[DIV class=headline]Commitment is 'long term,' PM says
[DIV class=subheadline]MPs debate deployment of Canadians
All parties voice their support for troops
[DIV class=pubdate]Apr. 11, 2006. 07:42 AM
[DIV class=byline]BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
[DIV class=byline]OTTAWA BUREAU[/DIV]
[DIV class=articlebody][!-- icx_story_begin --]OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan for "years," a sure sign soldiers will stay in the war-torn nation long after the current commitment expires in 2007.
But in a Commons debate on the Afghan mission last night, MPs from the three opposition parties flexed their minority muscle to demand a vote on any future military deployments.
"If this mission needs to be extended, we must have a full and open debate in this House and across the country. Canadians currently are divided on this mission ... right down the middle," said Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South), the party's defence critic.
NDP Leader Jack Layton denied that a debate or vote would undermine support for Canadian soldiers going into action.
"I call on the Prime Minister to set himself apart from his Liberal predecessors by committing to a democratic debate and a vote in this House on any further role for our Canadian Forces," Layton said.
While Harper has previously vowed that Canada is in for the long haul, yesterday's comments mark a more definitive time frame from the new Conservative government.
"Our troops are already deployed in Afghanistan, have been deployed for some time and as we know, will be there in some form in the next few years," Harper told the Commons during the afternoon question period.
Canada now has 2,200 troops in Kandahar, a commitment that ends in February. Harper said a decision on the next deployment would be made in the "very near" future but left little doubt that more troops would be deployed.
"We're there for the long term and we support the mission of our troops," Harper said.
All four parties voiced strong support for Canadian troops.
But opposition MPs still asked tough questions about the length of the mission and the treatment of prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers.
Layton noted that concerns are being raised across Canada on such things as rules of engagement and an exit strategy.
Liberal MP and leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) used his debut speech in the Commons to acknowledge the new, more offensive role for soldiers compared to traditional peacekeeping missions of the past.
"You cannot do development in Afghanistan unless you control the security situation," Ignatieff said. "The schools and clinics you build by day are burned down by night unless you have the troops."
But he worried that prisoners nabbed by Canadian soldiers could be abused after being handed over to allies without oversight by Canadian officials.
Harper had originally rebuffed demands for a debate but relented in the face of polls that show Canadians growing uneasy with the mission. But there was no vote after last night's "take-note" debate.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said terrorists threaten the "security and prosperity" of Canadians.
"The dangers are not always concrete but they are real enough. Our security begins very far from our borders," O'Connor said.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and subsequent attacks in Bali, Madrid and London have "shown how vulnerable we are to terrorism," he said.
"Must we wait for terrorists to appear in Vancouver, Montreal or here in Ottawa before we recognize the very real threat that they represent to our security?" he said.
Legal experts yesterday slammed the defence department for agreeing to hand over detainees to Afghan authorities under a prisoner-transfer agreement.
This could lead to prisoners being transferred to a third country, where they could be abused, said Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia professor.[/DIV]
