Tweet
Parliament to vote on extending the mission in Afghanistan.
BQ is against - which way will the NDP and Liberals go...?
Related item:
BQ is against - which way will the NDP and Liberals go...?
OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservatives sent their rivals scrambling to position themselves on the politically charged issue of Afghanistan by calling a parliamentary vote on extending Canada's military mission there by two years.
New Democrats decided late Tuesday not to support extension of the mission but the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, caught by surprise when Conservative House leader Rob Nicholson approached them with a request for the vote, remained undecided.
After weeks of hounding the government for a clear indication of how long the troops would be in the region, the parties agreed to a debate and vote for Wednesday.
At an emergency caucus meeting Tuesday evening, New Democrats decided to oppose the extension or, as NDP Leader Jack Layton termed it, the "new mission."
"We will not be supporting the new mission, with so many questions, that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters.
New Democrats supported the current deployment, which entailed diplomacy and peacekeeping, as well as a combat component. But Layton said the extension involves a "very different kind of mission."
"It's a mission that engages us in warfare on the border with another country."
Layton added that the NDP believes Canada's military is needed elsewhere in the world, not just in Afghanistan.
The Liberals also met Tuesday evening to discuss the issue but were not expected to reach a consensus until their regular caucus meeting Wednesday, if at all.
However, Liberal MPs were angry that they're being rushed into making a decision with little information. Few seemed disposed to support the motion.
Even Michael Ignatieff, one of the frontrunners for the Liberal leadership and one of the more bullish supporters of the Afghanistan mission, sounded a note of caution.
"I don't want blank cheques here. This is a serious matter. Canadians are getting shot at," he said on his way into the caucus meeting.
Ignatieff said he wants to know how many troops would be involved and what their strategic objective would be.
"Before I vote for anything I want to know what I'm voting for."
Toronto MP John Godfrey said the government needs to answer a host of questions, including "are we winning or are we losing" the current campaign against Taliban insurgents in Kandahar province.
"My inclination would be to vote no at this stage, although I'm open to persuasion," Godfrey said.
Opposition MPs called the vote a bald political ploy by the Conservatives, who no longer want to bear sole responsibility for the rising death toll in Afghanistan.
"It does seem to be forcing an early decision," said Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale. "The government has chosen to play that card in a very political way.
"We're going to try our best to treat the subject in as non-partisan fashion as we can."
In the United States, senior Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry found it difficult to criticize President George Bush's Iraq policy because they voted in favour of sending troops there.
The Conservative 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."
Regular parliamentary business was to be put on hold Wednesday for the six-hour debate followed by an evening vote. The government was not allowing changes to the motion.
Canada has 2,200 troops helping to reconstruct and protect the province of Kandahar. The mission began in February and was to end next February, but the Conservatives already want permission to extend it to 2009.
"We want to project an image of commitment to this mission, to not only our soldiers first and foremost but our allies, and we do not want to embolden or give in any way the impression to the Taliban that we are weakening in our commitment," said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.
The power to deploy troops rests in the hands of the government, not Parliament. But if the motion fails to pass, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be honour-bound not to extend the deployment during this mandate.
The vote could be an enormous challenge for the Liberals, in particular.
It was their party that approved the mission in the first place, but its leadership candidates are divided on the deployment.
MP Joe Volpe has said Canada should return to its predominantly peacekeeping duties in Kabul, rather than continue engaging in combat in Kandahar. Other contenders such as Stephane Dion, Gerard Kennedy and Bob Rae have called for a better explanation of the mission's goals and timeframe.
Former Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley, a supporter of a strong Canadian military, says his party should reject the motion as premature and simplistic.
Manley, now practising law in Ottawa, pointed out that previous Canadian deployments to Bosnia and Afghanistan always had a plan in place for an eventual handover to a NATO ally.
"Two more years without a clear strategy is too long and too far in advance to decide this now," Manley said in an interview.
"Why do we even need to decide this in May when our current commitment goes until next February?"
It was easier for the NDP to reach a decision. Their party has a strong pacifist constituency, and many have been pushing for more resources to be sent to Sudan's Darfur region.
The Bloc Quebecois complained Tuesday at having so little time to explore the issue in depth, but also didn't declare a position. The Bloc is faced with an electorate in a province that is traditionally wary of military operations, and a caucus that is divided on the issue.
Some of the questions the parties said they would pose during the debate include:
-How will success in Afghanistan be measured?
-Why is the extension set at two years?
-What kinds of resources does the military need to do its job?
-Will the government provide Parliament with regular updates on the mission and whether it is meeting its goals?
-What does this mean for the possibility of sending peacekeepers to Sudan's Darfur region? Harper has already said staying in Afghanistan will preclude a big Darfur commitment.
New Democrats decided late Tuesday not to support extension of the mission but the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, caught by surprise when Conservative House leader Rob Nicholson approached them with a request for the vote, remained undecided.
After weeks of hounding the government for a clear indication of how long the troops would be in the region, the parties agreed to a debate and vote for Wednesday.
At an emergency caucus meeting Tuesday evening, New Democrats decided to oppose the extension or, as NDP Leader Jack Layton termed it, the "new mission."
"We will not be supporting the new mission, with so many questions, that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters.
New Democrats supported the current deployment, which entailed diplomacy and peacekeeping, as well as a combat component. But Layton said the extension involves a "very different kind of mission."
"It's a mission that engages us in warfare on the border with another country."
Layton added that the NDP believes Canada's military is needed elsewhere in the world, not just in Afghanistan.
The Liberals also met Tuesday evening to discuss the issue but were not expected to reach a consensus until their regular caucus meeting Wednesday, if at all.
However, Liberal MPs were angry that they're being rushed into making a decision with little information. Few seemed disposed to support the motion.
Even Michael Ignatieff, one of the frontrunners for the Liberal leadership and one of the more bullish supporters of the Afghanistan mission, sounded a note of caution.
"I don't want blank cheques here. This is a serious matter. Canadians are getting shot at," he said on his way into the caucus meeting.
Ignatieff said he wants to know how many troops would be involved and what their strategic objective would be.
"Before I vote for anything I want to know what I'm voting for."
Toronto MP John Godfrey said the government needs to answer a host of questions, including "are we winning or are we losing" the current campaign against Taliban insurgents in Kandahar province.
"My inclination would be to vote no at this stage, although I'm open to persuasion," Godfrey said.
Opposition MPs called the vote a bald political ploy by the Conservatives, who no longer want to bear sole responsibility for the rising death toll in Afghanistan.
"It does seem to be forcing an early decision," said Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale. "The government has chosen to play that card in a very political way.
"We're going to try our best to treat the subject in as non-partisan fashion as we can."
In the United States, senior Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry found it difficult to criticize President George Bush's Iraq policy because they voted in favour of sending troops there.
The Conservative 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."
Regular parliamentary business was to be put on hold Wednesday for the six-hour debate followed by an evening vote. The government was not allowing changes to the motion.
Canada has 2,200 troops helping to reconstruct and protect the province of Kandahar. The mission began in February and was to end next February, but the Conservatives already want permission to extend it to 2009.
"We want to project an image of commitment to this mission, to not only our soldiers first and foremost but our allies, and we do not want to embolden or give in any way the impression to the Taliban that we are weakening in our commitment," said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.
The power to deploy troops rests in the hands of the government, not Parliament. But if the motion fails to pass, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be honour-bound not to extend the deployment during this mandate.
The vote could be an enormous challenge for the Liberals, in particular.
It was their party that approved the mission in the first place, but its leadership candidates are divided on the deployment.
MP Joe Volpe has said Canada should return to its predominantly peacekeeping duties in Kabul, rather than continue engaging in combat in Kandahar. Other contenders such as Stephane Dion, Gerard Kennedy and Bob Rae have called for a better explanation of the mission's goals and timeframe.
Former Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley, a supporter of a strong Canadian military, says his party should reject the motion as premature and simplistic.
Manley, now practising law in Ottawa, pointed out that previous Canadian deployments to Bosnia and Afghanistan always had a plan in place for an eventual handover to a NATO ally.
"Two more years without a clear strategy is too long and too far in advance to decide this now," Manley said in an interview.
"Why do we even need to decide this in May when our current commitment goes until next February?"
It was easier for the NDP to reach a decision. Their party has a strong pacifist constituency, and many have been pushing for more resources to be sent to Sudan's Darfur region.
The Bloc Quebecois complained Tuesday at having so little time to explore the issue in depth, but also didn't declare a position. The Bloc is faced with an electorate in a province that is traditionally wary of military operations, and a caucus that is divided on the issue.
Some of the questions the parties said they would pose during the debate include:
-How will success in Afghanistan be measured?
-Why is the extension set at two years?
-What kinds of resources does the military need to do its job?
-Will the government provide Parliament with regular updates on the mission and whether it is meeting its goals?
-What does this mean for the possibility of sending peacekeepers to Sudan's Darfur region? Harper has already said staying in Afghanistan will preclude a big Darfur commitment.
Related item:
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government has spent more than $4.1 billion on its Afghan operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed 25 Canadians in New York's twin towers, a think-tank said Wednesday while calling for hearings on Canada's role in the wartorn country.
Afghanistan and related operations account for 68 per cent of the $6.1 billion spent on international missions between the fall of 2001 and the end of March 2006, the Polaris Institute said in a report released hours before Parliament was to debate and vote on a two-year extension to the mission.
In urging parliamentarians not to support an extension to the Afghan fighting and development mission, the institute said Canada spent only $214 million on UN operations during the same period. That's just three per cent of total spending on international missions.
"The military mission in Afghanistan is consuming all available resources, preventing Canada from participating in UN-led missions elsewhere," said the Polaris director of defence and security policy, Steven Staples.
Canada contributes only 59 military personnel to UN missions around the world, while about 2,200 troops are stationed under U.S. command in Afghanistan, the group said.
Once a Top 10 contributor, Canada now ranks 50th out of 95 countries currently contributing military personnel to UN missions, it said.
"It's clear that we have virtually abandoned UN peacekeeping today," said Staples. "Essentially, today you can take all of our blue-helmeted peacekeepers and put them on a single schoolbus."
Not enough is known about what is expected of Canada in Afghanistan to make an informed decision about its future there, said Peggy Mason, chair of the Group of 78, which promotes peace, disarmament and development.
Mason said full parliamentary hearings are needed before any further commitments are made.
"In the absence of such hearings . . . before a blind commitment has been made, parliamentarians must vote No to the Harper government's utterly irresponsible Yes-or-No motion," she said.
The Toronto Coalition to Stop the War warned that the suddenness of Wednesday's vote excluded most Canadians from expressing views to their members of Parliament.
"To pre-empt a public debate by arranging a sudden parliamentary motion increases the democratic deficit in this country," the group said in a statement. It urged "MPs of good conscience" to challenge the government on the issue.
"This extension will mean hundreds of Canadian soldiers and thousands more Afghan civilians will be killed before the deployment ends. Mr. Harper may be willing to play games with the lives of innocent people, but the Canadian people are not."
The Polaris report, entitled Boots on the Ground: Canadian Military Operations in Afghanistan and UN Peacekeeping Missions, says the total spending figures were calculated from annual editions of the Defence Department Report on Plans and Priorities.
Most of the terrorists who hijacked four airplanes over the United States in 2001 were reportedly trained in Afghanistan, where an insurgency is now attempting to stall western development and reconstruction efforts.
Afghanistan and related operations account for 68 per cent of the $6.1 billion spent on international missions between the fall of 2001 and the end of March 2006, the Polaris Institute said in a report released hours before Parliament was to debate and vote on a two-year extension to the mission.
In urging parliamentarians not to support an extension to the Afghan fighting and development mission, the institute said Canada spent only $214 million on UN operations during the same period. That's just three per cent of total spending on international missions.
"The military mission in Afghanistan is consuming all available resources, preventing Canada from participating in UN-led missions elsewhere," said the Polaris director of defence and security policy, Steven Staples.
Canada contributes only 59 military personnel to UN missions around the world, while about 2,200 troops are stationed under U.S. command in Afghanistan, the group said.
Once a Top 10 contributor, Canada now ranks 50th out of 95 countries currently contributing military personnel to UN missions, it said.
"It's clear that we have virtually abandoned UN peacekeeping today," said Staples. "Essentially, today you can take all of our blue-helmeted peacekeepers and put them on a single schoolbus."
Not enough is known about what is expected of Canada in Afghanistan to make an informed decision about its future there, said Peggy Mason, chair of the Group of 78, which promotes peace, disarmament and development.
Mason said full parliamentary hearings are needed before any further commitments are made.
"In the absence of such hearings . . . before a blind commitment has been made, parliamentarians must vote No to the Harper government's utterly irresponsible Yes-or-No motion," she said.
The Toronto Coalition to Stop the War warned that the suddenness of Wednesday's vote excluded most Canadians from expressing views to their members of Parliament.
"To pre-empt a public debate by arranging a sudden parliamentary motion increases the democratic deficit in this country," the group said in a statement. It urged "MPs of good conscience" to challenge the government on the issue.
"This extension will mean hundreds of Canadian soldiers and thousands more Afghan civilians will be killed before the deployment ends. Mr. Harper may be willing to play games with the lives of innocent people, but the Canadian people are not."
The Polaris report, entitled Boots on the Ground: Canadian Military Operations in Afghanistan and UN Peacekeeping Missions, says the total spending figures were calculated from annual editions of the Defence Department Report on Plans and Priorities.
Most of the terrorists who hijacked four airplanes over the United States in 2001 were reportedly trained in Afghanistan, where an insurgency is now attempting to stall western development and reconstruction efforts.
Comment