose son is working as a nurse at the military hospital in Kandahar and helps every day to save human lives, Afghan and Canadian alike. I am anxious to see them reunited back home.

I would also like to recognize the people who have, tragically, lost a family member who has made the ultimate sacrifice, who fell in combat for his or her country, and whose courage I salute today. I would like to pay my greatest respect to those who have experienced such losses.

I will soon have an opportunity to acknowledge all the sacrifices made in my riding and to be with our troops and reservists to express my recognition and admiration for them, on behalf of myself and the entire population of Lévis, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins.

For now we must act as responsible parliamentarians, and engage in an informed debate about the future of this mission, because it is essential that our women and men in uniform, whom we send on missions abroad, be given the support of the Parliament of Canada. It is also crucial that we, as parliamentarians, provide our troops with our unwavering support, based on our values, the values of both Canada and Quebec.

For the first time in the history of our young country, we can hold, and we are holding, a second debate in the House about the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan—freely, democratically, and with the opportunity to exchange our various views.

In fact, this is a commitment that our troops in the Canadian Forces are carrying out enthusiastically. They have demonstrated, and they demonstrate every day, that they have the skills, the experience and the desire that they need to pursue their mission until it succeeds, and the Afghans take charge of their own destiny. And it is the role of our government to ensure that they have the equipment and support they need to do their job.

They have the support not only of parliamentarians, but also of many Canadians.

Our country is currently engaged in a debate over Canada's future role in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister, in an effort to help communicate and inform this debate, asked a panel of eminent Canadians to advise Parliament on options for the Afghanistan mission, once its mandate ends in one year. We welcome the recommendations made by Mr. Manley and his esteemed panel.

Unfortunately, while our government was seeking for an open debate at the defence and foreign affairs committee, the opposition refused to hold a debate and rejected that motion. It is something I can hardly understand while there is so much at stake.

Our government believes this mission should be extended. However, we also believe in the parliamentary process and the voices of the people of Canada. The people of Canada are saying that Canada is doing its fair share in Afghanistan.

Recently we gave notice of a motion to extend Canada's commitment to the United Nations mandated mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. The two predicated conditions are: one, that Canada can secure an ally that will provide a battle group of 1,000 troops to join us in the south; and two, that we secure unmanned aerial vehicles and medium-lift helicopters.

It is my hope that Canadians across the country will engage in this debate. It is not a debate for Parliament alone.

All Canadians who follow the debate about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan know the demanding work our troops are doing there. I have witnessed it myself, along with members of all parties on the Standing Committee on National Defence, which travelled to Afghanistan for a week and lived with the troops, slept in barracks, shared their meals and visited their facilities. They were able to see the remarkable work being done by our troops in Afghanistan.

These Canadians support our work in Afghanistan and want to stay informed about this mission. Certainly they listen to the news and they see our troops, as we all do, providing aid to the Afghan people and engaging in reconstruction efforts. They listen to the radio and they hear about the role our troops are playing in clearing roads so that people can move about in safety, so that farmers can do their work and the economy can take its course in Afghanistan.

These Canadians know that our 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan are there with NATO on a mission under the aegis of the United Nations. We saw them off last summer. I was with my colleagues from Beauport—Limoilou and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. The Premier of Quebec was also there to bid our troops farewell. The Lieutenant-Governor was there too, as well as Mayor Boucher, the patron of the Royal 22e Régiment, who addressed the troops with much affection, calling them her nieces and nephews and opening her heart to them.

Unfortunately, the warm, and vibrant voice of Mayor Boucher has now fallen silent. Who would have thought that she would not be there for the troops’ return to Quebec City? I know that she would have been very proud of their accomplishments and that they honour her memory.

It is obvious that there can be no development without security, and that is why the mission must proceed in a balanced way and in accordance with the three aspects. Many Canadians have devoted time and resources and made sacrifices for the benefit of our operations in Afghanistan. As a country, we have made an enormous investment. The Canadian Forces are doing a great job and have shown they can succeed with flying colours in helping the people of Afghanistan along the road to emancipation.

I encourage all my colleagues to forego these sterile, partisan debates and examine with all requisite seriousness this motion to enable our Canadian troops and our country of Canada to carry on alongside the great democracies of the world and under UN auspices to complete the reconstruction job undertaken in Afghanistan in an environment of diplomacy, development and security.

[The Conservative Party, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the people of Quebec City gave a warm welcome to the Prime Minister of Canada at the Calgary Stampede's western breakfast during Quebec City's Carnaval.

Unlike the leader of the Bloc, who always arrives empty-handed, our Conservative government keeps its promises and gets results.

The Conservative government has kept its promises to provide funding for Quebec City's 400th anniversary, for the congress centre in Lévis, for the Musée national des beaux-arts, for the project office for a science and technology exploration centre, for the Patro de Lévis, for the Chauveau soccer facility, and more.

Here is a piece of advice for the Bloc leader and his followers: forget about the studies; there is no “Quebec City mystery”. The people of Quebec City want members of Parliament who will act in their best interests.

The Bloc team has been on the ice without a puck for 17 years. The people will judge the Bloc's empty words and its powerlessness. In the meantime, the Conservative members from Quebec are taking action and are standing up for Quebec's interests within a united Canada.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised while listening to the interminable speech by my honourable colleague. I heard him get lost in his foggy macroeconomic analyses and apocalyptic forecasts. Yet, I can reassure him because, on this side of the House, we have confidence in the Canadian economy and in the ability of Canadians to take up challenges.

I have a simple question for my colleague. He ended his speech by stating that he was prepared to stand up for his fellow citizens. I would like him to explain why he remained seated when we announced measures totalling $80 billion for families, seniors, and manufacturers? Why did he remain seated when it was time to act and to help our companies? And why is he rising now that it is time to talk?