I thought, when question period was going to be hot, that you should come as parliamentary secretary and answer the questions.
First of all, maybe I could preface answering your question by saying that coming to the conclusion that Canada's continued engagement should be conditional was something that we reached over a long period of deliberation. It really was based on a first conclusion that Canada's role in Afghanistan was one that was just and noble and right, and an appropriate extension of Canadian foreign policy, but it should not be done in a naive way, and neither should we be putting our young people at risk if there weren't a reasonable likelihood that they would be able to succeed in the task that they were taking on with great courage.
We then began to look at some of the conditions. Quite frankly, we're not military experts either. NATO itself published numbers with respect to what troop levels should be. If my memory serves me, in the south generally, not specific to Kandahar, it was published that the additional increment should be in the order of 4,000 troops, which made the recommendations we received from our military, particularly generals Hillier and Laroche, that what was required in Kandahar province was an additional battle group of 1,000 soldiers. In our report we recommended that this should be the minimum that Canada should be looking for.
What I'll do, Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, is invite my colleagues to say something, if they want. I found over the weeks we worked together that they were rather shy, but they may feel that they would like to add something to my responses. So if that's agreeable, Mr. Chair, I would just invite them to say what they feel they wish to say.