The Debate that Wasn't
It was a debate in form only. The resolution on the floor was simply that the committee of the whole house "take note of Canada's significant commitment in Afghanistan." So it was an opportunity for the MPs to say whatever they wanted and to ask or answer questions, or not.
For the most part I was bored. A high school mock parliament could have done better, working with information already in the public domain. Everyone supported the troups. There were political potshots contrasting Conservative statements with when they were in the opposition last year, or criticising the NDP because two of their caucus attended the anti-war rally outside. Ominous allusions were made to the Americans and the contradiction between counter-insurgency and reconstruction.
I turned up the volume and wandered into my office to check my email. My ears picked up when I heard an energetic defense of the campaign to free Abdul Rahman. Returning to the living room I discovered the speaker was Stockwell Day, the last guy in Ottawa I'd ever thought I'd agree with. Oh well. I sat down and watched the rest of the show. It could have been worse. Someone from every party offered support for the current mission. Some valid questions were raised about the treatment of prisoners and the potential for mission creep.
This past weekend I read over the transcript of the debate in the Canadian Hansard. (Scroll down to 18:15.)
Maybe I was just in a better mood but the bare text seemed to reveal a more sophisticated discourse, particularly by the NDP. With recent opinion polls showing the public evenly divided on Operation Archer, and the other parties, including apparently the BQ, taking a clear stand in support of that mission, the temptation to claim the anti-war role must be strong. And if that is what they truly believe, it would be an honourable stance for an opposition party to take.
Some speakers tried to goad the NDP into going down that road.
Imagine how soldiers would feel tomorrow if we could tell them that 270 of 308 members of Parliament voted in favour of this mission. I believe that this would show our support.
Furthermore, I do not understand why the government does not do so, given what it knows. The government will not vote against its own policy. The Liberals will most certainly not vote against the troops, since they were the ones to send them. I have just confirmed that we, the Bloc Québécois, support our soldiers. Only the NDP's opinion remains unknown. I believe that many NDP members must support the mission. - Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)
Neither NDP leader Jack Layton nor defence critic Dawn Black took the bait. And eventually it fell to the party's critic for Veterans' Affairs to make explicit their support for the current mission.
Mr. Chair, I want to answer the question the Conservatives have been asking all day. The answer is yes, I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does my party, but I take great umbrage to the party over there that reflects in its connotations that the NDP does not support our troops because the NDP asks questions. - Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP)
It annoyed me that Layton and others are still asking about the goals and objectives of the current mission. If the past and present governments and the department of defence havn't been clear enough Layton should be calling for the troops out now. But I think his strategy is to nurture the confusion the pollsters say is behind much of the public opposition, without prompting a backlash from the other side. The NDP is playing a game of wait and see. I don't believe they want the Taliban to return but they are pessimistic, as Black says, about the "uncertain prospects for the success of this mission."
Michael Ignatieff spoke of similar concerns as those raised by the NDP and the BQ, while also emphasizing what he learned in his two visits to Afghanistan, before and after the Taliban were defeated. If he succeeds in gaining the leadership of the Liberals, taking that party to the left as he says he will, the NDP may be in trouble, appearing as redundant as the recently assimilated Progressive Conservatives. At that point Layton may feel he has no choice but to play the anti-war card, reminding voters of Iggy's pro-war history in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Much of Canada's internal politics is going to depend on what happens in Kandahar in the coming months.
Last Monday's discussion was a set-up for the real debates that will take place next fall and winter.
Next:
Windsor's Women in Black
The Euston Manifesto
Update: I''ve been contemplating some major changes here, new software, design, whatever. That's on hold for now but I am going to turn on the comments, since the Popinjays experience has not been at all the horrorshow I feared. It's time to take the training wheels off.
I received the following email from Rob of Everything Hurtz and with his permission I share it with you now.
Jim,
I'm not sure if your use of "more sophisticated discourse" was as a backhanded compliment; otherwise, I think you're being awfully kind to the NDP. I read the debate transcript, and while the spinelessness (or political astuteness, depending on your POV!) of Layton and Black was depressing, I reserve the biggest jeers for Peggy Nash, whose combined statements made very little sense. It was like she was saying that somebody should do the work at the sharp end, but it shouldn't be Canada, it should be the nasty and aggressive Yanks who everyone already views as nasty and aggressive, so that's okay. This stuff about the multiplex role of Canada's forces being "confusing" for the average Afghan was obtuse, patronizing, or a combination of both.
I'm going to have a hard time voting NDP again.
Hope the health of your family/friends continues to improve.
Cheers,
Rob
Posted: Wed - April 19, 2006 at 10:56 AM
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 12, 2007 03:13 PM