All of the members of the panel are to be congratulated for the quality of their work and their dedication to public service. Through their work, Mr. Manley and his colleagues affirmed the strong belief that Canada's commitment in Afghanistan matters. It matters because it concerns Canadian and global security. It matters because it concerns Canada's international reputation as well as obligations that we have undertaken for the well-being of some of the world's most impoverished and vulnerable people. And it matters in no small measure because of the dedication and sacrifice of Canada's finest men and women as they work to safeguard our world and bring hope to the Afghan people.
I have spoken with Mr. Manley and advised him that our Government broadly accepts the recommendations put forward by the panel on Canada's future in Afghanistan. More precisely, the Government accepts the panel’s specific recommendation of extending Canada’s mission in Afghanistan if – and I must emphasize if – certain conditions are met; that is, the securing of a partner or partners in Kandahar province with additional combat troops and equipment capabilities. In other words, while the case for the Afghan mission is clearly compelling, the decision to allow our young men and women to continue to be in harm’s way demands the responsibility to give them a strong chance of success.
The panel has made a clear case that there cannot be a definitive timeline placed on when NATO will have finished the job in Afghanistan and when Afghans are able to take responsibility for their own security and we agree. However, Canada's contribution should be reviewed, at minimum, in the context of progress on the benchmarks the panel has advocated, and within two to three years time. In the coming days and weeks we will respond in greater detail to the full range of the panel's individual recommendations.
Over that same period – in advance of April's meeting of NATO Heads of Government in Bucharest – I will lead a diplomatic effort with our allies to secure specific commitments necessary to ensure that the next steps are consistent with the panel's recommendations. As I stated previously, the Government will bring a motion before Parliament this spring seeking support for Canada's way forward. I look forward to the Parliamentary debate. I have spoken to Mr. Dion and I would invite the opposition parties to reflect carefully upon their positions and to give this report the consideration that it deserves. Mr. Manley's panel has rightly acknowledged the importance of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan and the consequences of failure. Make no mistake: Canada, with its allies, is making progress in Afghanistan. But this is a complex and challenging mission. The great responsibility we share moving forward lies in ensuring that our hard-won gains – and those of the Afghan people – are not lost.
David Ljunggren (Reuters): Just to be clear, Mr. Prime Minister, if NATO says sorry, we can't give you the thousand troops that you want, what happens then? Does that mean the mission ends?
Harper: We have — I've spoken with the Chief of Defence Staff as have other members of the cabinet — we — he and we accept the analysis that for this mission to go forward and achieve its objectives and be successful, we do have the need for a substantial increase in combat troops and particular needs in terms of military equipment. In terms of the equipment, the Government of Canada already has that equipment on order and has for some time. It's obviously a matter of securing it in the field much more quickly one way or another. But both of those recommendations will have to be fulfilled or Canada will not proceed with the mission in Afghanistan. We believe these are essential to our success. I think where the report is very clear is that we really do have two choices. We do everything better and we do everything right or we don't do it. But we can't do a half a mission that might not succeed. And, you know, we've come to the conclusion in discussions, as I say with the Chief of the Defence Staff, that these troops and equipment are necessary and that Canada certainly in the short term can't provide it ourselves.
Ljunggren: Have you had a conversation with NATO or the Americans on this? What has the discussion been?
Harper: I have not. I think there have been some discussions. I have not but I will be having these in the days that follow.
Jacques Bourbeau (Global): Sir, you say that you broadly accept the recommendations in the Manley report. Do you also accept its criticisms? For example, they say that your government has not done a good enough job communicating the realities of this mission to Canadians and that you need to take a higher profile in terms of, for example, trying to convince our NATO allies to contribute more troops.
Harper: Well, first of all, I would say honestly the report criticizes governments. But we take the criticism seriously. You know, if I can be frank about it, this is an extremely difficult mission. We don't believe it's perfect. We never have. There has been no issue that has caused me as Prime Minister more headaches and quite frankly more heartache than this particular mission and I don't think that's going to change in the near future. We accept the judgment that there are several things that could be done better. In the case of most of these things, I think the panel would also acknowledge the government has taken steps.
If you take, for example, on the issue of communications, the government established some months ago a special task force within government on Afghan communications that has been reporting to one of our cabinet committees and carefully monitoring, encouraging outreach and communications activities on the Afghan mission. But, that said, I mean let's be truthful and I say this is why we worry about this electorally and politically. Let's be truthful. A military mission, a robust military mission where there are casualties is never going to be easy to communicate and it is never going to be all that popular to communicate. That is just the reality of the situation. But, as I say, we do accept the criticisms and we are looking to improve on that and several other fronts.
Bourbeau: And, looking forward, in your estimation, how difficult is your job going to be to convince some of our NATO allies to contribute more troops?
Harper: First of all, there have been increasing troop commitments from NATO allies before and since the last NATO meeting. Now they still fall well short of what we need but we have seen some increased commitments. I think the report also gives the government tremendous ammunition in terms of making the case for further commitments and particularly for requiring them in Kandahar which I think is probably just about universally agreed as the single most difficult province in the country.
I'm optimistic but we will be scouting out that before we go to NATO and before we come to a vote on that in Parliament we will have a pretty good idea at that point in time whether there's a realistic possibility of NATO coming through with those commitments. I'm always optimistic on these things. I think as I said (earlier) I did think NATO's future credibility and effectiveness did hinge upon success of this mission. And I don't think there's any way for any NATO country to get around that fact.
Allan Woods (Toronto Star): One of the things that Mr. Manley said after releasing his report is that both your government and the Liberal Party primarily have to put a bit of water in their wine and rise above the partisan debate and come to some sort of national consensus. And I wonder, you haven't addressed how you intend to do that or if you intend to do that.
Harper: Well, I've said that that would obviously be ideal. You know, the government understands that this is one of our most difficult files. To end up fighting an election over this issue may be in the interests of some in the opposition but I don't think it's in the interests of the government. So I think it is in the interest to get a consensus by appointing a bipartisan panel and seeing the bipartisan panel come to consensus I think we've shown that when people set aside blinders or rigid positions and look at the interests of the country and the fact they can come to an agreement. At the same time, I would point out that the panel doesn't give a lot of options. Yeah, we can put our water in our wine but it doesn't give a lot of options. The final recommendation of the panel is essentially you're either in or you're out. And if you're in, you actually have to be in in a much bigger way. If you're going to do more on aid, more on development, more on governance, more on training of the Afghan forces, you also have to be prepared to do more on the military side as well, on the kinetic military side. So, I think in the end while obviously we accept the advice of the panel on the desirability of having some kind of motion that we can pass through Parliament — it's clearly desirable — the options here are not enormous in range.
Woods: One other thing you talked about is the importance not only for what the people in Afghanistan who are subject to what's going on, the fighting that's going on, but you talked about the importance of building Canada's reputation, of punching above our weight. If Canada is forced to pull out of Afghanistan because these conditions are not met, what happens to Canada's reputation?
Harper: Well, I think that's a good question. You know I don't think that would necessarily enhance our reputation but I think NATO's reputation is on the line here as well. And, you know, I think all the evidence, increasing evidence suggests that NATO's efforts in Afghanistan as a whole are not adequate but particularly in Kandahar province they are not adequate and quite frankly Kandahar province is critical. It is the focal point of the insurgency and of the Taliban's longer term plans to return to power. So in a sense everybody's reputation is on the line but I think if ultimately NATO doesn't come through, I mean Canada has done what it said it would do — and more. We now say we need help. I think if NATO can't come through with that help then I think frankly NATO's own reputation and future will be in grave jeopardy.
General Rick Hillier (left), Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, was in Ottawa today and met with reporters for the first time since — well — since a whole lot of news has broken. Since he last met with reporters, the following has happened:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in the National Press Theatre (that's three times now he's used the Parliamentary Press Gallery's facilities for a presser. Is this the new normal??) today (left) to present his formal response to