Therefore ... we should stay in Afghanistan

[DavidAkin]

I know there's lots of existing topics on the political showdown on Afghanistan but I thought a new one on the actual wording of the motion MPs will vote on might be appropriate. Here it is, freshly tabled minutes ago in the House of Commons.  I call your attention to what appear to be two olive branches, if you will, from the Conservatives: 1. An endpoint -- 2011 2. A commitment to training. But, notably, the motion calls for the CF to remain in Kandahar, not to be rotated elsewhere in country. Here's the motion:

Government Motion - Seeking to Continue the Mission in Afghanistan

That,

whereas the House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;

whereas, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, the House does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009;  that Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the government of Afghanistan can defend its own sovereignty and ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld;

whereas in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar, the Canadian Forces have served in various capacities and locations in Afghanistan since that time and, on May 17, 2006, the House adopted a motion to support a two year extension of Canada's deployment in Afghanistan;

whereas the House welcomes the Report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, chaired by John Manley, and recognises the important contribution they have made;

whereas their Report establishes clearly that security is an essential condition of good governance and lasting development and that, for best effect, all three components of a comprehensive strategy - military, diplomatic and development - need to reinforce each other;

whereas the government accepts the analysis and recommendations of the Panel and is committed to taking action, including revamping Canada's reconstruction and development efforts to give priority to direct, bilateral project assistance that addresses the immediate, practical needs of the Afghan people, especially in Kandahar province, as well as effective multi-year aid commitments with concrete objectives and assessments, and, further, to assert strong Canadian leadership to promote better coordination of the overall effort in Afghanistan by the international community, and, Afghan authorities;

.../2


- 2 -

whereas the results of progress in Afghanistan, including Canada's military deployment, will be reviewed in 2011 (by which time the Afghanistan Compact will have concluded) and, in advance, the government will provide to the House an assessment and evaluation of progress, drawing on and consistent with the Panel's recommendations regarding performance standards, results, benchmarks and timelines; and

whereas the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure;

therefore, the House supports the continuation of Canada's current responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to the end of 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole so that, as the Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada's combat role should be commensurately reduced, on condition that:

(a) Canada secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1000 to arrive and be operational no later than February 2009, to expand International Security Assistance Force's security coverage in Kandahar;

(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

 

[COBRA-6]

David, thanks for posting this.

I like the review date of 2011 to coincide with the end of the Afghanistan Compact mandate. I emphasize the review date rather than withdrawl date because it's impossible to set a firm end date if we are to leave the Afghans in position for success. Saying "we're pulling out in 200X no matter what" is like the fire department responding to a call and saying "we're leaving in 30 minutes whether or not the fire is out"... we leave when the ANSF are ready to do the job.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Thank you kindly for posting that David. I always find it interesting to see how the machinations of government work. I believe those 'olive branches' are quite substantial, and significantly reduce the possible contention of the motion.  

That said, the real question, sadly enough for the people of Afghanistan, is not whether MPs will truly vote on the need for continuing the mission, and all that it entails, rather they will guide their votes based upon whether the opposition parties believe they are strong enough to win a clear majority in a spring election.

And, as noted by COBRA-6, dates are entirely irrelevant to the rate of change.

Let's hope that our politicians vote based upon what is right for Canada and Canadians, and our responsibility to help make this world a better place.

 

[geo]

David, I concurr!

All in favor say aye?   

AYE!

 

[DavidAkin]

The Afghanistan motion will be voted on at the end of March. It will be the third and final confidence vote of what will likely be at least three confidence votes in March. A budget vote will happen early in March and the Tories also have a bill on the books that makes it a "vote of confidence" if the Senate fails to pass the crime bill that has already passed the House of Commons. What does all this mean for the Afghanistan file?

First: I would say it is the consensus view of my press gallery colleagues that this motion on Afghanistan will never be voted on by this group of MPs because the governnment will fall on one of the earlier confidence motions (the Liberals want to go out on the budget; the Tories on the crime bill). Many politicians here believe they will be on the campaign trail by the end of March. That means that what you hear right now from politicians on Afghanistan are "markers" each party will use to campaign on.

Second: If there is no election, neither the Conservatives nor Liberals necessarily want to campaign on the Afghanistan mission, although the NDP would be happy to, as their position -- everyone out now -- is, they believe, enough of a contrast to the Libs and Cons that they would attract votes from the Liberal left.
That said, because Afghanistan is a relatively polarizing issue for most Canadians, all political parties may find it difficult to really "win" on Aghanistan. Possibly because of that, the Conservatives and Liberals may be able to come to some sense of agreement on the mission for the years leading up to 2011. In my reading of this motion, there is enough 'moderate' and flexible language for the Liberal view to be accomodated -- if, in fact, that's what the Liberals want.

 

[helpup]

Aye,
Like the proposal and as mentioned the review of commitment, not commit to terminate.  +1 for the Conservatives for the wording.  Now we just need to see if this will be an election issue, if it fails the vote.  If that is the case then the outcome from that election would be a firm answer from the public one way or the other.

 

[Wootan 9]

The wording of the motion reflects the Manley report and makes perfect sense (at least to this former soldier).  I find it very interesting that Mr. Dion had this since his meeting with the PM and did nothing constructive.  Instead, he came out and reinforced his illogical "no combat" position.  Since then Denis Coderre has been everywhere on the tube beating the same drum.  See this clip from CTV's "The Verdict" from Wed PM. http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/sbplayer/Docs.html (You'll have to copy and paste in your browser as posting a link is beyond my technical level)

Despite the fact that (as the clip makes clear) I believe that the Liberal position is totally untenable, the Government must lay out a more comprehensive strategy for the Canadian people.  Today's motion is a start - but just a start.

The Afghan mission is far too important to be held hostage to political partisanship.  The shame is that it is now about Dion's "leadership" and Liberal caucus credibility.  This is a grave disservice to all who have served and sacrificed.

Mike

 

[ModlrMike]

...whereas the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure;

therefore, the House supports the continuation of Canada's current responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to the end of 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole so that, as the Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada's combat role should be commensurately reduced, on condition that:

(a) Canada secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1000 to arrive and be operational no later than February 2009, to expand International Security Assistance Force's security coverage in Kandahar;

(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

This is extremely well crafted. The Conservatives have shown considerable modification in their previous "full up" combat mission stance. It will be hard for the Liberals to convince folks that this is not a good compromise. I think that Canadians are smart enough to realize that there can't be development without security, and this motion proposes that. The Liberal position is a "stand back and watch" approach.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As to "endpoints", as far as I know declaring them while a military commitment was ongoing has not been usual Canadian practice: e.g.,

Forces with NATO in Europe (roughly forty years, never came to combat, though being able to do that was the whole point)
UNEF (Nasser booted the force out, not a choice to leave)
Cyprus
Former Yugoslavia

Others may have examples.

A guest-post at Daimnation! (note the Uppestdate):

Those craven Liberals
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010822.html

Regarding UNEF,
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group05/unef

quite a few Canadians died (32), from a much smaller population, though over a longer period of time and not in "combat".  Just things to think about.  There was no "exit strategy" then.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Mike Baker]

I cannot agree more. Here is an article on the topic.

 

[RangerRay]

This is extremely well crafted. The Conservatives have shown considerable modification in their previous "full up" combat mission stance. It will be hard for the Liberals to convince folks that this is not a good compromise. I think that Canadians are smart enough to realize that there can't be development without security, and this motion proposes that. The Liberal position is a "stand back and watch" approach.

It is well crafted, but how is this being reported?  If it's not reported by the MSM, then it didn't happen...people will only hear what the PPG wants them to hear, and they have virtually declared war on the PM.

 

[PattiM]

I believe that the motion is well written and reasonable for any reasonable party to respond to. However, we are talking Liberals under Dion.. which doesn't mean reasonable. While the motion itself will very likely not be voted on if the pin gets pulled via the two other confidence issues before the house, I do believe that Afghanistan and the future of the mission will factor into Canadians choices at the polls.

I for one am adamant that I will not vote for a party advocating either the withdrawal of our troops or tying their hands from being able to establish and maintain security in Kandahar. I sent an email out on the weekend to the Liberals speaking to that point. The text is as follows:

Having just read your communication to which I am subscribed to receive via email.

I have always tended to vote Liberal and would dearly love to be able to vote Liberal in what is increasingly looking like a imminent election.

I don't like Harper, and don't wish to see him remain in power. My riding is currently Conservative and the candidate who is going to stand for the Liberals is a fine person who has represented this riding well in the past.

Having said all that, there is one absolute deal breaker which will absolutely make sure that my vote will go to the Cons if there is an election -- that is the Liberal party continuing to insist on an arbitrary date on a calendar to determine when our troops halt combat operations.

I've watched in frustration as far too many (often Liberal) governments sent our troops on peacekeeping missions with their hands tied from being able to shoot when needed to keep the peace. I will not accept our troops in Afghanistan being placed under any resemblance of those restrictions. I will not vote for a party which will allow that to happen.

In order for our troops in a place like Kandahar to provide security they need to be able to establish security. Sometimes that doesn't only mean shooting if shot at, that means going out and routing out the enemy before they can be a threat to our troops, aid workers and most importantly the Afghan people.

Yes, it is painful when young Canadians are returned home along the Highway of Heroes. I'm one of those people on those bridges saluting them and their families. Those Canadians believed in this mission and paid for it with their lives, we as a country have to uphold their faith. Telling our troops that after "this date on the calendar" they can no longer engage in combat even if the enemy does is not keeping the faith.

I could give Dion some leeway when he first became 'leader' that he needed some time to learn the position. He's had more than enough time to figure out that when he's talking about the lives of Canadians serving this country, dates on the Calendar do not the mission drive.

 

[Yrys]

He's had more than enough time to figure out

Well... You're talking about Dion here... not Einstein  !

 

[DavidAkin]

Stephane Dion unveiled the Liberal "amendments" to the Governnment's motion on Afghanistan (previously posted here) this morning in Ottawa. I put "amendments" in quotes because the Libs kept precisely one word "That..." from the original Conservative motion. That said, Prime Minister Harper's reaction was surprisingly warm. (I've posted his rxn at my blog: http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/12/3519963.html ).

Here is the the text of the Liberal Afghanistan motion:

That all of the words after the word “That” be deleted and the following substituted therefore:


this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;



this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;



this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;



this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada’s 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;



this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;



this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;



this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;



this House takes note that in May 2006, the government took a decision to extend the military deployment in Kandahar for an additional two years so that the mission was then scheduled to end in February 2009;



this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;



this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and



this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;



therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to February 1 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:



(a)              training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;



(b)              providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and



(c)                the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;



And it is the opinion of this House that this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:



(a)              NATO secures sufficient troops to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009) to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training and reconstruction;



(b)              to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and



(c)                the government of Canada immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011, by which point the time allotted to reach all of the benchmarks set out in the Afghanistan Compact will have expired, and as of that date, the redeployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011;



And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:



(a)                              be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;



(b)                              focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;



(c)                                address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and



(d)                              be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in Canada’s diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;



And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;



And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan.



And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;



And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:



(a)                                maintain the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated;



(b)                                pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and



(c)                                commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to release the results of any reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; and



And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government’s domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

 

[vonGarvin]

I just read this quickly.  A couple of observations:

The Libs seem to have 180'd from their firm end-date of Feb 09 to a NEW firm end date of 2011.  Why not make it conditions based?  EG: Stay until such time that, in our opinion, Afghans can maintain and sustain themselves (or words to that effect).
Also, there is no need for other troops to "rotate in" to "take over" our security role.  WTF does Dion think that our battlegroup is doing there?  PM Martin sent them there to do just that, and subesequent parliaments have extended this role, because, in simple terms, it wasn't done yet.

Last point: why even mention the detainee thing?  Just asking, is all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If I were the PM I would offer a sub-amendment, as follows:

Legend: strikeout means delete and underline means insert Changes in yellow

That all of the words after the word “That” be deleted and the following substituted therefore:


this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;



this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;



this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;



this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada’s 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;



this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;



this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;



this House takes note that in January 2006, the government Canada participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;



this House takes note that in May 2006, the government this House took a decision to extend the military deployment in Kandahar for an additional two years so that the mission was then scheduled to end in February 2009;



this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;



this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solutions to the conflict; and



this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;



therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to February 1 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:



(a)              training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;



(b)              providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and



(c)                the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;



And it is the opinion of this House that this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:



(a)              NATO ISAF secures sufficient troops to rotate into join in combat operations in Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009) to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training, security and reconstruction; and



(b)              to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and



(c)                the government of Canada immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011, by which point the time allotted to reach all of the benchmarks set out in the Afghanistan Compact will have expired, and as of that date, the redeployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011;



And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:



(a)                              be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;



(b)                              focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;



(c)                                address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and



(d)                              be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in Canada’s diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;



And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;



And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan.



And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;



And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:



(a)                                maintain the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated;



(b)                                pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and



(c)                                commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to release the results of any reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; and



And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government’s domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

 

[vonGarvin]

Send that to the PMO.

 

[CougarKing]

Maybe this should be moved to the "Canadian Politics" section of the forum. Your changes are on the right track, as usual, Mr. Campbell, although I doubt Mr.Dion will actually want to add them, especially with his "reconstruction" focus.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Compromise involves a little give and a little take. M. Dion has given quite a bit (with his amendment); maybe he should take some (constructive criticism), too.

The aim, for both the Liberals (who sent us to Kandahar in the first place) and the Conservatives (who were foolish enough to open the "end of mission" can of worms), ought to be to provide a sensible, national, political rationale for our remaining in Afghanistan, or not.

 

[JesseWZ]

I am actually not too terribly unhappy with this amendment, and I expect it will be further amended. There are some things that make me a tad uncomfortable (Edward got them all I think) but I could live with it.  I echo what the Prime Minister said that I read in David's blog that it seems that progress has been made here.