Evidence of meeting #6 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghans.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stuart Clark  Chair, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canadian Food Security Policy Group
Mamby Fofana  Member of the Board of Directors, Unitarian Service Committee of Canada, Canadian Food Security Policy Group
Joshua Mukusya  Founder, Utooni Development Project, Canadian Food Security Policy Group
Rachel Bezner Kerr  Research Coordinator, Soils, Food and Healthy Communities Project, Canadian Food Security Policy Group
Susan Walsh  Executive Director, Unitarian Service Committee of Canada, Canadian Food Security Policy Group
Omar Samad  Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

11:55 a.m.

Chair, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canadian Food Security Policy Group

Stuart Clark

To briefly answer the question you asked about what we would recommend to government at this point, I think we would continue to say that it was a wise, and I think good, policy to look at a ramping-up of Canada's aid for agriculture, which had fallen to 2% of our aid budget, around $80 million. The plan was to step it up, over five years, to $500 million.

As I indicated, it plateaued about three years ago. This was partly a result of the previous government's international policy statement through which the decision was made that agriculture would not be a sector priority within CIDA—that's a point we've made with you many times—with the result that it plateaued at $200 million, and it hasn't gone up or down, as far as I'm aware.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

That's less than half of what was recommended.

11:55 a.m.

Chair, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canadian Food Security Policy Group

Stuart Clark

That's right.

I think we would bring an additional recommendation today saying that this really needs to be acted upon. I think that was the sense of the all-party resolution coming from the standing committee back in February.

The additional point that we want to bring is that the adaptation to climate change is such a serious problem that it would be wrong to raid or take away money from health, education, and indeed other agricultural activities to support climate change adaptation. It really needs to be seen as part of our climate change response. I'm not sure, technically, whether that's appropriately channelled through CIDA, or how that would be done. Perhaps those are some of the issues being discussed at this moment in Bali. We do feel really strongly that as part of the polluters in this case, we have a certain responsibility--which, I think, Canadians understand--to redress the consequences of problems we've had a lot to do with creating.

So we'd see that as additional to the push that we've tried to give in the past towards an agriculture sector priority.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you.

Ms. Walsh.

11:55 a.m.

Executive Director, Unitarian Service Committee of Canada, Canadian Food Security Policy Group

Susan Walsh

I'll be quick.

In addition to an increase in the resources for this kind of work for agriculture, the approach also has to be looked at carefully. I guess the message that our colleagues are bringing is that it needs to be a farmer-centred approach that supports small producers. The government needs to work very closely with civil society organizations both in the north and in the south so that the aid is really support that's owned by the local communities and they can move forward. It isn't just about the amount but about the quality of the work that's being supported.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you.

We want to thank all of you for being here and speaking on the issues of Africa. Certainly for those who have come from Africa, we welcome you here, and we very much appreciate the information received first-hand from you. We wish you all the best. I know that some of you are here for other meetings, so we wish you all the best for those.

To the committee, there is some lunch provided. I do not want to suspend for more than two to three minutes.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Members, in our second hour today we are continuing our study of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

We have with us this afternoon His Excellency Omar Samad, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada.

We want to thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for taking the time and making the effort to be with us here today. This committee, as you know, the foreign affairs and international development committee, is concerned about both parts of the undertaking that Canada has in Afghanistan, not only the military perspective but also the developmental perspective.

We look forward to your comments. You're always welcome here and we're pleased to have you.

I should also mention that you've brought your wife with you today--we welcome her--and a group from the embassy.

The time is yours, and then we'll move into the first round of questioning.

Your Excellency.

12:05 p.m.

H.E. Omar Samad Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

Thank you very much.

Honourable members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, thank you very much for your invitation and for having organized an hour of discussion and dialogue with an Afghan.

I believe it can be useful, from time to time, to engage Afghans who have experienced the modern-day history of their country and who have also devoted a great many efforts to trying to resolve the problems of Afghanistan. I am grateful to you for this opportunity.

I'm going to use my time to highlight what I call strategic imperatives and also the critical human factors involved in the Afghan case.

Afghanistan, as you know, is a country in a recovering state that wants to put behind it the failed-state model and mode it encountered over almost 25 years during a period of instability, conflict, and destruction, some of which was caused by factors beyond the Afghan reach.

We are in the process of rebuilding a state within a strong and traditional nation. We are in the process of building peace, a constitutional order based on democratic principles according to Afghan wishes, a functioning economy and civil society, and a foundation for human rights and the rule of law.

To do so, the international community, including Canada, has joined hands and committed itself to helping us provide security and protection, build institutions, strengthen capacities, and fund social and economic development work under a United Nations mandate.

The Afghanistan Compact of 2006 became the binding blueprint for achieving defined benchmarks and timelines by 2011, as you know. Your country is a major contributor toward several of the compact benchmarks, a fact that, in my opinion, all Canadians can take pride in.

This process also includes internal and external countercurrents that create obstacles and challenges; seek to halt progress; disrupt the strategy that I just mentioned; instill fear; and use various tactics to create the conditions in Afghanistan and in contributing countries for failure or an alternative course that suits their strategic purpose.

What is clear to us Afghans, though, is that we do not seek regression or a return to pre-2001 conditions. Afghans do not want to be ruled by ruthless oppressors. As your multicultural society clearly demonstrates, people have differences in terms of tradition, history, and cultural traits. But in today's globalized world, Afghans are instinctively preoccupied with the same daily issues that preoccupy most of mankind and families across the globe at varying degrees of development.

As three different polls conducted across Afghanistan over the past three months demonstrate, most Afghans are relatively hopeful about their future. To encapsulate the findings, Afghans support their elected government and the presence of foreign forces, while they oppose the Taliban and do not want them to rule the country again.

Polls also suggest that Afghans are slightly less optimistic than a year ago, and are frustrated at the slow pace of reconstruction and security efforts, including mounting civilian casualties. Although approximately 14,000 small- and medium-scale projects have been on the board for implementation over the past five years and are being implemented, there's increasing dissatisfaction with the availability of jobs, roads, infrastructure in general, clean water, and electricity.

Among other key findings, almost 70% of Afghans are critical of Pakistan's role in allowing the Taliban to operate, while 60% want the government to talk to willing Taliban. The same number are opposed to growing poppies for opium. This can be explained by the fact that only 6% or so of the country's arable land is used for poppy cultivation, mostly in the insurgent-infested south and east of the country.

With few exceptions, Afghans are voicing the desire to move forward. They are seeking new opportunities and better lives for their children by tackling the difficulties and challenges we face. But they want to do so with vision, with a long-term perspective, and in partnership with countries such as yours, whose support and sacrifices we honour very much.

Currently we are facing increasing violence and brutality on the part of radical groups with support bases inside and outside of Afghanistan. They are using asymmetric warfare in the form of suicide attacks, IEDs, beheadings, and bombings to disrupt the democratic rebuilding process. Some do it for narrow ideological purposes, others for financial interests entangled with the drug business, while some are in need of an income or are dissatisfied with authorities for some reason or other.

We are also faced with an economic surge that has not reached all regions and all people. We also face weak institutions and government services, mixed with corruption, and at times a dysfunctional judiciary, which in our opinion will take a long time to reform. The enemy, however, is exploiting all these fault lines while we attempt to maintain our equilibrium.

As we are a fragile state, we cannot always expect quick fixes and immediate solutions that can satisfy all the stakeholders, domestic or foreign. Given the Afghan traditions, the rebuilding process is a long-term mission, with many pitfalls along the way, and it will require statesmanship, strong political will, sacrifice, leadership skills, perseverance, and sustainable support to attain its objectives.

In addition, we realize that a military component is a critical part of the equation, but it is not necessarily the only option for the final outcome. That is why Canada and other partners have adopted a multi-pronged approach to dealing with all the aspects of the situation on the ground. However, we cannot ignore the fact that security and relative stability are prerequisites for the successful implementation of sustainable development. Better coordination and management of the daunting tasks at all levels are equally important.

We cannot separate Afghanistan and the region in which it is situated from strategic considerations in the same manner that we cannot ignore the human protection and human security responsibilities. We cannot address the global security concerns and threats that are embedded in my region of the world without looking at the issues of education, health, the plight of women and children, and human rights.

Also, we cannot take for granted the ideological and radicalization challenges we face without addressing poverty levels and, for example, reliance on poppy cultivation in poverty-stricken areas, as well as the possibility of welcoming and accepting those Afghans who give up on violence and seek a constructive role.

As you can see, honourable members, Afghanistan is not a unidimensional matter, nor is it an isolated concern. It cannot be defined in simplistic sound-bite terms, since we are dealing with a serious and complex matter of strategic importance. I have to say that Canada is, fortunately, engaged at the most critical levels and adjusting well to the dynamic environment. Canadians in civil and military affairs in Afghanistan are indeed serving a noble cause and deserve all the support you give them.

We all need to contemplate for a minute what the consequences of failure would mean to Afghans, to the region, to the forces of oppression, and to those in the family of nations who have invested in blood and in kind. What message do we send to friends and foe? What legacy do we leave behind for today's children and future generations? What does it mean to multilateralism and post-conflict engagement? What does it mean in terms of civilizational and cross-cultural relations?

I am happy to see that a prominent independent panel of Canadians is carefully studying the case, with the task of providing you and all Canadians with balanced recommendations that will help your nation decide its future role in my country. Whatever the decision, I urge you beforehand to contemplate strategically, using broad analysis and grand perspective.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity you have given me. It will be a pleasure for me to answer your questions.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Merci. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

We'll go to the first round. We'll have a split between Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Martin.

December 4th, 2007 / 12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador, it's always good to see you.

I have three quick points. I know we can't do this justice, but certainly I'd like your quick comments.

First, in Canada we have the largest diasporas outside Afghanistan. In my view, we're not utilizing them effectively. Do you have any suggestions in that regard?

Second, on the issue of opium, you talked about 6% of the land use. As you know, the Senlis Council has proposed the Poppy for Medicine approach in its report, dealing particularly with the issue of seed to medicine tablets, again trying to respond to issues out there around drug use.

Your government has opposed it, our government has opposed it. Maybe you could elaborate very briefly as to the alternative, because it's getting worse.

Finally, what blueprint do you see needs to be in place in order to “Afghanicize” decision-making and management and achieve that buy-in from both Afghans and your allies?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Ambassador.

12:15 p.m.

Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

H.E. Omar Samad

Thank you.

You have touched upon three very interesting topics that are also close to my heart, in one way or another.

Yes, Canada has a strong presence of Afghans. Our Afghan Canadians have been here for 20 to 25 years in most cases. The numbers run somewhere between 100,000 to 120,000 people, mostly concentrated in the greater Toronto region.

As an expatriate myself, who in 2001 left exile and decided to go back and serve my country, I can tell you that one of the most effective ways to build capacity and transfer knowledge and skills to this newly redeveloping country, and to be a bridge between the new home and the old home, is to reconnect the Afghans, who had to leave their country under duress over the past 25 to 30 years, to their homeland.

I have talked to my colleagues within the Canadian government on many occasions, especially in CIDA, about looking at ways to facilitate the return of some qualified Afghans who are willing to go--and spend whatever period of time they would like--and be of help. I think that help will not only go a long way to assist Afghanistan, but it will also go a long way to assist Canada and other countries where we have large communities of Afghans.

On the opium cultivation issue and the Senlis Council proposition, as you know, our government does not think it is the best and most effective way of tackling this humongous problem. I have to tell you that 30 years ago, prior to the Soviet invasion, and the subsequent crises it underwent, Afghanistan was not a major opium-producing country. As I mentioned, even today, 6% of our arable land is being used by less than about 15% of the farmers for this cash crop. Interestingly, they do so in the most volatile regions of the country. They do so, to a large extent, as a result of war weariness, of poverty, and because they have no other alternatives.

One of the solutions we are seriously looking toward with our partners, especially the U.K., which has the lead in this field, and now the Americans, who are playing an important role, and many other countries, including Canada, which, for instance, provides a certain amount of assistance toward alternative livelihoods in Afghanistan, is a strategy that works for Afghanistan. It could work for a region that is also affected by it, and the world at large, because the product ends up on your streets as well. It is a shared problem that we need to tackle together. There is the supply-side issue and there's the demand-side issue. We hope that everything between the supply side and the demand side can also be addressed and that not all the pressure is put on the supplier.

As a result, we think that the new approach we'll be taking, which will also be backed by very large amounts of monetary support, will provide the Afghan farmer with a clear decision--namely, if you continue, these are the consequences. We do not want to punish you right away. The purpose is not to punish you. The purpose is to help you move to other crops and an alternative means of livelihood. Of course you need certain things from us, as the government or as the international community, to be able to make that move. Whether it's rural development, roads, schools and clinics, agribusiness, and access to markets, we will do our share.

Now, when we say that we will do our share, we need to deliver. On a couple of occasions in the past few years, we told the Afghan farmers, “Here we are, and we are going to help you move to a licit means of livelihood”, but then we failed to deliver.

That would be the disastrous scenario for all of us, to promise and not be able to deliver.

This is the way we are going to take. We are looking at all kinds of alternative crops. They are things that may not compete with opium or heroin on the markets, but they will come close to it. I am of the belief--and the latest polls show--that the Afghan people are opposed to poppy cultivation as a matter of principle, and almost 70% of Afghans are opposed to it.

In our culture it is prohibited. In our constitution it is prohibited. So the first answer I have for Senlis is that...why are you trying to impose something that is illegal--culturally, legally, constitutionally, religiously--for the Afghans? That would be a recipe for many other problems.

Let's not take that route. Again, their little amount of work in Afghanistan has shown that wherever they went and proposed this idea, we saw a sudden surge in poppy cultivation.

Is that the answer to Afghanistan's problems? From all sides, the answer to that is, no, it is not.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

We will go to the next questioner.

Madame Barbot.

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Ambassador.

You stated that Afghanistan's problems are immense in all areas. In Canada, as you are probably aware, a good portion of the population, without wanting to minimize the need to go into war zones because there is a situation that demands it, would like to see Canada involved in other areas, namely peacemaking efforts which are closer, culturally, to what we are used to doing. That is more or less what Canadians are saying.

With regard to the present mission that is to be wound down in 2009, do you have an idea of areas in which Canadian aid might be useful?

12:25 p.m.

Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

H.E. Omar Samad

Thank you very much.

You have an important mission in various respects, including a military mission in Afghanistan that will last until 2009. You also made a promise and signed an agreement with the Afghan people and the rest of the international community. Indeed, the Afghanistan Compact, signed in London last year, states that Afghanistan must benefit from help and assistance at all levels until 2011. We will then sit down again around the table, all of us together, to reflect on what will have been accomplished and decide on the future. It will of course be up to you, to Canadians and to the Parliament of Canada, to decide what you will do beyond 2009.

As an Afghan, I can simply tell you that the Afghan people and government are clearly saying that they see no way for ourselves to control military affairs and security in Afghanistan as of 2009. If we are ready to do so, we will tell you. If we are not ready, then you must not create a more complex and dangerous situation by saying that you will leave and that there will be nothing to replace you. You must still, with your NATO partners, agree together on what NATO will do in Afghanistan. But Afghans — and I believe that President Karzai was he too very clear on this — will need international military assistance until 2009 and beyond. I cannot tell you for how long, the situation is very difficult. I can tell you that we are, of course, in the process of rebuilding the Afghan army and police, and I hope that we will be able to accomplish this quickly.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

You have more time, Madame Barbot....

Madame St-Hilaire.

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Ambassador, thank you for being here today.

I would perhaps like to hear you pursue your explanations. Indeed, you stated in very thinly veiled terms that you hope that Canada will stay on after 2009, or in any event, that you were not ready for post-2009. I understand that beyond that date, you are concerned that the government and the people might not be ready...

12:25 p.m.

Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

H.E. Omar Samad

That is what we foresee.

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

That is what you foresee for after 2009.

In fact, for the benefit of the Committee perhaps, I would like you to tell us what it would take for Afghanistan to be ready, for your government to be ready for what will come after.

12:25 p.m.

Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

H.E. Omar Samad

Very well.

If you do not mind, I will answer in English.

Thank you.

To be ready today means reaching certain objectives and benchmarks. Some of them are clearly defined under the Afghanistan Compact, clearly, and some of them are evolving in a dynamic as the situation on the ground changes.

Look at our region. We are sandwiched in quite an interesting, fascinating, yet dangerous region of the world. It's a dynamic region. Things are changing on the ground that are having a direct impact on conditions in Afghanistan.

If you ask Afghans—and I told you about the poll that was recently taken—most Afghans think that insecurity has external roots. Yes, there is a component that's internal, domestic, and we know there is some dissatisfaction by some groups here and there for this reason or that reason. But the core of the armed groups that are facing us and your soldiers today, and the soldiers of many other countries, is fighting there for an ideological reason, a very narrow ideological reason.

Take the person who commits a suicide attack. First of all, in most cases they are non-Afghans. They are trained outside of Afghanistan, they are equipped outside of Afghanistan, and they learn their skills outside of Afghanistan. Then they are exported to Afghanistan. As a result, we suffer. All of us suffer.

This means that you have to look at the larger context. You cannot only look at what happened today in Panjwai district. You have to look at what caused an incident in Panjwai district to happen. How did it happen? How did they reach that region? Who provided the logistics? Where did they get the training, and so on and so forth, including the funding eventually. Where did that come from?

As you can see—and I tried to put this in my presentation to you—that is what makes Afghanistan strategic, or it's one of the reasons. It goes beyond simply one district, one province, or even one country. That's why, as we are building up the national army....

The latest news I have received is that the acceleration that we have put into this effort has actually yielded some very positive results in the sense that we now think that the army that is targeted to be at 70,000 trained men and women will be formed sooner than we expected, hopefully before 2009. At the same time, our government is of the opinion that 70,000 is not enough for Afghanistan security, given, again, the changing dynamics on the ground. We may be now thinking about engaging everyone on adding to this number, because Afghanistan needs to go beyond having an army of only 70,000 men.

The same with the police. As you know, for a while attempts were made to create a new police force. It did not result in satisfactory forces. There were all types of issues. But right now, as we are speaking, there are hundreds of millions of dollars from various countries and donors, including Canada, that are being allocated and spent on the reform of the police, including increased salaries, which was a huge problem, and improving the quality and the quantity of training and equipment.

Once we reach some of these benchmarks...and again, the sooner the better. I want to emphasize that. The sooner Afghans can be fully in charge of these issues, the better, so that, not only for Afghanistan's sake but also for the regional complexities, we can handle the situation. Then we can talk about other options that exist.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

We'll proceed to Mr. Obhrai then Mr. Goldring, for a split time.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, for coming. It's always nice to hear your perspective.

I'm very happy that you did mention the London compact and the benchmarks that need to be reached to rebuild Afghanistan. As you rightly pointed out, it's not one single approach to building Afghanistan. It's a multi-level approach that requires all players, including the governments, NGOs, security components, all of this to rebuild Afghanistan. You can't have a one-track mind...and which is the London compact. So all this attention that says we need to concentrate on only one aspect and stop the other aspects is not going to work. You rightly pointed out about the region.

What I find amazing regarding an organization like the Senlis Council is that we still need to know what its objective really is. It comes out with reports that are so narrowly focused and so narrowly defined, giving a totally wrong picture of what is actually happening, then that gets picked up. Today's article by Nipa Banerjee in the Ottawa Citizen very rightly gives the whole picture of what is wrong with Senlis Council's narrow approach of coming out and saying that things are wrong here, and let's do this here, and not taking into account.

What I find quite interesting in the Senlis report is the suggestion that NATO should now move into Pakistan. I don't understand why, all of a sudden, this organization is going to urge a move into another country. To do what? Getting into this debate, to solve the problem of Afghanistan? Yet it comes in front of the committee on this thing.

Now, the dynamics in Pakistan...and I'm not trying to put you in conflict. Obviously you have to work multilaterally with Pakistan and and so on. But what I would like to hear from you is an assurance that all multi-faceted aspects of development in Afghanistan are moving forward, not as the Senlis report comes out, cherry-picking here and there, to say that this is wrong and this is not.

We never hear about the northern part of Afghanistan. We never hear of the regions, what they are doing and what is happening there. All we hear about is what is going on around here.

So perhaps you want to give us what the international community...and where, and how assuring it is to the Canadians that...thinks that Canadians put money down in development, all these things, is working for Afghanistan.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

12:35 p.m.

Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada

H.E. Omar Samad

Thank you.

Canada has pledged and is delivering on providing Afghanistan $1.2-billion Canadian worth of development aid in a ten-year period. Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian aid ever. We are very grateful for this, and we appreciate every dollar. I, as an Afghan, have said many times that I want every dollar of Canadian aid to go as far as it can in changing and improving the lives of Afghans, whether it's for children and women, whether it's for infrastructure, whether it's for governance or rule of law or human rights.

For example, yesterday, we were very happy to hear about the $80 million additional dollars pledged over four years for demining. A couple of months ago, education again became a priority for Canada. Canada is going to be a leader amongst nations in helping us create the new Afghan education system and build schools and train teachers.

These are real changes, real facts, which one may not see because of the way the changes are implemented over time. But they have made, and continue to make, a difference in the lives of the Afghan people.

This doesn't mean that everybody's happy and satisfied. This doesn't mean that the job is complete and finished. This doesn't mean that the needs of Afghanistan are met. This means that this job, as I mentioned in my remarks, is a long-term mission of rebuilding a country that was destroyed over 25 years. Just imagine any society, whether developed or semi-developed or under-developed, being hammered politically, militarily, economically for 25 years constantly. What would happen? Do you expect that to rebound over five years? It doesn't happen. It has never happened in history. Why do we have such expectations for Afghanistan?

The question is whether we have the political will to understand this and then to commit long term, not only to the military aspect of this mission but also on all the other fronts that exist.

As you said, the Afghanistan Compact is a blueprint, and one that we have signed on to, which means that we have to meet.... For example, yesterday, we announced to the world that we destroyed, under the Ottawa treaty, all the mines and explosives that have been stockpiled in Afghanistan over the last four years. We signed on to the Ottawa treaty in 2003. We had an obligation to destroy tens of thousands of mines that were collected and stockpiled, and we did. That was an Afghanistan Compact benchmark that was met.

So where do we stand? Does this mean it's the end of the mine problem in Afghanistan? No. We know for a fact that we have millions of mines still buried under Afghan land, and every day—every day—at least two Afghans, mostly children, lose a limb or lose life as a result of it. Every day.

So you see, this is one issue that Afghans have to face, and one issue that you, as our friends, are helping us resolve, amongst hundreds of issues that we have to face. That means you have to be patient with this issue. You have to have a long-term perspective. You have to send the right message, not only to the Afghans, not only to the foe, which is sitting there trying to undo everything we're trying to do, but also to your own people, who expect you to deliver with their tax money.

When I say we are grateful for Canada's help, I mean we are grateful for every dollar, every soldier who serves in Afghanistan. They will be remembered for eternity in our history. They are now part of our history, as we are part of yours.

So are we going to give up on this mission halfway? As we see, there is real potential for success, because you have the backing of the Afghan people. Why throw away a mission, or change mid-course the dynamics of the mission, while what we could be doing is strengthening it? We could look at ways to strengthen it to better accomplish the goals we all have together.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

We'll go to Mr. Dewar.