MATTHEWGOODONLINE

So it’s Monday morning - 430 am-ish….And when most people would be surfing the net for porn. I spend my time getting nostalgic - reading debates from the House.

Aw…Memories….

I’ve highlighted some of my favourite parts.

My gift to you.

Bon Ape Tits.

Debates of the Senate

National Defence
1st Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 139, Issue 70
Tuesday, November 20, 2001

Afghanistan—Proposal to Send Troops

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is with respect to Afghanistan and our sending 1,000 ground troops there. We heard that the troops had been put on 24-hour stand-by. Now, they are not on 24-hour stand-by.

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying, “We do not want to have a big fight there. We want to bring peace and happiness as much as possible.” Did the Prime Minister really say that?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not know about the latter part of the statement. It has been very clear from the beginning that the purpose of the PPCLI, the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, would be to do two things: provide stability and provide humanitarian aid. They have not been on 24-hour stand-by, but on 48-hour stand-by. A small reconnaissance team has apparently been on 24-hour stand-by, but the bulk of the troops have been on 48-hour stand-by.

Quite frankly, the government is holding back, as are troops from Britain and France. We are holding back until we know exactly their mandate, to whom they would be reporting and what exactly they would do once on the ground.

It is important for senators to understand that discussions are taking place today in Washington with all the relevant players. Our Minister of Defence is there. It is hoped that, after these discussions, we will have a better understanding as to whether Canada will send those troops to provide the stability and humanitarian aid.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, as we all know, there is a big fight going on over there. The last I heard, we have three Canadian warships now in the Arabian Sea.

I can understand the decision to hold back troops. I want to ensure that once they are there, if fighting breaks out, for whatever reason, that we are not going to turn tail and run home. If the decision is made that our troops are going there, will we hightail it for home if a big fight breaks out? What is the tolerance for body bags? We have to realize and recognize that we cannot merely talk nice. We also have to be there and be tough, which I know our troops would be. That is unquestionable, but I question the determination of the government to stand and fight, given the words of the Prime Minister.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the honourable senator queries whether we will defend ourselves in an adequate way. Of course we will. The Minister of Defence has been very clear. He wants the troops that are sent to be the appropriate troops. He wants to ensure that those troops reflect appropriately the actions the government wants them to take. I state again that the principal purposes of sending those troops would be for security and humanitarian efforts.

Every time we send troops abroad, primarily on peace missions, we know that our troops are in some danger. We never know when flare-ups will occur. The troops realize that, as well. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to be appropriately equipped. When our troops go into these areas, we must ensure that they are able to adequately defend themselves.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): As a matter of public policy, what is the government’s view of the level of tolerance for Canadian troops incurring casualties in an area that is in open armed conflict? One must consider the level of tolerance during the peacekeeping intervention in Somalia, where the leader of the current coalition left after some 18 American soldiers became casualties. One must consider that General Roméo Dallaire was completely abandoned by the Belgian troops after that country sustained 10 fatal casualties. What is the policy of the Government of Canada as to the level of tolerance for fatal casualties should we go to Afghanistan?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, plans are not made on the basis of levels of tolerance. Plans are made on the basis of whether the troops that we send there can do effectively the job we have assigned them. Clearly, the expectation would be that they would not be in areas of heavy fighting and interaction, because it would be very difficult to provide stability and humanitarian aid if that were the case.

I can assure the honourable senator that the troops will be adequately equipped. Decisions will be made, as they are being made in Washington today, to ensure that appropriate troops are sent with appropriate equipment, and appropriate leadership and determination accompanies such an assignment.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Should Canadian troops, if in Afghanistan, capture a member of the Taliban leadership or a member of al-Qaeda, is it the policy or intent of the Government of Canada that such an individual, or group of individuals, would be brought back to Canada for trial, or is it the policy that such captives would be turned over to the Americans? The President of the United States has just signed a provision to the effect that the American court martial system would be the judicial forum within which international terrorism will be adjudicated. What is the Government of Canada’s position should we capture a terrorist in Afghanistan?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, we would ensure that all international conventions to which we are a signatory are respected. To my knowledge, we have signed all conventions with respect to the capture and treatment of prisoners. We would adhere absolutely to the international conventions that we have signed in this regard.

As to the American decision to use a military tribunal, at this point Canada knows very little about it. Canada has certainly not indicated its approval

Now Playing:
Nothing, It’s 4 in the AM a.ka. Zero-Dark-Buffalo-Stupid-Hours!

This entry was posted on Monday, October 1st, 2007 at 3:55 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.