2006 Parliamentary Debate on AFG Mission

[jwsteele]

In terms of military and foreign matters why does the entire House of Commons have so much power?  Perhaps somebody more in the know can clear some things up for me.  It seems to me that the actual governing body should be making these decisions.  My real question is why is Parliament voting tomorrow to further our committment in Afghanistan?  It makes no sense because our current governing body (Conservatives) want us to stay so why does there need to be a vote?  This may sound immature but it seems like they are catering to the wishes of the NDP and Jack Layton and I'm not convinced that dummy has any business discussing military matters.  If I hear him talk about "traditional peacekeeping missions" one more time I'm going to go bonkers.  There is no such thing as peacekeeping in Afghanistan.  Isn't peacekeeping when you stand between two sides to keep them from hurting each other.  So what are those politicians thinking?  Do they think Canada should be in Afghanistan to stand between the US and the Taliban?  Idiots!  They're also concerned about us not having the deployment ability to deal with other large scale conflicts and being able to render assistance.  I don't think that is their problem to worry about...more like a military logistics officer...not some politicans assumption.  So bottom line is...I don't understand why the parties that weren't elected by the people even have a say in these matters.  And one other thing, why do they keep whing about mounting casualties.  The last time I checked the CF was a volunteer organization and everyone in the organization knows the risks and are willing to accept them.  Just because they don't have the balls to go into harms way doesn't mean they should be pulling the people out that do have the balls to make a difference on the front line and the only line in my opinion.  So what do you all think?

 

[armybuck041]

Harper and McKay speak up on the topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/16/debate05162006.html

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will lead off Wednesday's debate on whether to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

The debate, scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. ET, will decide whether Canada's 2,300 troops will come home next February or stay in Afghanistan until early 2009.

On Tuesday, Harper said the mission is a vital one.

"What we are doing there is not just protecting our national interests, but [we are] providing international leadership and providing real advancement to the standard of living and human rights of the Afghan people. These are important things for which Canada should stand."

The opposition parties believe that if Canada extends its stay in Afghanistan it won't be able to respond to other trouble pots such as Darfur, Sudan.

"Did [the prime minister] realize that this would render Canada incapable of responding to other situations in the world?" asked NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Harper says that, for Canada, the priority is Afghanistan.

"We understand that a commitment of this magnitude creates some real constraints on our ability elsewhere," he said.

Casualty count raises questions

On Wednesday night, after a six-hour debate, MPs will vote on a motion for a two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan, including funding and equipment.

Increasing casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers since 2002, have caused many Canadians to question how long Canada should be in Afghanistan.

The Liberals suggest that may be why Harper is putting it to a vote now — so that the mission extension is dealt with well before a possible election looms next year.

"It's not about whether or not the mission should be until February 2009," said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.  "Now the question is whether or not it should be extended."

Layton also says MPs haven't been given much time to prepare.

"What we don't know is the nature of the extended mission. Canadians have not been told about it. MPs have not been told about it, yet they're going to be asked to vote on it after a few speeches on the House of Commons."

But Harper says MPs have had lots of time to decide.

"Members of this House, the parties of this House, have had five years to decide what their position is on this mission. We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has just returned from a trip to Afghanistan. He says Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked about Canada's involvement after next February.

"They want to know that Canada is going to be there," said MacKay.

 

[Franko]

What ever happened to the days when the Liberals owned up to what they started?

Oh yeah, that's right....never.

A debate and a vote on finishing something we signed on for just when the going got tough.....    :

What next? Lets blame the Conservitives for the Adscam as well while we're at it.

/rant

Regards

 

[ArmyRick]

This pure comedy. The NDP wants us to do a UN peace keeping mission in Sudan. Not a NATO or Coalition mission but a UN one. It look so good or WTF is his reasoning? He is a clown. Canadians please don't take his drivel seriously.

Liberals? The who? Weren't they the once "do no wrong" party of Canada? Didn't the Canadian people say **** you liberals during the last election? Didn't they start this mission in Afghanistan? Who cares, their finished because Canada is slowly waking up.

 

[a_majoor]

The Liberals and NDP are counting on the support of THESE people......

http://freewillblog.com/  15 May 2006

Anti-War Activist Unfamiliar With The War

Did you vote for John Kerry? Then this may roughly approximate your level of foreign affairs knowledge. http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/slant_presented/

    Until yesterday, Summer Lipman did not know Australia was involved in Iraq.

    Speaking to the Herald after addressing a Mother's Day anti-war rally outside the White House, Ms Lipman was shocked to discover Australia was also involved and implored Mr Howard, of whom she had never heard, to get the troops out.

I've long believed there's no way to report on a modern anti-war protest without it being unintentional mockery.

Sigh..............................

 

[KevinB]

This disgusts me.  The Liberals have NO right to complain about Afghanistan, they initiated it.  Furthermore they have sent Canadian troops elsewhere (HINT) without informing the Canadian public and now attempt to act as Angels...  :.

 

[paracowboy]

Liberals lie

Message Ends.

 

[chaos75]

In the end no matter our opinions, the decision of the elected house is the final decision like it or not.  So if they say stay we stay, if they say no we do our best till Feb then come home till were called upon again, thats our job.

 

[Cloud Cover]

In the end no matter our opinions, the decision of the elected house is the final decision like it or not.  So if they say stay we stay, if they say no we do our best till Feb then come home till were called upon again, thats our job.

+1

 

[North Star]

What the House says means nothing in this particular case. According to our system of government, the deployment of the military is the responsibility of Cabinet (via Order in Council). The debate in the House is a "take-note" debate and the resolution being debated non-binding on the government. It would, however, be very embarassing to lose. If Parliament opposes a military deployment, it can do what it is traditionally supposed to do - withdraw funding by overturning a budget. It could also debate a straight-out non-confidence motion naming the military deployment as the reason. Either of these options will lead to the collapse of the government and either an election or the appointment of a new PM, depending on what the Governor General wants.

What the Conservatives want is an end to the whining of the left-Liberals and NDP since neither party has the guts to put forward a non-confidence motion, nor defeat a money bill this early. The Liberals have no leader, money, or public respect. The Auditor General's findings that Liberal Cabinet members may have violated the Financial Administration Act (itself a criminal offence) will make them especially tame today. The NDP will continue to live in their dream-world, but don't have enough seats to have a significant effect on this issue. The Bloc will probably either skip the debate, or else split down the middle.

If any Liberals vote against this motion, they should be ashamed. They should have resigned from "Team Chretien/Martin" and taken a principled stand when the original deployment decision was made. But hey, what do you expect from slavish poll-followers?

 

[MarkOttawa]

The inside poop on tonight's vote in the Commons:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=Canada
'...
CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife told AM it was "going to be a very close vote."

"The big news is that the Liberals, who decided to send the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, will switch sides and vote against extending the mission tonight."..

If the motion fails to pass, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be honour-bound not to extend the deployment during this mandate...'

Should that happen it will be the end for Canada as a serious member of NATO, and no country that counts will take us seriously as a factor in international affairs (to the very limited extent that we are taken seriously even now).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[North Star]

Great. Liberals showing their true colours once again. We care about international stability and law, but will do nothing to enforce it when the going gets tough. I hope Bill Graham and Ujjal Dosahnj (The Defence Critic) can sleep well at night knowing they sat in the Cabinet meeting when Kandahar was chosen as Canada's Area of Responsibility.

 

[a_majoor]

Time to get those poisioned pens and word processors out and remind Canadians at every possible opportunity that the Liberals initiated this mission (without debate) and now it is the Liberals who are cutting and running.

Besides destroying our credibility, the Liberals are also attackig the men and women they sent to Afghanistan starting in 2002 (although given their last ad campaign, are we really surprised?), and the Afghan people who are looking to the western community for help in rebuilding. Such cowardly opportunists need to be dug out of their ridings at bayonet point, one by one.

Anyone who has dirt on sitting or former Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers should start coming forward. After all, convicted criminals cannot be sitting members (especially while serving time).

 

[foerestedwarrior]

May be a little one sided on this vote if the papers are correct....
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=TopStories

"The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have announced that they will vote against a motion to extend the mission by two years."

 

[foerestedwarrior]

We are in a war on the border of another country???
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/17/afghanistan-debate.html

""We will not be supporting the new mission, with so many questions, that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters following a caucus meeting.

The NDP supported Canadian troops in a peacekeeping role, which were the terms of the current deployment, scheduled to end in February 2007, said Layton.

An extension to 2009 is a "very different kind of mission ... that engages us in warfare on the border with another country," said Layton."

 

[armybuck041]

The plot thickens.....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/17/afghanistan-debate.html

The Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party will vote against extending Canada's mission to Afghanistan by two years, while the Liberals say their MPs can vote according to their conscience.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said Wednesday that the deployment is unpopular in Quebec and that his party couldn't support the motion, which MPs will debate beginning at 3 p.m. EDT.

The Conservatives announced the surprise vote earlier this week. MPs will spend six hours debating whether Canada's 2,300 troops will come home next February or stay in Afghanistan until early 2009.

Late Tuesday, NDP Leader Jack Layton said New Democrats will vote against the extension.

"We will not be supporting the new mission, with so many questions, that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters following a caucus meeting.

The NDP supported Canadian troops in a peacekeeping role, which were the terms of the current deployment, scheduled to end in February 2007, said Layton.

An extension to 2009 is a "very different kind of mission ... that engages us in warfare on the border with another country," said Layton.

With 29 and 51 seats respectively, the NDP and BQ have 80 of Parliament's 308 seats. The minority Conservative government has 125 seats and the Liberals have 102. There is one Independent.

The opposition parties believe that if Canada extends its stay in Afghanistan it won't be able to respond to other trouble spots such as Darfur, Sudan.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the Afghan mission vital, saying Canada is providing "international leadership and providing real advancement to the standard of living and human rights of the Afghan people."

Liberals to hold free vote

The Liberals, who approved the initial deployment, appeared caught off guard by the vote announcement.

Liberal Leader Bill Graham said it would be a free vote, but that MPs would be voting "with a gun put to our heads."

An agitated Graham questioned why opposition parties received only 48 hours notice of the vote and asked why the decision had to be made so quickly.

"Our members will listen and consider after a few hours of debate on a question of such vital importance for our troops and Canada's image abroad," said Graham.

Graham said his party supports the troops and the mission in Afghanistan, but is concerned by what he called a "strange" and "abusive" way to hold the vote.

"We will not play politics with this," said Graham.

MP and Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff said he needs to hear more details, while John Godfrey said his initial inclination would be to vote against it.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of trying to force opposition parties into making an early decision.

But Harper says MPs have had lots of time to decide.

"Members of this House, the parties of this House, have had five years to decide what their position is on this mission. We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

The Tory motion reads: "That this House support the government's two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension."

And with the highest repects to the very recently deceased, I hope that this latest casualty is not used to blindly steer todays debate.

 

[scm77]

Here's what some average Canadians think (If you consider CBC viewers "average" ).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/afghan_vote.html

I'd like to hear Mr. Harper explain exactly what national interests our troops are protecting. According to what I read there's been no meaningful improvement in the lives of Afghans.

—Francis Penny | A Canadian abroad

I guess women being allowed to work, and girls allowed to go to school isn't meaningful.

The Canadian government should not extend the period of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.  This Conservative government is just trying to get on the good side of the Americans.

—Inez Walker | Vancouver

I just want to register my support for the Conservative position on keeping our troops in Afghanistan. Since we cannot do everything for every situation in the world, lets persevere in this important project.

'Bandaids' in Africa are important, too, and we can lend whatever financial support to that situation, rather than compromise our work in Afghanistan. Better to do one thing right than two things poorly.

—Clarence denBok | Edmonton

Finally someone reasonable.

For some reason when ever I read "Your Letters" on the CBC website I always find myself  : 'ing alot.

If you'd like to add your own (I did), click on the link I posted and scroll to the bottom.

 

[North Star]

Hmm. The MND really needs to sum Jack Layton up. Hard. In parliament. In front of cameras. He's now reduced himself to outright lying.

 

[Caleix]

I have this sick feeling in my gut that if we pull out of Afghanistan now rather then stay and help the country reach a point where it can safely stand on its own, that other countries will think Canada and its armed forces won't go the distance. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks...so if you could post your views on this it'd be much appreciated...

Caleix

 

[Highland Laddie]

I have this sick feeling in my gut that if we pull out of Afghanistan now rather then stay and help the country reach a point where it can safely stand on its own, that other countries will think Canada and its armed forces won't go the distance. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks...so if you could post your views on this it'd be much appreciated...

Caleix

+1 - I feel the same way.