Debates of Nov. 15th, 2005

Canada's military mission in Afghanistan

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Chair, the hon. member seemed to have a negative view of the anticipated new funding for the armed forces in that the new capital amounts made available will not be coming on stream for three or four years down the line. Would he not acknowledge that it is simply out of the question and the government cannot for any government department simply turn over a big bag full of money and expect that department to recruit immediately and acquire equipment immediately? Would he not agree that the whole process of acquisition of appropriate armaments and equipment for the armed forces requires a process of evaluation of requirements and it takes one or two years to even get there?

The member himself has just attempted to castigate the government for doing sole sourcing to get the equipment quickly. The whole process of recruiting new people for our forces and acquiring equipment, no matter what he or I do, is actually going to take many years down the road.

I am not so sure his complaint about a delay in the funding was well placed. That funding will be going in right at the time it is going to be needed for these procurements and new recruiting. Would he agree with that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Chair, the member's question certainly lays open this whole issue.

The member's party has talked about this huge infusion of money, but in fact it is not a huge infusion of money immediately. I do not disagree that all of the money could be used in year one, but we are so far behind to start with, and that is the issue we have about the sole sourcing. The government has let the cupboard get bare and it does not have many options to replenish the inventory. We are committing our people to an operation where they need the tools to do the job. There has been poor planning for the last 10 years and the government has let the military decline. Now it is talking about a huge infusion of money. The member is right, the military cannot use it overnight. The past has now caught up to us.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Chair, as fate would have it, I actually was in Afghanistan with our forces just a few months ago and I saw the equipment at work. Our forces are very happy with their equipment. They are not under-equipped. They are not short of anything, save perhaps one element. Everything they need on the ground is there and is working wonderfully. I suppose there has never been a time in human history when an army was totally satisfied with everything from their socks to their guns to their tanks to their support.

From personal experience I am suggesting to the hon. member that our forces are very happy with what they have and all the equipment they are using in Afghanistan. That is not to say they are ready to go to other countries and do other work, but on the Afghanistan mission they are more than well equipped. They are perhaps some of the best equipped and trained soldiers there.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Chair, my understanding is there is something like 16 requirements for additional equipment in that theatre that have not been met. I do not think it is up to me to tell the government what they are. The military knows what they are.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Name one.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Armour protection for APCs.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Artillery. Do you want me to name the 16?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Chair, with all due respect, the member says that he was in Kandahar. If he thinks our troops are fully equipped, why would the minister want to do sole sourcing? We are obviously short of equipment. We understand that.

We are not trying to deny that our troops need the equipment. We are suggesting that they should have had it a long time ago. The government let the cupboards get bare and now it is time to try and pay the piper.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Madam Chair, is it true that the forces in Afghanistan still require equipment, that there are 16 requirements going through right now for equipment for the forces in Kandahar and in Kabul? There are still some forces in Kabul.

In addition, there were four aircraft requirements going through until today. At least three of them claimed to be connected to the Kandahar requirement. This includes armour protection, artillery, weapons for the troops, armour protection for trucks. There are even armoured patrol vehicles in there.

If the forces have all the equipment they need, why does the government need to ram through billions of dollars of new equipment for these people?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Chair, obviously the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills is far more aware of what the shortcomings are.

I agree with him wholeheartedly. If we are doing this stuff in a hurry, then we were shortsighted some time ago, not yesterday, not last week, but months and years ago. This is the problem.

I have been to military bases. I have seen some of our equipment. I have seen trucks on blocks with the wheels rusted off. We have let the military deteriorate to a state where we are so far behind that it is a case of catching up. We have to move into the future.

We all know about the airlift capabilities, the helicopters. That has been an issue for some time. The military has been shortchanged over the last several years. Now we have the forces in a theatre where they need the equipment. They have the people. They are excellent people, but we have not properly equipped them.

That is all we are talking about. We should have done this before we committed them to this theatre.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Chair, I want to follow up on my colleague's comments. I too have visited our troops in Afghanistan.

I will not comment on the future needs in Kandahar. Perhaps there were items that we did not know we would need. That is why we are purchasing them. I will not specifically comment on that.

However, I did ask our troops at the time I visited. The reason I went was to make sure they were well equipped and were being well treated. Indeed everyone I talked with was very happy with the equipment they had. They could not identify any other equipment that they needed. They were very well cared for as far as the operation goes. In fact, there were members of armed forces from other countries in our camp at the time I was there. They were there because our camp was so well run and the provisions were so good.

I just wanted to relate the particular experience I had. The troops I talked with were very happy. They felt they were well equipped. They did not express any needs at the time and they were very well provisioned.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Chair, with all due respect, I have not been there.

I understand what the member is saying. I come from somewhat of a similar background to the military people. Sometimes when people ask them if they are happy with what they have, they have a certain reluctance to tell outside people what they are short of. This is the case with police officers and it is the case with the military.

I am not satisfied that our people are properly equipped with the tools they need to do the job. I am satisfied that we can provide those tools. We should have been providing the equipment to our troops in the last several years, not just trying to get it done in the next several weeks.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the issue of Canada's role in Afghanistan. We do not have to dwell too long on how we got there, but it was essentially part of the international effort to deal with the terrorism that manifested itself in 9/11 and has subsequently manifested itself in other places around the world.

At this time our forces are present in Afghanistan on a worthy commitment, one that Canadians have up to now supported. I think they will continue to support it, not because they see it as some great western conquest, but because they see it as a method of assisting Afghans to rebuild their country and to become a functioning state in the modern world.

As I mentioned earlier, I did have an opportunity to visit our forces there. Thanks to the forces, I was able to train with them in Camp Petawawa for a short period. I visited with two members from other parties. The experience was certainly one I will not forget.

Evident to me in that visit was the high level of training of the Canadian soldier. It was evident in comparison to other soldiers in the theatre, other military, other parties there. Our soldiers in our Canadian Forces across the board not only have superb training, but they show their superb training in what they do and what they do not do, in their body language, how they speak and how they deal with other people. That was evident to me as I watched them do their work in the camp, in the desert, in the hills and in the city. They seemed capable of working well in all of those environments, both in achieving the military objective and in getting along with the local people.

The issue of equipment has been mentioned. Both here in Canada and in Afghanistan the issue came up. I asked, as did my colleagues from the Conservative Party, and our forces are very happy with the new equipment, the LAV IIIs and the new G-wagon, the LUV, the light utility vehicle. All of these are armoured.

I, myself, witnessed the difference between the LAV, the armoured personnel carrier without the heavy duty armour and with the heavy duty armour. The armour added to the LAV III, the large armoured personnel carrier was at least an inch thick. That was added to the vehicle as part of the vehicle. While it is not necessary for training, it is used over there. The additional armour put into the transport vehicles was also there.

There are a few older vehicles that are used in different roles which do not have the add on armour, that is true, but for the main mission where the armour is needed to protect against the type of improvised exploding device, a bomb at the side of the road, a bomb in a car, there is lots of armour. The forces are trained and they know that they may be knocked out in an explosion, but they will not die. Their armour is quite good. I have already admitted that not every vehicle is fully armoured in that way. No army over there has full armour on every vehicle.

They are very happy with the new uniforms, both the old greens that are still around and the desert camouflage. I had the privilege of wearing both and they work well, from the socks right on up.

Camp conditions were excellent, as good as any around. There were many, many foreign troops visiting the Canadian camp for a meal or for some other amenities. The Canadian camp was extremely well run.

Relationships with other forces were excellent. The Camp Mirage air support base in the region was extremely well run and is an asset that the military and Canadians can be proud of.

Of the many unforgettable experiences there for me as a member of Parliament, two aspects in particular stand out. First, as I mentioned, the quality and skills of the Canadian soldier are really quite conspicuous. The nutrition, the physical training and the team discipline are evident everywhere as a part of the Canadian military environment. Particularly noticeable was the ability of our Canadian soldiers to recognize and accommodate other languages, religions and cultures, a general accordance of respect to our Afghan hosts both in words and in body language.

With reference to the application of force to a threat to themselves or civilians, there seems to be a very good sense of proportionality of response. When force must be used, the men and women of our forces know what it means to be on both ends of a gun.

Most of the soldiers put big parts of their lives on hold to serve there so that we Canadians can contribute to the international effort to enable Afghans to look to a future of personal security and order in a place where their children can have fuller, happier lives.

I had an opportunity in more than one context to be face to face with Afghan hosts, regular people in the street and in the hills. I can say that when I looked into their eyes, I could see there was a recognition that most if not all of the foreign troops on their soil were there to offer that type of future. They did not fear the foreign military. It was pleasing for me to see that.

Another impression I had was that of the industriousness of the Afghan people. They all appeared to be working or ready to work at anything, however menial that might be. I have no doubt that given half a chance they will rebuild their country and do more than that. They will do it brick by brick, in the city or in the rural areas, and they will do it after a quarter century of war. They have faith themselves: they have their religious faith and they have faith in their country and their heritage.

I will close by saying that I could not be prouder of our forces there and of the other civilian components of our team now in Kandahar. I was there the night that the first vehicles left from Camp Julian in Kabul to go to Kandahar. That was the first move out of a relatively secure Kabul, although our soldiers did have some dangerous assignments prior to that, but it was a move down the road, through hills and valleys which we did not control. They left as usual in darkness, in the early hours of the morning. I had met, eaten with and spent time with those soldiers who were heading out. They moved out and down the road with all of the risks of ambush, et cetera. They got to their destination and thus began the move into Kandahar sector.

There are additional risks in Kandahar. They all knew it. They were trained superbly. I personally found their standing orders a little on the aggressive side from my Canadian perspective here as a member of Parliament; I do not have to live with the kinds of risks that our soldiers do. But those standing orders seem to work and they appear to be working very well.

In closing, let me say that those soldiers carry with them our hopes and aspirations as Canadians. I want to say that we are not going to let the terrorists take away the freedom that the Afghans have now. We are not going to do that. Even more than that, looking here from Canada, we can never let the terrorists take away the freedom that we have as Canadians here and the freedoms that we expect here and abroad.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to get back to equipment, because the member alluded to it earlier and in his speech, and there were comments from the other hon. member about the forces being well equipped.

I think we are confusing two forces. There are the forces in Kabul, who are there in a peacekeeping role, and recently they got new armoured jeeps to protect them. As we can recall, a year or two ago, two of our soldiers were killed in unarmoured jeeps. Those jeeps have been replaced.

The rush for equipment right now is not for the Kabul role. The rush for equipment is for the new Kandahar aggressive role, where we are going to hunt down the Taliban. That is why more equipment is needed: because they are not adequately equipped for that role.

I want to deal specifically with two of the sixteen projects that are going through, one of which is the armoured protection for the LAV IIIs. The government is ordering 77 kits, but it is ordering 77 kits of level 1 protection, which is 10 year old protection.

The company that produces level 1 also produces level 3, which is lighter and more effective and gives those forces more protection. Yet the government decided to give them 10 year old armoured protection instead of the most modern and the most risk-free armoured protection. I wonder why that decision was made.

My second question to do with equipment has to do with the armoured patrol vehicles. The government is ordering somewhere in the area of 50 armoured patrol vehicles. At the moment, as I understand it, there are three possible competitors. The evaluation criteria are as follows: 50% is awarded for delivery on schedule; 30% is awarded to the best cost; and 20% to the best performance.

We are talking about armoured vehicles that are going into combat and we are setting delivery and schedule as two and a half times as valuable as the performance of the vehicle. That just seems bizarre.

Perhaps the member could explain to me these two procurements and why the government is doing it that way.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I will deal with the second question first in regard to delivery on time. Failure to deliver on time means there is no vehicle, there is no equipment and we have nothing. The contract simply has to arrange for delivery on time because it is needed in an appropriate way at an appropriate time, so incentives for delivery in selecting this equipment have to be built into the contract.

The first question had to do with the level of armour. It is a legitimate question, but the hon. member in his question has not addressed the level of risk and what we are protecting from. I suggest to the member that the LAV III, in reasonable numbers, is available and is being used over there with relatively high levels of protection.

We have to keep in mind that our role over there is not simply a military one. We are now part of a provincial reconstruction team, the 3D approach, where we are using diplomacy, development and defence. Those vehicles are going to be used not to transport soldiers into areas of intense military operation but to transport our 3D people, our development people, our CIDA people and our teachers. Many civilians are going to be working there. These vehicles are going to be used to transport those people into more remote areas in the Kandahar sector.

We simply will not be sending our people out where there is recognizable risk, so the risk levels where those vehicles are to be used is a reduced level of risk. That is not to say that something cannot come in unannounced and unreconnoitred, but we need a whole range of vehicles for that kind of provincial reconstruction team. We do not need a Sherman tank for every soldier there. We need many different types of vehicles for different purposes.

I respect the member's objectives in ensuring that all our Canadians are as protected as we can have them, but the vehicles we are selecting also have to be manoeuvrable, although I found the heavily armoured LAV III very manoeuvrable even in intense city traffic in rush hour in Kabul. Perhaps it was just that the people rather politely got out of the way. The LAV IIIs are very manoeuvrable even when heavy. The smaller G wagon, the LUV, the light utility vehicle, would labour with more armour and might not be so manoeuvrable.

That is an attempt to answer some of those questions.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to follow up on those answers.

First, we are talking about protection, not firepower. We are not talking about putting tank guns on these things. We are talking about protection. We are talking about protection against RPGs, 50 calibre or 20 millimetre armour piercing rounds. It does not matter whether a vehicle is carrying eight people or soldiers, the bandits in that country have all these weapons. We should be putting the best armour that is available in Canada, and right here in this city, on these vehicles. I just do not understand why that is not being done.

On the other argument about the armoured patrol vehicles being on time being worth two and a half times as much as performance, I will agree that being on time is important. A schedule has been set out to be on time and the schedule extends on for many months because the vehicles are not sitting in a parking where they can be picked up. They have to be manufactured.

But cost has been set even above performance. Performance is what counts in the vehicle. Performance is whether it goes across the proper areas and terrain and whether it has enough protection and power. Yet it is the lowest qualifying matter for the evaluation. It just does not make any sense.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Chair, the hon. member knows that even though timeliness of delivery is listed as a major factor, at the end of the day every vehicle delivered has to meet the specifications. We are not going to be accepting substandard equipment. The equipment will be delivered on spec and, even more importantly, on time. This is where that is coming from.

Second, he has described the RPG as being part of the continuing environment over there, but in fact I actually am not aware of a recent incident of the use of an RPG. I accept that they are over there. Where military or other intelligence shows that this type of weaponry is out there and is about to be used--and we do get that type of intelligence--then we will enlist the proper vehicles. These types of attacks actually do not just pop up. Much of it can be recognized through local intelligence.

In addition, the vehicles going out there are selected for use based on the risk. As for our heavy fighting, our fighting edge, our sharp edge, which someone described earlier as going out to hunt down the terrorists, in polite company around here we do not talk about it. Yes, we do have a very effective fighting capability and it is over there. As it needs to be used, it will have to be used and Canadians will respect that, but we are not all over there organized in a hunt to hunt down, kill and engage like we see in some of the American movies. We are going there to help Afghans rebuild. We do not do that with guns slung over our shoulders. We have to do it in a way that the Afghans will accept and they are accepting the Canadian way now.

However, there will be circumstances of danger. We have adequate forces, extremely well trained, to deal with the conditions of engagement of heavily armed opposition. Most of our work will not involve that. The vehicles chosen for that work will be appropriate to the risk. I have just as much interest as the member does in making sure that is what happens.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to take part in this somewhat emotional and worrisome debate since it concerns the decision that has already been taken to send our soldiers to Afghanistan. It will be no picnic. Our soldiers are not going on a peacekeeping mission. The mission's main purpose is to clean up the Kandahar region, occupied by the Taliban, most of whom are generally members of al-Qaeda. It will not be an easy mission.

This evening I hope that every Canadian and every Quebecker makes a special wish that nothing terrible happens to these young men and women on the other side of the world and that there is as little loss of human life as possible.

I want to devote part of my speech to the PRT, or the provincial reconstruction teams. Let us take a brief look at their background. In December 2001, the coalition set up the Joint Civil-Military Operations Task Force to supervise the civilian operations of the Coalition Humanitarian Liaison Cells. These cells had multiple missions. As the Americans said, their goal was “to win the hearts and mind of the people”. Their other mission was to start reconstruction and help boost public opinion of the coalition's image.

One of the letters in the acronym PRT stands for reconstruction. In my opinion, reconstruction means restoring infrastructure, the water system, destroyed roads, and so forth. To do this, military personnel have been sent without uniforms or defining features and in unmarked vehicles. This has been a huge problem for NGOs. They work much better with the 3D approach: defence, diplomacy and development assistance. My dictionary distinguishes between reconstruction and development. We can develop health care or parenting skills. Developing a society means learning to create companies and provide jobs. That is called development.

In my opinion, development is best left to the NGOs, while the PRTs should be responsible for reconstruction. However, the PRTs and the NGOs should work hand in hand when it comes to defence and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, as my colleague from Saint-Jean said, there will not be too much diplomacy going on. That is what is happening.

Now I want to talk about guidelines. What should the PRTs do? First, they should concentrate on security. Restoring security is important, such as training the Taliban to be good police officers. In fact, the RCMP is part of the PRTs. They should be responsible, for example, for protecting and properly handling the prisoners of war. That is their role.

The PRTs should refrain from providing and distributing humanitarian aid—such as food, for example—except in emergency situations. That should be the mission of the NGOs, just as Doctors Without Borders provides medical care.

As I said earlier, the PRTs should concentrate on infrastructure reconstruction and local security reform, rather than so-called quick impact development projects. Such efforts are well perceived and quickly implemented, but the PRTs should specialize in long-term projects.

The PRTs must answer to the local communities and their government, which knows how things are done there. Their system of education and culture are different from ours.

From my point of view, there is a major difference between development and reconstruction. Reconstruction is more mechanical, physical construction, whereas development is more intellectual and focussed on people's well-being. That is the difference between the two.

I have one big wish. I wish that, unlike the situation post-Gulf, post-Bosnia, post-Kosovo, we will not have any young military personnel coming back from this conflict with post-traumatic stress. In two, three or four years, when it is all over, I hope there will be not be any veterans like Nathalie Gagnon, Georges Dumont, Stéphane Grénier, Marc Hamel, Louise Richard, Marc Stében and François Gignac. Those young people have all been to my office to tell me how their lives have been shattered by the problems they have experienced and by PTS. They are all around my son's age.

I am very emotional about this issue. I am speaking to the chair of the Standing Sub-committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I feel that, unfortunately, we MPs are not concerned enough about taking care of these young people.

In conclusion, the situation in Afghanistan is far from being stabilized. I hope I am wrong about this, but I do not think it will be an easy task.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I enjoy serving with the member. He talked a lot about provincial reconstruction teams. I wanted to make a comment on the one I visited in relation to the three block war.

This is a very appropriate expansion of our troops' abilities, not just peacekeeping in one block, but there are times when we have to fight to protect the innocent. Then there are times when we have to provide humanitarian aid or development aid, as he would term it, before it is safe for the aid organizations to get in there.

The provincial reconstruction team I visited at Gardez in Afghanistan consisted of soldiers who had to protect civilians. They were well armed to the extent that they could carry out peacekeeping for those who wanted the peace. They also delivered humanitarian supplies, water and food and helped girls get back to school. At that time in that state it was a very dangerous part of Afghanistan and no aid organization could go in there. It would have been too dangerous.

In my perception of the three block war is it is appropriate only when it is too dangerous for anyone else. We can give people food to survive and meet their basic needs. Then, as the member says, the army would no longer do development or humanitarian aid. The regular agencies that do it so well and so professionally would carry that out when it is safe for them

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I can understand my colleague's position as well as his concerns. We must not lose sight of the fact, however, that the people over there are military personnel. They are there to defend Afghans, young and old, and to take care of them. I do not know if they have the training for the education, health and medical care this population requires. How prepared and open are the Afghans to receiving help from military personnel rather than civilians?

In my view, the NGOs lack the warlike aspect of the military and their military equipment. They are armed with kind words, consolation, food and medications, with which they will win over the hearts of the people of Afghanistan.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan about a month ago. It was most interesting to see. The member mentioned the three D s: defence, diplomacy and development. They do not really all take place at the same time or follow one another. They occur in various places and not in any special sequence. Sometimes they do occur at the same time.

One thing I find very interesting is the fact that the development going on in Afghanistan can be seen.

I had the opportunity to visit Kabul, where I went first. I thought things were very difficult there. Later on, I went to Kandahar. I saw there the difference it made. I saw that Kandahar had once been what Kabul is now.

The armed forces have made the difference. I saw that people appreciate what they are doing. I was especially proud watching children and the people talking with the Canadian armed forces. They were very proud and treated them very warmly because they understood that the Canadian Forces were their friends and had come to help them. I was very moved to see that a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan is welcomed by the people of the region.

I come back to what I said at the start. It all begins with defence. Going there and providing some stability is essential. Once there is stability, development can occur and progress follows. In Afghanistan the difference it makes can be seen. I think the three D s happen all at once in places all over in Afghanistan, wherever our forces have been.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to point out to my colleague that I never denigrated members of the armed forces, far from it. If you interpreted it that way, then I apologize. We do not speak the same French.

I agree with you, the three d s are there. You were at the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs meeting. You recall that on October 4, we had a presentation. As far as development is concerned, or the PRT, in February 2006, there will be 23 people. And with respect to diplomacy during that same period, there will be 14 people out of 2,451 soldiers. Yes, this is happening at the same time, but I think we have 98% for defence and only a small fraction for the other two d s, namely diplomacy and development. Perhaps there could be better balance.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Chair, I could draw a parallel and perhaps give an example. Let us take a city like Ottawa for example. We have a mayor and some counsellors, maybe 24 or 25, but how many police officers do we have? In this example, we see that diplomacy is at one level, but keeping the peace is at another level, and it is the police who take care of that.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, my friend from Nipissing—Timiskaming is not being in the least bit serious. We are not talking about Ottawa but rather Kandahar. Diplomacy, defence and development assistance are not the same in Ottawa and Kandahar. They do not exist there; these people have nothing.

We went and saw the devastation. There are almost no houses, no roads, and no water or waste water systems. Everything needs to be rebuilt from scratch. How many young girls go to school in Kandahar, Afghanistan? They are never seen in public. They have to be sent to almost underground schools.

This is not the army's fault. This is the society in which these people live. It is our job to help them. I understand that we want to help them out of their abject poverty and improve their lives, but let us be logical. There needs to be a better balance between diplomacy, defence and development assistance.

That is my question. I am not saying that we are doing things badly, but could we improve the situation by increasing diplomatic efforts and development assistance. I have nothing against this plan here. However, we could improve it by putting a little more emphasis on diplomacy and development assistance and by adding things. That is what I think.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I join this debate in mid stream. It is a very important debate. What is a PRT and how can defence be brought into balance with development assistance and diplomacy? I think my colleague has answered very well. In the area we are in, our main concern is security, because without it there would be neither development nor assistance. Without security, there would be no schools, hospitals or roads. There would be nothing. Security must be our first priority.

Our policy on development assistance—I would like you to visit Afghanistan, Mr. Chair—involves many people, not to mention the personnel with the PRT. We work with NGOs, but it is with the government of Afghanistan that we work to make our assistance available through many other things.

I understand and respect my colleague's opinion, but I think a little more subtlety is needed in looking at other avenues for providing the necessary aid and striking a balance. It is this I would suggest to our colleagues in the House.