Â鶹ӰÊÓ

A report on the fiscal cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan was released Thursday and its answer -- $18.1 billion -- was immediately political fodder on the campaign trail.

At a campaign stop in suburban Vancouver, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper faced some tough questions from reporters about the multi-billion dollar war costs and the difficulty of getting accurate cost information.

"We are working on ensuring transparency," he said, adding that Canada had pledged to remove the former Taliban government in Afghanistan because it threatened international security.

"Now we have responsibility for this country, for its population, for safety and development," he said, noting that the mission is financially costly.

Harper also restated that Canada will end its military commitment in the country in 2011. The report estimated how much that commitment, from 2002 until 2011, will cost the taxpayers.

"I know it is a lot of money but nobody in Canada is going to say you are spending too much for Canadians who are putting their lives on the line," Harper said.

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Stephan Dion said Harper and the Conservatives have kept Canadians in the dark about the mission's true costs.

"This is false transparency," said Dion during a campaign stop in Halifax Thursday.

"Stephen Harper again failed to be transparent and accountable to Canadians."

NDP Leader Jack Layton blamed the Liberals, who voted in favour of extending the mission until 2011, as well as the Conservatives for the swelling costs.

"The first thing Canadians should do is be very upset with governments and parties that have authorized a war where they won't tell us about the costs," said Layton Thursday while in Sudbury, Ont.

"In fact, they've tried to hide the real costs. And that's not right. The government should have spoken truthfully and the Liberals that supported this particular mission and its extension should be speaking truthfully about the costs."

The report

The comprehensive report was made public by Canada's parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page.

The cost amounts to about $1,500 for every Canadian household, Page said at press conference in Ottawa on Thursday morning.

Page said the report is the first "comprehensive costing of its kind" for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. It looked at the costs of:

• running military operations in Afghanistan
• aid and reconstruction efforts
• long term costs of taking care of veterans

Page's report was due last month, but concerns that it would interfere with the election led Page to a delay of the release. However, critics said Canadians deserved to know the mission's price tag before heading to the polls next week. Page said on Thursday all parties agreed to the report's release during the election period.

The Conservatives had pegged the cost of the Afghanistan mission from 2002 to 2008 at about $8 billion. Page said it is difficult to compare the Harper government's figures and his findings because of methodological issues. He said that the cost of the war for Canada to date ranges between $7.66 billion to $10.47 billion.

The report also found that:

• incremental costs for the Canadian International Development industry will be $1.65 billion by 2011
• pensions and benefits for Afghan veterans, including death benefits, will be between $838 million and $2 billion
• the Afghan mission this year will cost between $675,541 and $764,807 for each soldier deployed

The report indicates that the final cost of the Afghan mission won't be known for years, or even decades, because of potential health issues, including psychological problems that Canadian veterans may face. Page also said the report's figures are not as precise as they could be because government departments did not provide enough information to construct more accurate predictions.

"When compared with international experience, Canada appears to lag behind the best practices of other jurisdictions in terms of the quality and frequency of war cost reporting to their respective legislatures," he said.

"I think we need to do a lot in terms of transparency."

Page said the military did not give him enough details about even some basic questions, including the peacetime estimate of equipment and soldiers as well the extra funds needed to fight the war. The Canadian International Development Agency also did not "provide annual spending (estimates) in Afghanistan for individual projects," the 55-page report said.

The report also indicated that the new figures about the costs of the Afghan mission could affect Ottawa's future budgets.

"The actual incremental costs could exceed the Parliamentary appropriations," said the report.

U.S. asks for clampdown on drug trade

The report's findings come as U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that NATO soldiers in Afghanistan must crackdown on local drug kingpins, who often help finance the Taliban with money from the heroin trade.

But Gates conceded that a number of countries were resistant to the idea.

However, he said some nations would be able to "opt out" of the plan, which would allow others to participate.

Gates, speaking at a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Budapest, Hungary, hoped to resolve the issue by Friday.

Gates' comments echo a new U.S. intelligence draft which warned that security levels in Afghanistan are at their lowest levels since 2001.

Authored by the National Intelligence Estimate, which includes 16 intelligence agencies, the nearly-completed report said that Afghanistan faces a "downward spiral" of violence and lawlessness.

It added that in the last two months, the situation has rapidly deteriorated.

Retired Col. Michel Drapeau, a military analyst, called Page's report "very sobering," adding that he was flabbergasted by the sheer size of the costs of the mission. Drapeau told Â鶹ӰÊÓnet after Page's press conference that he is also concerned about the vague nature of reporting the true costs of the mission.

"You have to wonder what decision and what figures our government and parliament were using to deploy troops," he said.

Drapeau also wondered why the report was being released at the "eleventh hour" before an election. He said Canadians needed the information sooner to make informed electoral decisions.

With files from The Canadian Press