News

Canadian troops today took command of NATO combat operations in the Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan.

 This is a mission unlike others in recent decades. Instead of peacekeeping, Canadian soldiers will be leading the fight against remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as trying to preserve security in the volatile region where there has been a recent upsurge in attacks, including suicide bombings, designed to disrupt the fragile national government.

But Parliament has never given its approval to this deployment.

So The Globe and Mail decided to hold this long-overdue debate in the pages of the newspaper and on-line for readers of globeandmail.com.

Monday, on the Comment Page of The Globe, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh, NDP defence critic Dawn Black, and Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand debated the following resolution:

"WHEREAS the Government of Afghanistan has requested international assistance to protect its new administration and to ensure the country's peaceful transition to democracy,

BE IT RESOLVED that Canada should deploy Canadian Forces to Aghanistan in a NATO combat mission in furtherance of this objective."

You can read their responses here: Should Canada lead the fight in Afghanistan?

Mr. Dosanjh, Ms. Black and Mr. Bachand were on-line at various times Monday to discuss this question with readers of globeandmail.com. The Globe invited Mr. O'Connor and External Affairs Minister Peter MacKay to join the discussion, or to nominate a representative to speak for the Conservative government. However, they declined to take questions from globeandmail.com readers. Mr. O'Connor said Sunday the government intends to provide an update to Parliament when it meets in April but will not allow a vote on the issue. Jeff Sallot reports: Defence Minister won't support vote on troops in Afghanistan

The details of this discussion, photos of the participants and mini-profiles of them are at the bottom of this page.

Today, globeandmail.com readers are — after reading the debate and hearing the discussion — able to vote in an on-line poll on the question of whether they support this mission.

Our broader coverage of the issue started Friday with the publication in The Globe of a poll showing a robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue. You can read the details here Majority opposed to Afghan mission

Saturday, the cover story in the Focus Section was a report by The Globe's Michael Den Tandt, who recently returned from a reporting trip to Afghanistan, describing the reality of war for these soldiers and the hopes and dreams of the Afghan people.

The series will wrap up on Wednesday with on-line-only articles written by Mr. Den Tandt, as well as a discussion with a critic of the Canadian role in Afghanistan.

The full package can be found here in this special report on Afghanistan

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor participated in the Comment Page debate. Mr. O'Connor served in the Canadian military for 33 years, joining the Regular Army as a Second Lieutenant in the Armour Branch, and retiring at the rank of Brigadier General. He was first elected to the Commons in 2004.

His appointment as Defence Minister generated some controversy because he previously worked as a lobbyist for companies in the defence and aerospace industries.

Ujjal Dosanjh, the new Liberal defence critic, also participated in the Comment Page debate and was on-line earlier Monday taking part in the live discussion.
Mr. Dosanjh is a long-time human rights and social justice advocate, having worked with community organizations in Vancouver over a period of many years. His concern for social justice led to his involvement in politics.

During his 10 years in the British Columbia Legislature, he held several cabinet posts, most notably serving as Attorney General for a period of nearly five years. From February 2000 to May 2001, Mr. Dosanjh was Premier of British Columbia.

Mr. Dosanjh was first elected federally in 2004 as the Member of Parliament for Vancouver South. He was re-elected in 2006. From July 2004 to February 2006, Mr. Dosanjh served as federal Minister of Health in the previous Liberal Government.

Dawn Black, the new NDP defence critic, participated in the Comment Page debate and took readers' questions Monday as a part of the live discussion. Ms. Black was a federal MP from 1988 to 1993, and was a winner in the Jan. 23 election in the B.C. riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam.

Following the murders of 14 women at École Polytechniqe in Montreal in 1989, she won all-party support for her private member's bill to recognize Dec. 6 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

Ms. Black has also served as a member of the board of the Justice Institute of B.C., and has participated in democracy-training missions to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Claude Bachand, who has been the Bloc Québécois spokesman on defence since 2000, took part in the Comment Page debate and also took readers' questions in the globeandmail.com's live discussion Monday. Mr. Bachand was first elected to the Commons in 1993 and previously served as his party's spokesman on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Editor's Note: The same rules applied to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. Globeandmail.com editors read and approved each comment/question. Not all comments/questions could be answered in the time available. Comments/questions were checked for content only. Spelling and grammar errors were not corrected. Comments/questions that included personal attacks, false or unsubstantiated allegations, vulgar language or libelous statements were rejected. Preference was given to those who ask questions under their full name, rather than pseudonyms.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, and thank you for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com. As you may have seen in today's Globe and Mail, Defence Minister O'Connor — who has declined to participate in this discussion — said yesterday that the new Conservative government will not allow Parliament to vote on the question of whether Canadian forces should be in Afghanistan although he offered this explanation of government policy separately today in the Globe. What is your reaction to the Defence Minister's statements?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: During the election campaign, the Conservative Party promised to hold votes in Parliament on military missions. The Conservative government should follow through on that commitment. The previous Liberal government, it should be highlighted, held a take-note debate in Parliament on Canada`s involvement in Afghanistan.

The Liberal Opposition would not object to a vote in Parliament.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: I don't agree with Mr. O'Connor. Even though the decision to send troops or not is a cabinet decision, the Bloc Québécois has always argued that Parliament has to be involved. A decision from Parliament is much more decisive than a cabinet decision. The fact that decisions in Parliament are public gives a better understanding of all the issues of the mission to the whole population of Canada. In conclusion, we have help the Afghan people and Canada is one of the 36 nations that are providing help. Everything is under a UN mandate and NATO will take command in the near future, assuring us the guidance of the international community.

Dawn Black, NDP: During the election campaign, Stephen Harper promised that serious issues like this would be put before Parliament.

I'm shocked that the Minister has contradicted that commitment.

Although it's not surprising that the Conservatives would back down on this accountability issue after seeing the new government appoint an unelected campaign organizer to Cabinet and persuading David Emerson to cross the floor after being elected as a Liberal.

The men and women in the Canadian military deserve better.

Roger Price, Andorra: In my opinion, all government spending should be prioritized — why not? Tax revenues are limited and governments are only recently adopting a balanced budget policy. So please explain how funding for troops to Afghanistan can get prioritized above all the under-funded items like health care, education etc. Let's recognize our revenue limitations —we do have a $500-billion federal deficit to pay off — so why not prioritize our expenditures within this criteria and solve Canadian problems first?

Dawn Black, NDP: We do need to recognize our priorities at the federal level, and the pent-up demands in health and education are urgent.

Military operations are extremely expensive. The announcement by the Liberal government that they would acquire 16 new tactical airlift aircraft as a cost of $4-5 billion is one example. The cost of acquiring strategic airlift would be much higher.

After all the cutting that the Liberals did to social spending through the 90s there are many deficits to fill. But the corporate tax cuts favoured by both the Liberals and Conservatives will only make the federal pie smaller and our choices more limited.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: Terrorism and security should be very important issues. Helping the Afghan people to rout out Taliban and al-Qaeda to help bring them stability and democracy is vital.

Canada, like every nation, has international responsibilities. We cannot sit on our hands while dictatorship creates horrors. We cannot let terrorists organize themselves and create chaos like they did on September 11, 2001.

Canada has to join a coalition under a UN mandate to not only help out these people but to make sure we address the matter to keep it as far as possible from our borders.

To what extend should we get involved? You are right, it is a question of priorities. Security is one of the most important values for a society.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: Before the government undertakes any military mission, the Canadian Forces makes it clear to the Government what such a mission will cost. This means that we know the financial commitment to any military mission from the outset, and that such a mission is funded out of the existing fiscal framework. Military missions are not mutually exclusive to other spending projects.

Kim Vincent, Montreal: I am vehemently opposed to Canada's new combative role in Afghanistan. This is a radical departure from our peacekeeping role, which is the cornerstone of our foreign/military policy. This departure is sure to compromise our international reputation and necessary role as peacekeeper and diplomatic intermediary. We have more than our fair share of warrior nations in the fray today and as violence in the world escalates, it is of the utmost importance that Canada take the lead in diplomatic exchange. Do you agree?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: Traditional peacekeeping in the post-Cold War world has changed to include humanitarian, security, and reconstruction dimensions. Reconstruction is not possible without security. The area must be secure in order for reconstruction activities to take place, and to take hold.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: World stability has evolved drastically in the last 10 years. Peace missions are evolving in stabilization missions. I agree that the diplomatic approach is essential but what happens after? Diplomacy is not a strong belief for terrorists.

We have to go a step further. Canada is joining 36 other nations in trying to reconstruct Afghanistan. There are 13 PRTs (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) in Afghanistan. Canada is commanding the one in Kandahar. It is a colossal international task. Either we do it or we stay home and let terrorists regain control and plan attacks on our civilization. We cannot escape from our responsibilities. Furthermore, Canada has a 3D approach — Diplomacy, Development and Defence. The contingent in Kandahar includes these three components. But before you can do anything, you need stability and that is what Princess Patricia Canadian light infantry is doing right now.

Dawn Black, NDP: I'm also concerned about the effect this mission may have on our international reputation.

Canadians worked hard to achieve an anti-landmine treaty and have signed conventions against torture.

When it comes to the use of landmines by U.S. forces around Canadian encampments, or handing prisoners over to authorities that may use torture, Canada's reputation has already been compromised.

In order for Canada to preserve its reputation as an advocate for peace, security and human rights, the government needs to be straight about the mission. As I said earlier, the men and women in our military deserve no less. In fact they deserve to know that the mission is understood and supported by the Canadian people. Only a full debate in Parliament can achieve that goal.

Fred Simlett, Halifax: We need to help beat the enemy in their own back yard before they come to our back yard. I only hope we have the intestinal fortitude to stay with the job and not wimp out before the job is done. Will we do that?

Claude Bachand, Bloc: Yes, Mr. Simlett, you are right. We have to take seriously the threats of terrorism. We are not facing the same traditional enemy anymore — no uniforms, no evidence of violence but still good planning and a high level of danger. Our civilization has to face them. It's a terrible plight. We could lose or win, but in the end, I am sure that the good will prevail. We just need persistence, courage and the will to protect our values.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: Canada's military has been present in Afghanistan, in various configurations, since late 2001. Afghanistan has been our largest and most significant mission for four years, and we have demonstrated our staying power with regard to this operation. As mentioned earlier, we have a time-limited task, and we will fulfill that obligation. The Canadian government will have to evaluate future involvement in Afghanistan, under the auspices of NATO, and how it will impact our international priorities.

Dawn Black, NDP: The people of Afghanistan are working under very difficult circumstances to rebuild their country so that they may live and work in peace.

The Canadian military are helping to work on reconstruction and civil order in Afghanistan while preserving our reputation as a country that promotes Canadian values of peace and security internationally.

Success in Afghanistan will be measured by the level of peace and stability that results from Canadian and international assistance.

Kevin MacIntyre, Yellowknife: What landmarks do we use to decide that we have succeeded and it is time to leave? Or that we have failed and it is time to leave? Some governments have made it a habit to redefine their goals during the process to avoid admitting error. Afghanistan is a complicated country with complicated problems and our military cannot resolve all of them and may not be able to resolve any of them. To avoid becoming entangled and part of the problem, our goals and exit strategy have to be clear. What are they?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: The present commitment to the mission in Kandahar is time-limited, for a year, and it is part of Canada's contribution to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The previous Liberal government assumed that Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team would remain in place beyond one year to continue its important reconstruction work. The mission in Afghanistan is a multilateral one, and the final responsibility for its future lies with NATO and its member states.

Dawn Black, NDP: You raise very important issues, Kevin. The real test of political leadership is about deciding what our goals should be in the world and what we want to achieve as a nation.

Minister O'Connor talks about procurement and machinery, but he's silent on the big question: Why are we there?

During the Liberals' tenure, the reason for the mission seemed to be everything and nothing. First we were there because the Afghans asked us, then we were there to fight the Taliban and terrorism and finally, in the Liberal platform, to "build greater influence for Canada in the world."

I look forward to Minister O'Connor standing in the House of Commons in April and giving us a concise and honest answer to exactly what our mission is, our goals and an exit strategy.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: The Canadian approach, the 3-D one, is a good approach. The 3Ds stand for Diplomacy, Development and Defence. The contingent in Kandahar will include these 3 components although defence will have strong application because of the great instability in that part of the country. You are right. There is no exit strategy for now. That is why it is so important that Parliament tackles this issue and not only the cabinet. That way Parliament, with public discussions, can monitor what is happening and adopt the proper exit behaviour. One thing is sure, the Afghan people need the international help and Canadians are part of the 36 nations that are helping them out.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Mr. Dosanjh, M. Bachand and Ms. Black, we want to thank you all for taking so much time today to answer questions from our readers. Any last comments?

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal: The Canadian Forces have been operating in Afghanistan for four years. Canadians are proud of the work of our military in Afghanistan, and do support this critical and often dangerous mission. We can be secure in the knowledge that contributing to the security and the re-building of this troubled country is in our national interest, in the interest of international peace and progress, and reflective of our values as a people.

Claude Bachand, Bloc: I would like to thank The Globe and Mail for this initiative. I have been working on the defence portfolio for five years now. During those years, I have met hundreds of people in uniform who are ready to risk their lives to protect our values and way of living. We need to explain to taxpayers the importance of the armed forces. Let's hope that this initiative of The Globe and Mail will be a prelude to a debate that is of the highest importance for our future. Thanks to all those who took the time to send questions.

Dawn Black, NDP: The spring session of the House of Commons will be interesting for a number of reasons. Will the Conservatives, as they promised, put the question of our deployment to Afghanistan before the House for debate? Will the new government make clear statements about our military role? Will the renegotiated NORAD treaty come before the House as promised, or will it simply be rubber-stamped by Cabinet? On all these issues you can expect the NDP to be at the forefront of debate.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers, we are sorry we could not answer more of your questions in the time we had for this discussion. As always, feel free to e-mail me your thoughts on this discussion format.