There's my colleague, too.
Thank you gentlemen. I should point out that I haven't learned anything new today. We have heard from many well-informed experts. My question is directed to Mr. Gilmore, but Mr. Sedra may also wish to respond.
What is happening in Afghanistan is part of a commitment made by NATO. It is one thing to consider all the problems from a NATO and United Nations standpoint, and another when you consider the military, reconstruction, and democracy-building efforts. There seems to be something out of kilter.
We're told that Canada must stay in Afghanistan. I have no problem with Canada continuing to help in reconstruction development efforts. And yet how long has it been since Canadians and Quebeckers started to have serious problems with Canada's involvement? The answer is, since Gen. Hillier himself called for Canada's participation in southern Kandahar which he knew was the most dangerous place of all. I read this in the Globe and Mail, so it must be true.
I suspect that he also had other intentions including ensuring Canada got military equipment with total disregard for the fact that this went against an undertaking made by the former government.
How can one conceive of a partnership within NATO without the possibility of other countries replacing Canada in southern Kandahar, the most dangerous region, in 2009?