I would be very interested to see it.
My friend says there is no difference, essentially, between a farmer who may be intimidated or forced by means of violence or bribery to grow poppy that is used for heroin and the large-scale drug operations that are fuelling the Taliban, and I would disagree with that. I think there's a fundamental difference, just as we have seen small-time operators in Canada—though I'm not equating the two—and large-scale operations, grow-ops, that are fuelling drug proliferation here and elsewhere. There is a large difference.
The position taken by ISAF and the NATO countries to target those activities, those drug operations, that are specifically linked to the insurgency is what we're talking about here. We're not talking about alienating the local population; we're not talking about targeting a farmer who may, sadly, through necessity, be growing poppy. There is a big difference, and I would suggest there is an ability to discern who is involved with the large-scale operations of drug trafficking in Afghanistan and those who are not. That is the deliberate effort that will be made.
To date, Canada has not participated in this policy. It's our intention to focus on current operations, which do not include targeting drug trafficking operations. As NATO countries, we do have an obligation to discuss and participate in these policies.
What I would suggest to my friend is that we will always operate in theatre in accordance with international law and our own chain of command when those decisions are made. What our intention is--and let's be clear about this--is that where there is a connection between illicit drug activity and the insurgency and the funding of the insurgency, that, we believe, is legitimate for the Canadian Forces to interrupt, disrupt, and stop.