Kandahar Report - The Senlis Council

Appendice

I. Instability and conflict: definition and rating

Political motivation can encompass diverse issues such as territorial disputes, control over state institutions, religious and ethnic violence and a scramble over economic resources. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, a significant mobilisation, on the part of the belligerents in question and a quantum of violence.

Tactics of violence may vary from classic war tactics carried out with sophisticated weapons to tactics of terror and destabilization that are theoretically outlawed by the rules of modern warfare, often carried out with rudimentary artillery, suicide bombings, and the exploitation/employment of communication media.

This kind of political violence can involve organised crime, locally nationally and trans-nationally. In absence of traditional levy, an informal criminalised economy is built into the functioning and financing of political communities involved in the fighting. This form of political violence is usually of high intensity, with massive violation of human rights and involvement and targeting of the civil population

The civil population may ally with different political communities according to belief, location, religious or ethnic identity and/or personal interest. Winning the hearts and minds of people and changing the opponent’s behaviour is often the main stake in this kind of political violence. Military might is often of limited use in attaining this strategic objective.

The following combination of five control and security indicators, covering each different factor provides a ‘reading grid’ to measure the state of violence and instability at play throughout Kandahar:

1.Formal vs. Informal Control Factors

Distinction between military and police functions
Capacity of indigenous military forces and ratio of Afghan police per inhabitant
Regular army and police force and new recruits to replace government losses
Areas/checkpoints/borders covered by police patrols
Control over major transport and energy axis
Number and engagement of international military forces is also being considered

Number and presence of militia/irregular forces across the provinces
Control over road, land and trade routes, for example through informal checkpoints
Patrolling of borders and key points
Support from external groups and powers

2.Rule of Law vs. Rule of Guns Factors

Functioning of civilian administration across the provinces
Independence of civil service
Functioning of judicial and criminal system
Prosecution of major traffickers

Level of corruption and bribery
Factional control of courts
Ability to conduct armed attacks against the Afghan population, international forces and NGO personnel
Number of insurgent attacks and related deaths
Propaganda and intimidation of local population
Support gained from indigenous population including recruitment of new supporters and ability to blend into the population
Dangerous road travel and blocks in main routes
Number of armed robberies, abductions and murders especially in government-controlled areas
Rivalry and fighting among warlords and regional commanders

3.Legal vs. Illegal Economy Factors

Farming activities supported/funded by Government and international community
Access to water
Infrastructures and access to markets
Non-farming activities

Illegal opium trade - increased levels of opium cultivation; source of revenue for warlords and drug traffickers; dependency of opium poppy farmers; heroin factories;
Illegal arms/drugs/human trafficking
Security and protection costs

4.Development Policies vs. Destructive Strategies Factors

Alternative livelihoods
Access to water
Facilitating access to markets
Access to quality education
Support and funding of non-farming activities
Integration of local structures
Functioning of public health systems

Threat of and actual eradication

5.Public Perception and Support Factors

Perception of security priorities, for example threats from insurgents and warlords, crime incidents
Perception of government presence and effectiveness of current policies
Perception of international forces present in the province
Perception of the work and effectiveness of International NGOs
Support and funding of non-farming activities
Interaction of local population with external groups

In light of those indicators and of the different factors at play through the many security incidents, Kandahar rates 8 on a scale of instability. Rating 8 characterises a state of systematic attacks and political violence, close to the state of civil war.

II. Excerpts from the Canadian Parliamentary debate on the deployment of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan

The full debate is available online at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/toc025-E.htm

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) moved:

That,

Whereas the House on April 10, 2006 debated a motion in support of Canada’s significant commitment in Afghanistan;
Whereas Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan is an important contribution, with that of more than 30 other countries, to international efforts under the auspices of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO);
Whereas these international efforts are reducing poverty, enhancing human rights and gender equality, strengthening civil society and helping to build a free, secure and self-sustaining democratic state for all Afghan men, women and children; and
Perception of the work and effectiveness of International NGOs
Whereas Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan is consistent with Canada’s support of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights around the world;

The House support the government’s two year extension of Canada’s deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension.

He said: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, we made a pledge during the last election campaign to put international treaties and military engagements to a vote in this chamber.

If we made this promise, it was because before we send diplomats, relief workers and soldiers on dangerous missions abroad, it is important to be able to tell them that Canada’s parliamentarians believe in their objectives and support what they are doing.

This is an opportune time for such a debate and such a vote. Last week the Minister of Foreign Affairs visited Afghanistan. During his visit to Afghanistan, President Karzai requested that Canada extend its peace and security operation in his country beyond our existing commitment which expires in February 2007. This operation of our national defence personnel is fundamentally linked with our other diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. President Karzai and the Afghan people are waiting for our response.

This evening we will vote for a renewed commitment

It is a vote that is long overdue. It is a vote that all parties in the House have asked for and have agreed to. As members know, our diplomats, aid workers and soldiers have been deployed in Afghanistan for almost five years.

Despite the fact that members of three of four parties in the House have consistently voiced support for a mission in Afghanistan, Canadians on the ground in Kabul, Kandahar and in the PRT have never received a clear mandate from this Parliament. That is not fair to the brave men and women who wear the maple leaf. They need to know that their Parliament is behind them.

President Karzai's request provides us with an opportune time to explain our next moves forward and to renew our commitment. Today we will debate and tonight we will vote.

President Karzai is not the only person waiting for Canada to decide. Our international and NATO allies will also be watching. They, too, want a renewed commitment. As members know, both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, our two primary partners in southern Afghanistan, have recently renewed their commitments, two year and three year commitments respectively. The Dutch and the British have made their commitments.

Our rationale for being in Afghanistan is clear. It is in the interests of this country.

We are there as well at the invitation of the Afghan government. We are taking part in a multinational operation sanctioned by the United Nations.

Our mission there is not some sort of throwaway option among competing alternatives. It is not a manufactured make-work project to keep soldiers and diplomats busy. It certainly is not a unilateral effort on Canada's part.

The events of September 11, 2001 were a wake-up call not just to Americans but to people in all free and democratic nations. Two dozen Canadians were killed as a result of the attacks on the twin towers. They were our ordinary fellow citizens, people with stories, families and dreams. The attacks in New York and Washington have been followed by others in Madrid, Bali, London, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere.

We should be clear. Canada is not safe from such attacks. We will never be safe so long as we are a society that defends freedom, democracy and human rights.

We have known as a nation since the beginning that as long as we defend the values of freedom, democracy and human rights, we will not be safe from attack from those who oppose them. Not surprisingly, al-Qaeda has singled out Canada along with a number of other nations for attack. It is the same al-Qaeda that together with the Taliban took an undemocratic, failed Afghanistan and made it a safe haven from which to plan terrorist attacks worldwide

We just cannot sit back and let the Taliban backed by al-Qaeda or similar extremist elements return to power in Afghanistan. It cannot be allowed to happen. The continued existence of Taliban pockets following defeat of the regime means our efforts in Afghanistan have never been peacekeeping in the traditional sense.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not interested in peace. They target civilians. They target women and children in a quest to impose once again their will and their dark and backward vision of life on the Afghan people. They promise their followers heaven in the afterlife. What they deliver is hell on earth.

The previous government recognized this.

In fact, the leader of the official opposition never shied away from voicing his support for fellow Canadians in Afghanistan. In the debate just last month on our mission to Afghanistan, he stated, “I want to start by echoing the minister's words.... We are very proud of them”. On numerous times he corrected misinformation about our role in Afghanistan. I quote:

“We are in Afghanistan because the Afghans want us in Afghanistan. This is not an invasion or occupation. This is going to help people.”

Support for the mission was echoed last month in the House by the member for Vancouver South, who stated:

“Our government agreed to this deployment. We believed then and we believe now that destroying root and branch the agents and infrastructure of supply and training that made Afghanistan into a safe haven for international terrorism is in Canada's vital national interest.”

Support for our troops has also been expressed consistently by the Bloc Québécois and even some members of the New Democratic Party. I could quote the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on this.

It is an opinion shared by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who stated: “Why should we be in Afghanistan? Because it is a question of international solidarity that can make Quebeckers feel obliged to be there”.

I can tell you from direct experience that our men and women in Afghanistan are grateful to the many members from such diverse parties who supported what they are doing.

Together, diplomats, workers and soldiers from 35 countries are working with the government of Afghanistan to rebuild that country. We are providing knowledge, financial assistance, security; security that allows the Afghan people to build a justice system, develop and grow their economy, construct schools, hospitals and irrigation systems, and yes, ensure that the rights of the Afghan people are protected.

I am thinking of the right of women to be treated like human beings, of the right to see, read and say whatever one wants, of the right to choose one’s leaders through the electoral process

There are real risks involved in helping the Afghan people achieve these gains. There are risks for Afghans, risks for our allies, and as we all know, risks for Canadians. We know this because we had again today a combat fatality. These risks, as tragic as they are, and these losses, as tragic as they are, are not unique to this time and this place. There were risks when Canada went to the Balkans, to Cyprus, or during the Suez crisis, and of course, in Korea and in two world wars.

Canadians accept risks when those risks are in the service of a greater good. We honour those who take risks and make the ultimate sacrifice by staying the course and supporting their mission.

In the government’s view, the emergence of a stable, safe, self-sufficient, democratic Afghanistan that will never again be a haven for terrorists or traffickers is well worth the effort

Canadians, particularly young Canadians, often ask me what I saw in Afghanistan. They want to know what work we are doing there. I tell them the work is both serious and complex.

We are working together with our partners from Afghanistan, the UN, NATO and NGOs in an integrated international effort to support the recovery of this country

Key to this are the 27,000 troops from dozens of countries, including Canadian Forces personnel, who are helping to stabilize Afghanistan so that vital humanitarian and development work can be undertaken.

The challenges are enormous. There are no quick fixes and success cannot be assured by military means alone.

In fact, Canada and her allies all agree that we need to promote simultaneous support for Afghan governance and economic development to bring about a lasting recovery. This is why we opened a mission in Kabul, in great danger in 2003, and recently doubled our presence there.

Canadians from our embassy are working directly every day with Afghans, the UN, the World Bank, NATO and our other partners to ensure that the reconstruction of this country is a success. This pre-supposes that the resources intended for development are there and distributed equitably among the Afghan people.

Our work is paying off. In little more than three short years, 12 million Afghans, both men and women, have registered to vote in two historic elections. Close to five million children have been enrolled in school, one-third of them young girls. Almost four million refugees have returned and more than half of all Afghan villages have received grants to allow them to begin to rebuild.

All that has happened in a country where, just a few years ago, there were no elections, there was virtually no public education, women had no rights, and the future looked very bleak.

I saw this progress first-hand, and it made me proud to know that Canada was there making it happen

Working with our allies and the Afghan people, Canada has achieved great things, but there is much more to do.

Afghanistan is still the fifth poorest country in the world. The Taliban are trying to return to power and too many people have to fall back on drug trafficking to meet the needs of their families.

We need to extend our mission so we can work to finish the job the previous government started. We need to improve the security situation in southern Afghanistan to bring it in line with the north and the west of the country. We need to ensure that children in southern Afghanistan will be able to go to school without fear of attack. We need to ensure that the people there can get the things we take for granted, things like clean water, roads without mines and reliable sources of energy.

Stability in southern Afghanistan will also help the Afghan national government focus on improving the country's emerging democratic infrastructure.

That is to say, an independent human rights commission, a new central bank, and a professional police force.

Our mission in Afghanistan is one more example of the Canadian leadership tradition in world affairs, a tradition that crosses party lines, a tradition of which we are all proud, a tradition that favours actions over words, results over process, principle over politics.

The allied governments that have sent missions to Afghanistan are a diverse lot: conservative, liberal, social democrats; people in parties who would normally and naturally disagree on so many other day to day political issues, as we do in this chamber, but who share a common resolve to strengthen democracy, ensure equality rights for women, reduce poverty and make the free world safe from the threat of terrorism.

To achieve these objectives, our allies agree that we must eliminate the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and train Afghan security forces so they are capable of sustaining security in their own country.

Therefore, this government is seeking Parliament's clear support to renew Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Our men and women need to know that we share their goals and support their efforts and are willing, regardless of polls that sometimes go up or down, to back them for the next few years so they can finish the work they were sent there to do.

We are asking Parliament to make a commitment in three areas: diplomacy, development and defence

All three are inextricably linked. In a moment I want to go through what we are asking Parliament specifically to support over the next couple of years.

I think I also need to be clear, given the events over the last 24 hours or so, of what the consequences would be if there were a No vote. Let me be clear on this. This would be a surprise to this government. In debates in this chamber up until last month and in private meetings until very recently, we had every reason to believe that three of four parties, which have consistently supported this action, would continue to do so.

Should that turn out not to be the case, this government is not in a position to simply walk away or to run away. What the government will do, if we do not get a clear mandate, the clear will of Parliament to extend for two years and beyond, is proceed cautiously with a one year extension. We cannot walk away quickly. We will proceed with another year and if we need further efforts or a further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will go so alone and we will go to the Canadian people to get that mandate.

We are asking for a two year mandate that extends the elements of the current deployment.

The first part of our commitment entails the construction of a permanent, secure Canadian embassy in Kabul, which will serve Canada’s interests and meet Afghanistan’s needs for at least 15 years.

The second is the approval of an additional $310 million expenditure for development assistance from next year until 2010-11, which will raise Canada’s total contribution to nearly $1 billion over 10 years.

Third and finally, we are seeking to extend the mission of both the Canadian Forces in Kandahar as well as the efforts of Canadian military diplomats, development workers and police in the PRT, the provincial reconstruction team, for 24 more months. This mission extension, if the motion is passed, will cover the period from February 2007 to 2009 when we expect a transition of power in Afghanistan itself

Extending the mission of the Canadian Forces has operational consequences. We will take on once again a second leadership rotation from November 2007 to May 2008, and this is new. As I said earlier today, we will be prepared to assume overall leadership of the ISAF for one year starting in February 2008.

Near the end of each calendar year, 2006, 2007, 2008, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence will evaluate the results of our involvement, in concert with our allies, according to the criteria set out at the London conference, and we will share this evaluation with parliamentarians of all parties.

There we have it, the reaffirmation of Canada's intent expressed through a clear and renewed commitment, a commitment that builds on past achievements, a commitment in line with Canadian values, a commitment that allows us to finish the job.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. Prime Minister for elaborating on further details, which probably should be included in the motion to be voted on tonight. Maybe he would agree to an amendment.

My question has to do with process. The Prime Minister will be aware that members are concerned about the swiftness of the requirement for this debate and vote. He indicated in his speech that both the Dutch and the British had already made their commitment to extend their missions for a further two years, but we only found out about this on Monday.

Could the Prime Minister advise the House when he found out about the extension request of two years from either NATO or Mr. Karzai? When was the first time he advised Parliament?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, first, I will say a couple of things to that. In the first place, all the engagements that we are asking Parliament to back, with the one exception of command of ISAF as I mentioned, are all engagements as undertaken at the present time. These are extensions to Canada's current involvement, not changes.

He knows the government, of which he was previously a member, made these commitments. I would assume, as a member of the previous government, he is well aware of the time lines that are involved in terms of expectations of new engagements. We are coming up on an international conference. The fact that our NATO allies have extended their commitments is not a secret fact. This is a publicly known fact.

All I can say in terms of the process is the House was consulted in a take note debate in April. The view of his party at that time was clear, as it had been for the previous few years. His leader was consulted in the lead-up to this, and his party agreed to the process we proposed, which made this debate possible today.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime Minister. First, is he suggesting that if the House were to oppose the motion before us, that his government would proceed in any event with a further deployment on a mission in Afghanistan after 2007, despite the vote in the House?

Second, is he suggesting that the commitment would terminate ultimately in February 2009 because of a change of administration of some sort in Afghanistan. In his view, if the change, to which he has referred and which is rather vague, does not happen, what would Canada's plan be for the longer term?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I want to respond to in the questions. First, as I said earlier, the government would quite frankly be surprised if we did not have the support of the same three or four parties that supported this mission from the outset and up to at least last weekend. If it were the case that we were surprised by the result of tonight's vote, I do not think it is feasible for Canada to simply walk away in the next few months. The government has to take its responsibilities and the safety of its soldiers and its diplomats seriously.

What we would do is proceed cautiously for a year, as I said. If we believe we need to go further beyond that, we will seek a mandate from the Canadian people. What we are asking for here is to extend the mandate in this motion for a clear two years. That would bring us to the end of President Karzai's term, and that is where the allies, which have been with us from the beginning, are by and large at today

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, members across various parties in the House have requested a vote. Members of all parties, in particular the hon. member and his party, are more than aware of the details of our engagement in Afghanistan, which we are seeking to extend.

Let us be serious. The government believes there should be a vote. The government offered a vote and that vote was accepted. The process was accepted unanimously by the House, including by his party. If he does not like that, he should take that up with the leadership of his party.

However, we have men and women over there who are doing great work, who are prepared to take bullets for our country. If the hon. member and his party are not prepared to stand up and simply endorse the mission, then they are, frankly, not supporting the people on the ground they claim to support, and that is what they should do.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the House, especially the party opposite understands the mission in Afghanistan. I hope that, before sending our troops, our young men and women, into a military campaign, it understood the mission in Afghanistan.

This government wants strong support for our troops in Afghanistan. This is why we responded to calls from the parties to have a vote.

We know the NDP may vote against the motion. However, indications are that the other parties support the motion. It will be a good message for our troops. I would just add that, in my own opinion, the comments by the parties have been clear up to this week. Our troops and the public have a hard time understanding why the parties suddenly change their mind when there is a vote.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I was in Afghanistan. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others are in contact with our allies. The Dutch and the British are proceeding. I can tell the House that the Dutch, in large measure, are proceeding because they know Canada is behind this mission and they have never forgotten the Canadian role in the liberation of the Netherlands during World War II.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I want to offer condolences to the family of Captain Nichola Goddard. Our thoughts are with them tonight. Today, Canada faces a weighty decision: whether to continue our diplomatic, military, police and development efforts in Afghanistan for another two years, or to let our contributions expire in February 2007.

Last month, I stood in this House to explain why the Canadian Forces are involved in Afghanistan. While six weeks have passed, the rationale for this mission has obviously not changed. In fact, the rationale has not changed since the previous government committed the Canadian Forces to this mission four years ago

I stand here today to advise Canadians that our job in Afghanistan—a job that we have executed successfully so far—is not finished. The right decision is obvious.

The bottom line is that the mission in Afghanistan supports one of the enduring goals of Canada's foreign and defence policy: to protect Canada's national interest. We must commit to seeing our mission through. Our national interest is straightforward: to ensure the security and prosperity of the Canadian people. This government has summed it up in two words: Canada first.

The Canada first defence strategy seeks to protect Canadians from threats that confront us at home, along our coastlines and from any place abroad. Right now this means being in Afghanistan, once a failed state that harboured terrorists, terrorists who attacked our closest friend and ally, terrorists who killed Canadians and who still threaten Canada, terrorists who now seek to undermine the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.

In 2002 Canada decided to help ensure that Afghanistan does not again harbour such extremists. We are not in Afghanistan alone but with a dedicated group of more than 30 countries. The mission is a priority for our allies in NATO, the G-8 and the United Nations. As a responsible ally and member of the international community, Canada must continue to participate in this mission.

We are also in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghans themselves. We responded to that request because Canada has a longstanding tradition of helping those in need. Afghanistan was a failed state and remains one of the poorest countries in the world. By helping provide security and stability in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces are creating a safe environment where reconstruction can take place. Let me assure you, Afghans have no doubt as to why we are in Afghanistan or to the positive impact that we are having there.

Because our national interest is at stake, because our allies need our help, and because Afghans themselves requested our presence, over 7,000 Canadian troops have been deployed to Afghanistan since 2002. Altogether some 16,000 Canadian troops have been involved in the international campaign against terrorism since September 11, 2001.

Today we have over 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. The 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's is helping the Afghan national security forces improve security in Kandahar province. We have a provincial reconstruction team stationed in Kandahar City comprised not only of Canadian Forces members but also of specialists from CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the RCMP. Together they form a multi-dimensional and integrated team that is working to stabilize Kandahar province and facilitate and encourage development efforts there.

We have a strategic advisory team in Kabul giving advice to President Karzai's government. We have Canadian Forces personnel working at the Kabul military training centre, the coalition hospital at Kandahar airport and in ISAF headquarters. We are leading the multinational brigade for regional command south in its transition to NATO control scheduled for this summer. Our troops in Afghanistan are among the most capable in the world.

They have acquitted themselves well under fire. They have captured Taliban insurgents. They have befriended local leaders. They have helped provide for the pressing humanitarian needs of the local population. They have supported efforts to diversify the Afghan economy and to deal with the global threat posed by narcotics originating in that country.

In short, we have the right personnel with the right skills, training and equipment to meet the requirements of the mission in Afghanistan and to deal with the risks involved. Be assured that we will continue to make sure that our troops have the right equipment to be successful. The Department of National Defence is currently conducting a study to determine how well the needs of our soldiers are being met for the mission in Afghanistan and what we can do to support them better.

Moreover, the Department of National Defence has purchased $234 million of new equipment specifically in support of this mission, including the heavily armoured Nyala patrol vehicles our forces recently received, one of which, as we witnessed last Monday, already saved the lives of two Canadian soldiers when it was struck by a roadside bomb.

Our troops are also equipped with robust rules of engagement that allow them to execute operations effectively and they are rooted in a strong command and control structure that is framed around a new generation of leaders formed in the crucible of real and relevant operations

Moreover, their mission stands on a firm legal basis. After September 11, 2001, Canada acted in accordance with article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which maintains our individual and collective rights of self-defence. The United Nations Security Council recognized this right in resolution 1368, passed on September 12, 2001. Our current mission in Afghanistan is based on our legal right to defend ourselves.

In addition, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, which is scheduled to expand this summer, is mandated by the United Nations, under Security Council resolution 1623. Moreover, the Government of Canada has the consent of the government of Afghanistan.

We all know that the Canadian commitment has not and will not come without cost. A cost measured not only in dollars and cents, but also in human lives. We have mourned the loss of 17 Canadians since the mission began. And others have suffered serious injury. But Canada must persevere in this mission.

The efforts of the Canadian Forces have brought about real progress in Afghanistan. Upon its expansion this summer, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force will be present in three-quarters of the country, with plans to expand soon thereafter. We are moving into areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban were previously uncontested. We are restricting their movement, undermining their local support and engaging them face to face. Our Canadian trainers are working at the Kabul Military Training Centre, graduating up to 800 Afghan recruits every two weeks.

Just last week, Canadian soldiers captured 10 suspected Taliban fighters or sympathizers who were hiding out near the Gombad forward operating base. This was the biggest capture of suspected insurgents by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan to date. The detainees were then rightfully turned over to the Afghan authorities, in accordance with our arrangement regarding detainees, an arrangement that supports the principle that Afghan authorities have the responsibility for handling detainees captured in their sovereign territory, an arrangement that helps strengthen local capacity and good governance.

Our strategic advisory team, a highly influential group of just 15 people, is currently working with Afghan leaders in Kabul to develop the fledgling institutions of the Afghan state. This team was specifically requested by President Karzai. Its military and civilian members are working with his senior economic adviser on the Afghan national development strategy. They are helping the Civil Service Commission build a legitimate and accountable public service and they are on hand to assist President Karzai's chief of staff.

Our Canadian Forces medical outreach team, which is part of our provincial reconstruction team, as well as members of our battle group, regularly visit villages and offer medical services to the suffering population. These are the real efforts and achievements of the Canadian Forces, in partnership with officials from foreign affairs, CIDA and the RCMP.

We have concrete benchmarks to evaluate the progress and success of this mission. The Afghanistan Compact, along with Canada's own strategy and plans for the mission in Afghanistan, lays out the medium-term benchmarks and the final objectives to which we are aiming

The compact, signed in London earlier this year, outlines how the Government of Afghanistan, the United Nations, the international community, and Canada are going to work over the next five years to ensure that the Afghanistan mission achieves its desired effects. While we still have significant work left to do, we have a clear roadmap guiding us forward.

Ultimate success in Afghanistan will be achieved when the country and its government are stabilized, when the terrorists and their local support networks are defeated, when we are assured that terrorist groups will be denied sanctuary within Afghanistan, when the Afghan national security forces are well established and under the firm and legitimate control of the government of Afghanistan and when these forces can protect their own people and their own country. Working toward these objectives requires long term commitment and sustained effort by the international community. It depends upon the future contributions of Canada.

That is why, in parallel with expanded diplomatic and development efforts, the government strongly believes that the mandate of the Canadian Forces contingents, including the army task force, its enabling forces and the provincial reconstruction team, should be extended for another 24 months from February 2007 to February 2009. This is the minimum contribution necessary to achieve mission success and to exercise leadership among our allies.

Canada should also plan to reassume the leadership of the multinational brigade in Kandahar in November 2007 for another six months and will be open to other leadership opportunities as they arise. A two-year commitment will allow the additional time needed for Afghan security forces to become operationally effective. A two-year commitment will help ensure a smooth political transition in 2009 when the current mandate of President Karzai ends.

A two-year commitment is what our allies expect and need from us. The planned contributions of the U.K. and the Netherlands, for example—who have committed troops for the next three and two years respectively—are predicated upon Canadian participation in this mission. If we let our mandate expire in February, we would risk our allies' support for the mission and the success of the mission itself.

The two year commitment is also consistent with the timeline expected in the Afghanistan compact. A two year commitment will employ significant military resources, but the Canadian Forces will retain some flexibility to respond to other priorities or to other unforeseen crises. This was a question that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

We can maintain the commitment into Afghanistan ad infinitum at its current level. What we can also do is have a naval task force available for deployment in the world to meet a crisis. We can also contribute modest land force contributions to meet other anticipated crises. From what we know is evolving in Darfur and Haiti, which are two examples, we believe we can meet whatever requirement is being set for us by the United Nations or other forces.

In the long term, the government is committed to expanding the Canadian Forces in support of a greater leadership role for Canada in world affairs. In the short term, however, these expansion efforts will limit our ability to undertake another major operation. We will continue to play supporting roles in other operations or crises. The Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan standing up for Canada's national interest. They are partnering with our allies. They are helping the people of Afghanistan. But their mission is not yet complete. Together with our allies, we have devised a clear plan that outlines the way forward, to achieve the aims that we have set out.

As a responsible member of the international community, as one of the most prosperous nations on earth, and with our national interest at stake, Canada must extend and expand our commitment to this multinational mission. As was said by Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. Afghanistan asked for our help and that of the international community in eliminating the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These terrorist networks are failing in Afghanistan because Canadians recognize the implications of complacency.

Through the good work of Canadians, Afghan institutions are functioning again. Liberty is returning after a long and cold absence. Women have a stake and a voice in the country. Learning is blossoming in countless schools. Simply put, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are losing the battle because brave Canadians have stood up in the front lines. Let us solidify the achievements we have gained so far. Let us move this mission forward, for the sake of the Afghan people, for the sake of our allies and for the sake of each and every Canadian. As the Canadian Forces put Canada's national interest first, they deserve nothing less than our continued support.

Therefore, I call upon all members of Parliament to support the motion that extends Canada's commitment in Afghanistan to February 2009. Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the minister got a little carried away in his French. He said twelve years instead of two years. The House would find that a bit hard to swallow. I assume his English on two years was a little more reliable than his French on douze ans.

I believe the minister clearly confirmed what his colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. Ultimately he is giving the assurance to the House that the potential for a Haiti or a Darfur mission will not be diminished by our Afghan commitments. Those were the words of the foreign minister. I believe those are the words that members of the House want to hear when we debate and come to a decision on this very important mission.

I have two questions.

One goes to his observation about the nature of equipment. I have recently read a book by General Rupert Smith called The Utility of Force. In that book he describes very clearly the nature of these new missions and the type of equipment that is necessary because these are always actions behind enemy lines or within an area where it is not like a traditional situation. Could the minister assure us that, with the use and prevalence of IEDs and these types of weapons in Afghanistan, our forces are properly protected? He mentioned the Nyala. We know the minister will be purchasing trucks shortly. Will these trucks also have the types of protection that would be necessary?

Second, he mentioned the strategic advisory team in Kabul, which has had huge success. Will the minister tell us whether the government intends to replicate this activity in Kandahar as well to enable the governor and the region to provide similar success the civil society in that area?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm, to the best of our knowledge and within the resources that we know we have, that we anticipate we can meet requests from the United Nations or whoever asks us for Darfur or Haiti. We have done our assessment and talked to the United Nations and other people to get a sense of what they want, and I think we can certainly meet their needs.

With respect to equipment, I saw some photos recently of the explosion that occurred about a week ago in which the Nyala was involved. That vehicle saved the lives of those two soldiers. It is built to deal with mines. It suffered the same extent of explosion as the Mercedes Jeep had a few weeks earlier, when four of our soldiers died. The soldiers inside the Nyala were shaken up and slightly wounded, but their lives were saved. That is proving to be a good piece of equipment. Yes, when the truck project goes forward, I anticipate that a number of the cabs will have to be armoured. When these trucks are deployed offshore into dangerous areas, the crews can be protected. I am quite confident we will have that kind of equipment.

With respect to the member's question about whether we would duplicate the strategic team in Kabul, I cannot honestly answer that question. I would have to ask one of the ministers because I have not asked that question, but it is a fine idea.

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence about some statements he made on November 15, 2005, when he was national defence critic. “When a government decides to intervene in a failing state there are a number of considerations that must be taken before committing troops. It must be satisfied that the mission supports the goals and objectives of Canada's foreign policy.” This is just part of what he said. There is much more, but I will only quote a few excerpts.

The Bloc's position on the mission is this: before making a decision about such an important matter as extending Canada's presence in Afghanistan by two years, the government must inform parliamentarians and the public. As defence critic, he asked a number of questions consistent with the motion that we submitted to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We wanted a more in-depth review of our mission and presence in Afghanistan. As such, how can the minister say that today, everything seems clear to him and he is ready to make a commitment on behalf of himself and his government for two more years without providing more information to parliamentarians and the public?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, my opinion has not changed. The questions I asked when I was in opposition are valid questions and I have the answers to those questions. When I came over to the defence department, I made it my business to find the answers to these various questions. The one that the member raises is whether our operations in Afghanistan are in accordance with our foreign policy goals and objectives. They are. Our Canada first defence policy and our foreign policy mean that we have to think in terms of Canada. If we can keep threats away from Canada, if we can deal with threats that are far away from us, that is better than dealing with them at home.

The member may recall that we are in Afghanistan today because of the attacks in New York City in 2001. That is why we are there today. About 24 or 25 Canadians were killed in New York. Terrorists came from Afghanistan, a failed state, so we, as part of a coalition, went back into Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban government, and helped restore democracy in Afghanistan. It is definitely in our interests. I might say that in opposition I certainly did ask questions, but I did not oppose the commitment to Afghanistan. In fact, if the member were to check, he would find that the Conservative Party supported the Liberal Party on the mission in Afghanistan.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that the minister delivered here tonight. There are things that he said with which we in this party agree concerning the training of the Canadian armed forces. They are skilled. They are well-trained. They are incredibly brave and all Canadians appreciate the work that they have done and the work that they are doing.

However, I was also pleased to hear that he has found the answers to the questions that he asked a few months ago regarding this mission. I hope that he will share the answers to those questions with us tonight in the House of Commons. It would be most appreciated by all of us who are here tonight.

Further to that are some of the questions that we have asked and have not received responses. Why did NATO not take over the mission in southern Afghanistan in February? The previous minister on the Liberal side had indicated to the House in November of last year that NATO would be there in February. It is not under NATO. It is under Operation Enduring Freedom. That is in the minutes of the defence committee. If NATO does take over, what will the mission be? How will it interrelate with Operation Enduring Freedom?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, right now, I understand that the schedule for NATO to take over our sector is somewhere in late June or July. That is the plan right now, and it is only because of bureaucracy that things get delayed. There is no other reason.

The NDP keep saying that it is different under the American command than under NATO. We are going to do exactly the same thing. Our military is going to perform the same roles. Our aid people are going to do the same thing. Our diplomats and the RCMP are going to do the same thing. There will not be one iota of change except that we will be under NATO command instead of Enduring Freedom. Nothing will change.

We are following the same tactics. We are following NATO tactics. Go check what the French are doing in the north. Go check what the Germans are doing in the north. They are doing the same thing.

Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence for their excellent and passionate speeches. Everybody in this House is extremely passionate about our mission in Afghanistan. I also agree that there is no question that defeating the jihadists and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan translates to security for us here at home and for the Afghans in Afghanistan. The Taliban are now increasingly deploying new modus operandi of suicide bombings and al-Qaeda has reinvested in Afghanistan, which would explain the surge in attacks.

For the benefit of all members of this House, I would like to ask the knowledgeable Minister of Defence just a couple of very quick questions and then he can take his time answering them. What is the strategy for a counter-insurgency operation, so that the insurgents are not just contained but rolled back, so the Afghan security forces have a level playing field to control their own country? Could the minister briefly explain about the CF units that are to be integrated with the ISAF under the command of ARRC? They would then be moving down from stage three to stage four in all probability and there will be some rebadging going on which is a serious situation. That is one of the concerns I have in the timing of this six hour debate. Could the minister please comment on that?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the member asked a lot in his questions. With respect to dealing with the insurgency, one of the big factors is Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan has about 80,000 soldiers in the areas adjacent to Afghanistan. Part of the reason why we are seeing more activity by the Taliban in our area is because the Pakistanis have been successful in starting to root some of them out. There has to be an arrangement between Pakistan and Afghanistan to try and seal the border. What we are doing in Kandahar province, as the Brits move into Helman province and as the Dutch move into the province north of us, is trying to move into every part of the province, so that the Taliban or the insurgents have no room to move. We are trying to press them out of the area.

With respect to the other command in control, essentially nothing is changing when it goes from Enduring Freedom to NATO. No units change. Nothing actually changes. It is all the same.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Canadians accept risks when those risks are in the service of a greater good. We honour those who take risks and make the ultimate sacrifice by staying the course and supporting their mission.

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): This mission is consistent with our foreign policy review and our defence review which foresaw difficult missions in failing states such as Afghanistan where the military is not there exclusively on military missions. In fact, we foresaw in our foreign policy review precisely the nature that this mission would need to take to be successful. It needed to have what we called a 3D approach: diplomacy, defence and development. We needed the military there to set conditions for success. If there is a crisis in Haiti or a crisis in Darfur where we can make a contribution, will the government give us its assurance that it will be possible for us to respond as Canada must respond? That is why we always had short missions before and why we insisted that we have flexibility to go in and help.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): The concern the New Democrats have had is whether a mission should be initiated in which we continue to fly under Operation Enduring Freedom. I think the U.S. styled counter-insurgency methods of this operation are fundamentally different from where the Canadian army has gone and where many of the Canadian people are comfortable going.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): What exactly is the nature of the Canadian military commitment? […] The public cannot be accused of not understanding all the issues and opposing participation by Canada when it is not being offered clear and adequate answers. We must be clear about the role of the Canadian army before making decisions that commit us for a number of years. Humanitarian aid, logistical support and intervention in peacekeeping missions seem to me the priorities that would permit the Canadian army to play a useful role, without ruling out purely military intervention. New Democrats stand in opposition to the government's plans to lock our country into a long term, war-fighting role in Afghanistan, a role that does not properly reflect the principles and ideals of the people of Canada.

For four years the U.S. military, the most powerful military in the world, has tried to stabilize southern Afghanistan at the point of a gun through a forward leaning, counter-insurgency approach. The U.S. military has failed in that effort. The situation has become more, not less, dangerous. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Heroin production has skyrocketed. The insurgents are becoming ever more adept at building and deploying sophisticated roadside bombs. Today the United States wants to draw down its forces in Afghanistan and it wants its allies to pick up the slack. Most of those allies, most of NATO, have been dragging their heels, concerned that the counter-insurgency approach creates more problems than it solves. Canada, however, has rushed into this gap, taking on the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Kandahar province.

The NDP shares the concerns of many of Canada's allies that the counter-insurgency approach cannot succeed, and if it cannot succeed, why are we there? Is it simply because the United States has asked us to be there because it wants out? Or is it simply because we do not have the imagination or wherewithal to devise a better approach? Or is it because we do not want to be elsewhere on a different, less macho, more explicitly humanitarian mission, saving the people of Darfur from a full-blown genocide? Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian overseas development assistance. The NDP unequivocally supports the continuation of that funding, especially when it supports the work of non-governmental aid organizations operating at arm's length from foreign military forces whenever possible.

Afghanistan is a large and diverse country that offers many opportunities for the deployment of reconstruction teams made up of a mix of Canadian Forces, CIDA, foreign affairs and RCMP personnel. The NDP unequivocally supports the maintenance of a sizeable Canadian reconstruction presence in Afghanistan. However, the NDP believes that the extension of the counter-insurgency mission is not the best use that could be made of Canada's small but highly skilled professional army. The NDP has other concerns about the extension of the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. We remain concerned about Canadian soldiers transferring detainees to Afghan or U.S. custody without adequate protections for Canada's continuing obligations to those detainees under international law. We remain concerned about Canadian soldiers relying on anti-personnel land mines laid by foreign forces in violation of the spirit and the intent of the Ottawa land mines convention.

We are also very concerned about the cost of this mission. By the time the current mission is complete in February 2007, it will have likely cost Canadians in excess of $5 billion. The Polaris Institute has estimated that a two year extension or a new mission would cost an additional $2 billion to $3 billion. We could provide a huge amount of reconstruction and humanitarian aid for $7 billion, not just in Afghanistan but also elsewhere. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. For $7 billion it is incumbent upon us as guardians of the public purse to confirm that there is no alternative to the counter-insurgency approach and to ensure that this is the right mission.

Finally, the NDP is concerned about the continuing uncertainty over the timing for the transfer of overall operational control over Canada's soldiers from the U.S. military to NATO

I am not prepared to support this new mission in Afghanistan because we do not have answers to the questions. We know that the Americans have been fighting a counter-insurgency role for four years in Kandahar province and that the situation has only become worse.

Every independent analyst and in fact even the minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs have told us that it is far more dangerous now in Kandahar province than it has ever been. This is after the strongest military in the world has been fighting a counter-insurgency role there for four years.

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Canada does not shrink or shirk duty in the face of adversity. In times of turmoil, in places where security is at risk, Canada has always been there. We step up, we step in, we carry our load, we keep faith, and we do not break our word. This is not a traditional peacekeeping mission. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban refuse to recognize the will expressed by the Afghan people through successive and successful elections. Their efforts to destabilize Afghanistan and provoke the departure of international military forces must not be allowed to succeed.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I support the mission precisely because it is the moment where we have to test the shift from one paradigm, the peacekeeping paradigm, to a peace-enforcement paradigm that combines military, reconstruction and humanitarian effort together. I have been to Afghanistan and I believe this new paradigm can work.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): We are discussing a change in the role that Canada has played in Afghanistan, which has been a fantastic role in terms of our ability to rebuild that country. We are now involved in a counter-insurgency operation under Operation Enduring Freedom. Canadians want to know why we are under this operation

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Some of the questions that we have asked and have not received responses. Why did NATO not take over the mission in southern Afghanistan in February? The previous minister on the Liberal side had indicated to the House in November of last year that NATO would be there in February. It is not under NATO. It is under Operation Enduring Freedom. That is in the minutes of the defence committee. If NATO does take over, what will the mission be? How will it interrelate with Operation Enduring Freedom?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, right now, I understand that the schedule for NATO to take over our sector is somewhere in late June or July. That is the plan right now, and it is only because of bureaucracy that things get delayed. There is no other reason. The NDP keep saying that it is different under the American command than under NATO. We are going to do exactly the same thing. Our military is going to perform the same roles. Our aid people are going to do the same thing. Our diplomats and the RCMP are going to do the same thing. There will not be one iota of change except that we will be under NATO command instead of Enduring Freedom. Nothing will change. We are following the same tactics. We are following NATO tactics. Go check what the French are doing in the north. Go check what the Germans are doing in the north. They are doing the same thing.

With respect to the other command in control, essentially nothing is changing when it goes from Enduring Freedom to NATO. No units change. Nothing actually changes. It is all the same.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): One could say that the eradication of drugs in Afghanistan, which we favour, only managed to distance the population from the soldiers who were trying to enforce it. So when Canadian soldiers—there are no more American soldiers there—and the British soldiers who are arriving, and French soldiers, meet with Afghan women and men, they will always have to remember that if they reach out, if they make friendly overtures, the Taliban may attack them. I wish to point out that, in order to finally eradicate opium or simply to ensure soldiers can function in a normal way in Afghanistan, they must have the collaboration and support of the people. I have just described a situation in which this would be immensely difficult for them. It is extremely dangerous, though, to turn ourselves into a new modern colonizer for democracy and development if we do not consult the general population with regard to international aid or military intervention.

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): I have a question for the member, who has just demonstrated her extensive experience. The mission has two objectives: to secure the Kandahar region and to provide humanitarian aid. I would like to know how our troops can combine these two objectives.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all convinced that soldiers should be looking after the humanitarian mission. I am in touch with several NGOs that say that combined missions can be ineffective from the soldiers' standpoint. From the NGOs' standpoint, they become extremely dangerous because personnel are associated with soldiers. To answer the question, this is not desirable. I know that it is done, but I am not certain that when an assessment is carried out at some point, the results will be positive.

Mr. André Arthur (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île has given us a perfect illustration of the absurdity of conducting a humanitarian mission and carrying out a military operation at the same time. Based on what she just said I am even more ambivalent about what our government is doing and how our country comes across. I am very much aware of Canada's international reputation and I know that it is precisely through peace missions that Canada won the Nobel peace prize all those years ago.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member has given us some very thoughtful comments tonight. I do not think that we should be allowing Canada to be dragged into a U.S.-style military combat role in Afghanistan, nor should we be supporting George Bush's failing strategy on the war against terrorism.

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Many Canadians know that this is not our traditional role of peacekeeping. This is not how Canadians do peacekeeping. We are out there to separate combatants, not to be a combatant, which we are now. We are there to support UN peacekeeping efforts, not to support the American Operation Enduring Freedom. We are there to deliver development aid, but not to deliver it by the military. That is not the Canadian way of doing development work. We are there to do democratic development, but not to do it at the end of the barrel of a gun. That is not the Canadian way.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): What I got tonight from the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs were their assurances that the essence of this mission would not change. All of us in the chamber know that the circumstances on the ground in Kandahar have changed. We understand that it has been amplified. It has become tougher, but if it were an easy job, it would not have been Canada that would have been asked to intervene. They would have asked a lesser country.

Mr. Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): A Canada first defence policy means accepting that Canada must engage in an often dangerous world beyond our peaceful shores, that we have responsibilities when it comes to international peace, security and stability.

Mr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): As the conflict could deepen, could splinter, is there an exit plan to protect our soldiers in the event the conflict becomes like the war in Vietnam or Iraq?

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan, no doubt, is a country that needs assistance and I strongly support helping the people of Afghanistan. However, Canada is in Afghanistan, thanks to the previous government, in a combat role, a counter-insurgency role under U.S. command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Many Afghans, including the Afghan Women's Organization, do not support Canada's combat role because it interferes with peace, security and rebuilding. I will vote against the motion tonight. Why is the government ignoring the wishes of so many Afghan people and the majority of Canadians who want to return to security and peace building but not a counter-insurgency mission?

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): It is exceedingly important for us to engage constructively in a process of comprehensive peace-building. However, that is not what we are doing in Kandahar and that is one of the principal concerns that my party has in voting against the motion this evening. There have been many claims about how much our current mission has contributed to improved security and improvement in the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is very important that we think about this as we contemplate our future commitments. As I have said, we need to make future commitments. We need to understand that the gains and the improvements that have been made in Kabul have not been made under an Operation Enduring Freedom mission, not under the U.S. search and kill aggressive combat effort that is in full flight in Kandahar. That is a very important thing for us to realize.

I am deeply disturbed that there has been no acknowledgement that there is indeed a difference and that it makes any difference whether we are there under a NATO led mission or whether we are there under Operation Enduring Freedom. I just about fell over when the defence minister stated that he considers the NATO and Operation Enduring Freedom missions as being the same. For the record, here is the NATO agreed upon statement on the difference between the two missions. The ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom relationship is described as follows: ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom, the ongoing US-led military operation in Afghanistan, will continue to have separate mandates and separate missions. ISAF will conduct to focus on its stabilization and security mission whilst Operation Enduring Freedom will continue to carry out its counter-terrorism mission. Clear command arrangements will coordinate, and where necessary deconflict efforts within the two missions as agreed under the auspices of the operational plan. How could the defence minister possibly say it did not really matter whether we talk about one or the other? Actually, the Leader of the Opposition made more or less the same comment. He indicated that it did not really worry him that we were not operating under a NATO led mission. Let me go further. There has been an attempt tonight on the part of the government to completely ignore, not acknowledge the fact that there is a raging debate going on within NATO around that counter-insurgency mission that is taking place in Kandahar. It is clear and it is acknowledged by everyone from Donald Rumsfeld to a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations that there are serious problems with that counter-insurgency mission. In fact, President Karzai himself went to the U.S. and said it was time to put an end to it.

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): In January 2002 Canada made a major commitment to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We supported that. From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the international assistance force, which had the aim of providing intelligence and security to allow for rebuilding and supporting the democratic process, something which eventually saw elections in the fall of 2005. Canada ended this role in late 2005 and committed a battle group of about 2,000 personnel to Kandahar in early 2006. This is when things changed. The mission changed from being a UN-NATO mission to Canada then taking on the mission in the south under the American mission, Operation Enduring Freedom. It should be noted that the American Operation Enduring Freedom tactics have been to conduct aggressive search and destroy missions, aerial bombings and all-out offensives against alleged terrorist insurgents for the last four years with absolutely dismal results: The lack of clarity in the south, which has brought not more security but less. It is imperative for us to recall that the NATO-UN mandated mission was not to go to war in the south, but rather to build security for ordinary Afghans through the backing of the Afghan police and military. That is what Canadians understood our forces were doing.

III.Cost of Canadian Military Operations in Afghanistan 2001-2006 (CDN$)

Canadian military deployments to Afghanistan

Apollo	Oct 01 – Oct 03	Canadian military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism, including the war in Afghanistan
Accius	Nov 02 – June 05	Canadian contribution to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).Canada contributed one Lieutenant Colonel.
Athena	Oct 03 – Oct 05	Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF).
Archer	From Aug 05	Canadian contribution to US-led Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan. Current number of Canadian personnel: 2300.

Fiscal Year	Operations	Full Costs	Incremental Cost
2001-02	Apollo	CDN 510,800,000 US$ 454,400,000	CND 216,000,000 US$ 192,100,000
2002-03	Accius, Apollo, Athena	CDN 709,300,000 US$ 630,900,000	CDN 233,600,000 US$ 207,810,000
2003-04	Accius, Altair, Apollo, Athena, Foundation	CDN 1,167,400,000 US$ 1,038,500,000	CDN 600,900,000 US$ 534,500,000
2004-05	Accius, Altair, Athena, Foundation	CDN 717,800,000 US$ 638,500,000	CDN 411,100,000 US$ 365,700,000
2005-06	Accius, Altair, Archer, Athena, Foundation	CDN 1,041,300,000 US$ 926,300,000	CDN 704,500,000 US$ 626,700,000
2001-06	All Operations	CDN 4,146,600,000 US$ 3,688,800,000	CDN 2,166,100,000 US$ 1,926,900,000

IV. Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

THE CANADIAN FORCES and THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN (the “Participants”), have consented to the following Arrangement:

This arrangement establishes procedures in the event of a transfer, from the custody of the Canadian Forces to the custody of any detention facility operated by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan of any detainee in the temporary custody of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
“Detainee” means any person, other than a Canadian national, whose initial capture and detention, for whatever reason, occurred at the hands of members of the Canadian Forces.
The Participants will treat detainees in accordance with the standards set out in the Third Geneva Convention.
The International Committee of the Red Cross will have a right to visit detainees at any time while they are in custody, whether held by the Canadian Forces or by Afghanistan. Visits may be delayed by a Detaining Power only as an exceptional and temporary measure for reasons of imperative military necessity.
The Afghan authorities will accept (as Accepting Power) detainees who have been detained by the Canadian Forces (the Transferring Power) and will be responsible for maintaining and safeguarding detainees, and for ensuring the protections provided in Paragraph 3 above, to all such detainees whose custody has been transferred to them.
Detainees who are wounded or sick will be cared for by the Detaining Power at first instance. Sick or wounded detainees will not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey, unless their safety, or the safety of others, imperatively demands it. Arrangements to transfer wounded or sick detainees will be expedited in order to reduce risk to their health or facilitate medical treatment.
The Participants will be responsible for maintaining accurate written records accounting for all detainees that have passed through their custody. Such written records should, at a minimum, contain personal information (as far as known or indicated), gender, physical description and medical condition of the detainee, and, subject to security considerations, the location and circumstances of capture. Such written records will be available for inspection by the International Committee of the Red Cross upon request. Copies of all records relating to the detainee will be transferred to any subsequent Accepting Power should the detainee be subsequently transferred. The originals of all records will be retained by the Transferring Power.
A Detaining Power, can be either a Transferring or Accepting Power, and will be a Power which detains the detainee for any period of time beyond that reasonably required between initial capture and transfer. The Detaining Power will be responsible for classification of detainee's legal status under international law. Should any doubt exist whether a detainee may be a Prisoner of War, the detainee will be treated humanely, at all times and under all circumstances, in a manner consistent with the rights and protections of the Third Geneva Convention, even if subsequently transferred to the custody of an Accepting Power.
Where there is doubt as to which Participant is the Detaining Power, all Participants will be jointly responsible for and have full access to all persons detained (and any records concerning their treatment) until the Detaining Power has by mutual agreement been determined by the Participants.
Recognizing their obligations pursuant to international law to assure that detainees continue to receive humane treatment and protections to the standards set out in the Third Geneva Convention, the Participants, upon transferring a detainee, will notify the International Committee of the Red Cross through appropriate national channels
Participants recognize the legitimate role of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission within the territory of Afghanistan, including in regard to the treatment of detainees, and undertake to cooperate fully with the Commission in the exercise of its role.
No person transferred from the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities will be subject to the application of the death penalty.
At the request of one of the Participants, the Participants will consult on the implementation of this arrangement.

Signed in duplicate in Kabul, on the 18th of December, 2005, in the English, French, Dari and Pashto languages, all texts being equally valid. For the purposes of interpretation, the English language version of this Arrangement is authoritative.

Signed by
Afghanistan: Minister of Defence Abdul Raheem Wardak
Canada: Chief of the Defence Staff R.J. Hillier