Debate to be held in Parliament over Afghanistan

[Jake]

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060402/afghanistan_debate_060405

At least Harper isn't letting them vote over it.

 

[scoutfinch]

Bill Graham stated after the throne speech that the Liberals were in favour of Canada's presence in Afghanistan.  I suspect the NDP will be the only naysayers; however, I wonder what the Bloc position will be.

 

[Armymatters]

Bill Graham stated after the throne speech that the Liberals were in favour of Canada's presence in Afghanistan.  I suspect the NDP will be the only naysayers; however, I wonder what the Bloc position will be.

And I am busily telling the NDP to let the issue die already and just support the troops and the purpose behind the mission. No sense beating a dead horse in my opinion.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

And what kind of pull do you have with the NDP?

 

[Armymatters]

And what kind of pull do you have with the NDP?

Not a lot, even though I am a member. Still worth a try to voice my opinion and express my views on the issue. Quite a few other members of the NDP have similar feelings, but I think we are a silent minority.  :-\ I have another meeting to attend to plus a couple of rallies, but in short, everyone is not exactly interested in this issue. It is only a small, highly vocal faction within the parties (the real, hardcore, ideologists that don't want us there at all) that are pushing Layton's hand (As I found out). Damned Socialist Caucus and NPI...

 

[MdB]

however, I wonder what the Bloc position will be.

From last election campaign, official Bloc opinion on the issue is to be there but take no part in the offensive operation.

5$ on this is what Gilles Duceppe is gonna say that again. Trust me, that's my MP.

 

[scoutfinch]

So what the hell are we supposed to do in theatre... sit on our collective asses and watch the poppies bloom?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Only one mention of Afstan during Question Period, very near the end: Dawn Black of the NDP criticizes the agreement--made under the Liberals--concerning the transfer of prisoners to the Afghan government. Meanwhile, Liberal National Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanj asked two questions, fairly early in, criticizing the appointment of Minister O'Connor on grounds of conflict of interest as a former lobbyist. Both good examples of their parties' real priorities.

 

[scoutfinch]

Only one mention of Afstan during Question Period, very near the end: Dawn Black of the NDP criticizes the agreement--made under the Liberals--concerning the transfer of prisoners to the Afghan government. Meanwhile, Liberal National Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanj asked two questions, fairly early in, criticizing the appointment of Minister O'Connor on grounds of conflict of interest as a former lobbyist. Both good examples of their parties' real priorities.

I would not read that as demonstrating a lack of priority for Afghanistan for the Liberals. 

 

[Bzzliteyr]

There is a parliament OVER Afghanistan?? In an AWACS?? I am confused.. how'd they get there?  And what do they want to debate about, airline food?  (sorry, I had to.. the phrasing made me do it!!)

 

[Good2Golf]

There is a parliament OVER Afghanistan?? In an AWACS?? I am confused.. how'd they get there?  And what do they want to debate about, airline food?  (sorry, I had to.. the phrasing made me do it!!)

Leased C-17, I think...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Leased C-17, I think...

No...leased IL-76....C-17's are WAY too expensive for the likes of Canada 

 

[a_majoor]

For any Conservative MPs reading this post (or non service members so inclined to write their MPs); open the debate by pointing out the historical facts that:

1. Canadian Forces were deployed to Afghanistan and took part in combat operations in the Sha-i-kot valley in 2002, without the government of the day requiring or allowing a debate.

2. The then government of the day made further deployments to Afghanistan and have had our soldiers there on a continuing basis since 2002 without requiring or allowing a debate.

3. The then governing party, the NDP and the Bloc did not press demands for a debate at ANY time during that period

4. The situation which demanded the deployment of the CF into Afghanistan has not changed much since 2002, so why do the opposition parties believe there needs to be a debate now, when there wasn't in or since 2002?

Although it isn't parliamentary, I would like to see this in Hansanard:

(The Honourable Foreign Affairs Minister): Bill, Jack, if it wasn't important for you then, why is it suddenly important now? STFU you partisan hacks!

(Honourable Members) Here, Here!

 

[vonGarvin]

From the CTV site on this (buried at the end of the article in a "oh, by the way" fashion)
"Meanwhile, there is word that Canadians may be sent on another mission.

After talking to U.S. President George Bush, Harper is mulling expanding Canada's peacekeeping role in the conflict-ridden Darfur region of western Sudan.

"We haven't reached any final decision. This obviously is something that would have to be worked out in concert with all of our allies, including the United States," Harper told reporters."
Source: http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060402/afghanistan_debate_060405
6 April 2006, 11:00 am ADT

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Harper is mulling expanding Canada's peacekeeping role in the conflict-ridden Darfur region of western Sudan.

Now there is a debate that should be held in Parliament!

 

[GAP]

While I have argued against the need for a 2nd debate in parliament, I can understand the logic and apparent change in Harper's stance. As long as the other parties were able to use the deployment as an issue, people would get caught up in the rhetoric, rather than the reasoning. Now we have the opportunity for the opposition parties to express their points of view, without discrediting the Canadian Forces personnel to make their points.          IN Theory. 

What would be nice, would be to have the current Chief of Defense Staff, General Hillier be present and able to give "ACCURATE" responses to members of parliament. While MND O'Connor is present, he, by his own acknowledgement, does not know the details and everyday needs of the Canadian Forces...that's not his job, his is policy, not procedure. I am probably out to lunch on the last point, but I would like to see accuracy in the responses, rather than a political point of view.

As for Sudan, debate it. Let the Liberals, the Bloc & NDP point out to the rest of Canada why we should not participate in stopping a geniocide because it doesn't have the right optics. I think the point should be made somewhere that if there is to be a force going to Dafor, then it should be such that the present games being played by Sudan, be ignored and just go in and do the job.

 

[scoutfinch]

While I have argued against the need for a 2nd debate in parliament, I can understand the logic and apparent change in Harper's stance. As long as the other parties were able to use the deployment as an issue, people would get caught up in the rhetoric, rather than the reasoning. Now we have the opportunity for the opposition parties to express their points of view, without discrediting the Canadian Forces personnel to make their points.          IN Theory. 

What would be nice, would be to have the current Chief of Defense Staff, General Hillier be present and able to give "ACCURATE" responses to members of parliament. While MND O'Connor is present, he, by his own acknowledgement, does not know the details and everyday needs of the Canadian Forces...that's not his job, his is policy, not procedure. I am probably out to lunch on the last point, but I would like to see accuracy in the responses, rather than a political point of view.

As for Sudan, debate it. Let the Liberals, the Bloc & NDP point out to the rest of Canada why we should not participate in stopping a geniocide because it doesn't have the right optics. I think the point should be made somewhere that if there is to be a force going to Dafor, then it should be such that the present games being played by Sudan, be ignored and just go in and do the job.

Maybe the Canadian public needs to hear that foreign policy decisions are made according to Canadian interests and not to make Canadians feel good about themselves.  As a result, Sudan (and the rest of Africa) does not have a very large role vis-a-vis Canadian foreign policy interests and therefore receives little consideration in the cost and benefit analysis as to where our limited foreign aid resources may go.  It may sound harsh but it is true.  I confess that even I don't like the facts.  I just recognize them for what they are.