Sure.
I have spent a lot of time on Afghanistan, and I agree with Madam McDonough's assessment that in fact we could spend many more hours just discussing that one subject alone.
I'll try to answer these questions succinctly. The short answer is there's no intention on the part of the government to engage directly in discussions with the Taliban, for a number of reasons. First of all, they're a banned terrorist organization. And there is no identifiable leadership to engage with. Having said that, you've also made the very important point that there are occasions within the Karzai government itself, and with other international organizations, when communications are happening.
And the more important issue you've touched on is the need to ensure we are not leaving huge numbers of Afghan people out of this process of reconstruction, development, and building their capacity within government. I can assure you that those discussions are happening at a meaningful level.
The Afghan government itself, clearly, in President Karzai has a leader who is Pashtun and who understands the need to reach out to all of the people, and of course not just the people currently in Afghanistan. There was reference earlier to Pakistan, where we have somewhere in the range of three million to four million Afghans living in refugee camps, and countless others who are dispersed around the globe, who need to be given a sense of inclusion and be brought back—and many of them have come, thankfully. There are estimates of four million to five million who have come back.
So the moderates, yes, those who have renounced their affiliation to the Taliban and to violence, are certainly included, and we want to find and identify more of those people.
On the issue of the UN convention, let me return the compliment you made when you referenced the importance Canada has placed on it. I know you have been a champion in this regard; I know you are very passionate about this and have engaged with the persons in your community on this subject, and perhaps even more nationally. We have every intention of being there on signing day. I have personally spoken to every attorney general and minister of community services, depending on who was assigned the file in the provinces and territories, to explain Canada's position.
I appreciate your clarifying this, because there is a big difference between signing and the obligations that flow from that act and the ratification process to follow. In the ratification process, we must be respectful of the obligations that will then be assigned to the provinces. I've had discussions on this very recently with the Quebec minister. There are real concerns about the legal obligations, because the last thing we want to do—and I think you would agree—is to sign another international accord, document, or commitment and not live up to that obligation, because if there's anything that can tarnish our reputation quickly, it's doing that.
So it is our intention and our stated purpose to not only be signatories, but also to live up to those obligations. We owe nothing less to the people in the disabilities community. They have been so active and so progressive in bringing us to this point, they have to be included in the process beyond just the signing ceremony.
Finally, on the subject of our national commitment to overseas development assistance, I'm glad you pointed out the recent history where it was the last Conservative government that was moving in the right direction on this subject. The numbers were actually inching up towards that magic goal of 0.7% that we all want to see this country aspire to reaching. Having said that, the numbers have fluctuated. We've been in office now just 13 months. We have increased our overseas commitment. When you start to calculate, the issue is how do you calculate overseas development assistance? Do you include certain projects and certain commitments on which we have expended enormous amounts of money to assist? The figures through CIDA that I'm being given are that the money that will take us to 2011 includes $900 million over the next two years. The budget commits to doubling overseas development assistance, and we hope to reach these goals and to do so in a targeted way.
You're right in talking about other countries and how they have reached those goals. For lack of time, we can't get into all the specifics of this, but I would suggest that in some instances, such as your two examples of Sweden and Finland, they have a different calculation. Their GDP figures compared to Canada's are quite different.
I would suggest to you that Canada has a much larger footprint in the world than either of those two countries that you cite as examples. That is to say, we have missions in over 170 countries. We have development assistance projects in many more countries than those two that you have cited.
Let me just conclude by saying I share the goal and the concerns that you have about ensuring that Canada's reputation is continually enhanced by our commitments, particularly in places like Africa, the Americas, and Haiti. We are committed to doing just that.