Theoria

In the style of Le Colonel Chabert: Michael Ignatieff finally rises from his backbench seat to provide his rationale on voting against his own party to support the Conservative minority government’s motion to extend the Canadian “mission” in Afghanistan by two years. Full debate in the Hansard. The vote ended with Prime Minister Stephen Harper crossing the floor to personally thank Ignatieff for supporting his government.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for Nipissing–Timiskaming for sharing his time with me.I rise for the first time in the House of Commons to lend my support to Canadian soldiers, service personnel, diplomats, police, and aid workers who are risking their lives for the sake of Canadian and Afghan security in Afghanistan.

I wish to pay tribute to the Canadian families who have lost their sons there. I spoke last month to Jim and Sharon Davis of Nova Scotia, who lost their son Paul. I am sure members of the House join me in saluting the courage of this tremendously brave Canadian family.

Promoting human security for the people of Afghanistan is a goal worthy of the best Canadian effort. Training Afghan police, demobilizing ex-combatants, building health clinics and schools, all these have unquestioned support from Canadians on both sides of the House.

But some Canadians ask, and I heard this from the hon. members of the NDP, why development assistance requires troops and why these troops should have a mandate to return fire. This new paradigm appears to move Canada away from its traditional peacekeeping role. I support this change of paradigm.

I have been to Afghanistan myself. I have been to Afghanistan twice, once under Taliban rule and once since then. What I learned there is that we cannot do development in Afghanistan unless we control the security situation. The schools and clinics we build by day are burned down by night unless we have the troops to secure the development gains we have made.

Canadians, I think, also appreciate that states like Canada cannot be safe if we let Afghanistan fail, if we let it become a failed state, become a base for terror attacks. We all know that Canadians died on 9/11 and those attacks were planned in Afghanistan.

Canadians support our troops. There will be no firmer support for our troops than on this side of the House, but I think we all have two pressing concerns. The first is the possibility of torture and abuse of detainees handed over by Canadian Forces to our allies. As a former teacher of international human rights myself, I add my voice to those others, and some of those are in the gallery tonight with us.

I am speaking of international experts who voice their concerns, wanting the government, and I direct this toward the government side, to insist that the Canadian military do everything in its power to guarantee that detainees taken by Canadians and transferred to third parties receive the full protection of the Geneva conventions and receive visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. I have been in places of Afghan detention myself and have seen the work that the International Committee of the Red Cross does, and I believe it is the best guarantee of their safety and freedom from abuse. All Canadians would agree that our mission there, which we all value, should not be sullied by human rights abuses committed by third parties.

The second concern of Canadians relates to the overall strategic goal of this mission. Our allies, the Americans, the Pakistanis and the Afghans, are engaged in an open-ended, counter-insurgency war in hostile terrain against al-Qaeda and Taliban elements. Currently, our operations are part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. When this mission becomes a NATO responsibility later this year, will these strategic objectives change? If so, what position will the Government of Canada recommend to its NATO partners?

Canadians support reconstruction. We support the stabilization of a failed state. But we do question how far we should go in an unlimited counter-insurgency war led by our friends and allies. We are a country with a great military tradition, of which I am intensely proud, but Canadians want to know what is the goal of our counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan, how long it will last and, most important, how we can keep this operation serving Canadian objectives, because we are nobody else’s auxiliaries.

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot of use of the word “peacekeeping” tonight. Peacekeeping is a wonderful Canadian tradition that I suggest has gone the way of traditions; perhaps some day it will come back.I would suggest that we have not done peacekeeping in the Pearsonian model for a very long time. I would ask my colleague whether he agrees or not that classic Pearsonian peacekeeping, as we hear about from down the floor, has a place in combat against terrorism.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Chair, I think as I tried to make clear in my statement, I am deeply committed to the idea of a combat capable military combining the protection of human populations with development assistance. As the hon. member points out, this is a substantially different mission than the traditional peacekeeping that we saw in the 1950s and 1960s, where one interposed oneself between combatants who were ready to make peace.

We are in a world, and Afghanistan is the perfect demonstration of it, where there is no peace to keep, where, if we want to pursue development goals, as the hon. member well knows, we have to provide cordoned security for human populations and cordoned security for our own development personnel.

The paradigm has shifted, as I said in my remarks, and I support that shift of paradigm.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Chair, I would like to come back to the issue of transfer of prisoners. My colleague seemed to be saying that he felt it was very important that prisoners be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention, for example.

The current minister said that he did not want to review the agreement signed by the former government because he felt it was satisfactory. However, I am concerned about how prisoners are monitored and treated. The Red Cross has been given responsibility for monitoring, and I trust the Red Cross. There are other models, though. For example, the Dutch decided that their own military officers and diplomats could visit prisoners at any time to make sure they were being well treated.

Would my colleague agree to see whether the agreement could be revised? I do not think that the Afghan government could object. We could at least suggest it. By monitoring prisoners ourselves, we could be sure that they are being well treated.

The second issue is just as important. In my opinion, nothing in the current agreement prevents prisoners we turn over to the Afghans from being taken anywhere—to Guantanamo, for example—at the request of the Americans. Does my colleague think that this agreement might be improved to make sure that prisoners’ rights are respected?

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is not up to me, but the government, to reopen the agreement signed on December 18.

Like my colleague, I would fully support having the Canadian government take responsibility for visiting Afghan jails and prisons to make sure that detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers are being well treated. This is the responsibility of the ICRC, but I think that as Canadians, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that, if we transfer a detainee to an Afghan prison, our allies will respect that person’s rights.

Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Chair, when we talk about goals and objectives, we have been asking, “Is it right to think about the goals and objectives of this mission?”

I would like to get the member’s opinion. Should we be more precise when we ask this? Instead of just asking what the goals and objectives are, should we be asking, for example, are the warlords there implicated in the opium trade and are they part of the government? Have there been more terrorists who have arisen since our involvement? Do the Americans have any secret prisons where they are torturing prisoners and having arbitrary detention? Should we not only be asking about but investigating some of these allegations that are coming out? Is it our responsibility?

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Chair, I take the sense of the question to be what ought our objectives as a Canadian government to be in Afghanistan, particularly as we transition from Operation Enduring Freedom to a NATO led operation.

My sense here is that we cannot be all things to all people in Afghanistan. As I listen to my hon. colleagues on this side and on that side of the House, there is a Canadian consensus around human security and development in the Kandahar area. That may take all of those 2,000 troops.

Where there is doubt and question is an unlimited pursuit of the Taliban and al-Qaeda into the mountains. My sense is that is an unlimited goal, where realizable objectives are very unclear, and that we should concentrate the activities of the Canadian Forces around the development and PRT activities in the Kandahar region.