Afstan: the debate has indeed been done for this commitment

What about subsequent ones? The Liberal government committed--to the US and to NATO--to provide two Canadian Army battle groups to Afstan, each for a six month rotation. The battle group now there will be replaced around August, and its successor will finish its tour around February, 2007.

The Liberals also agreed that Canada would command, and provide staff for, the Multi-National Brigade in Regional Command (South). This is to be made up from the Canadian battle group plus UK, Dutch, Romanian and some other troops. Canadian command is for nine months until around October this year. The brigade will be under US Operation Enduring Freedom until this summer when it is scheduled to transfer to the command of NATO ISAF.

There is absolutely no purpose in the House of Commons' debating these commitments when it meets. However the Conservative government seems to be indicating that further commitments of Canadian troops are likely.
...
Mr. Harper reiterated his party's election platform: that the Conservatives would not hold a vote on the current Afghanistan deployment, but "if we make new commitments these things will obviously be put to a vote in the future."

Mr. Harper's officials later stressed that even though the current commitment to Afghanistan comes up for review next February, simply extending it is not considered a new deployment and requires no further debate...

Here I think the Conservatives are being sophists. While a further troop commitment after February, 2007 would be to carry out the same mission, it would in fact be a new commitment. It seems to me only proper, from a democratic standpoint and in light of the significance and risks of the mission, to have a vote if a new commitment is to be made.

But, in reality, the debate in the House leading up to a vote would almost certainly be a farce--a sad reflection of how low our standards of public debate have fallen.
...
There was a time when the floor of the House of Commons would have provided the perfect backdrop for just such a discussion. When politicians came to the nation’s capital to debate important issues and present the facts to back up their arguments.

That period, unfortunately, came to an end years ago, a demise coinciding roughly with the decision to allow TV coverage of Parliament.

Since then the Commons has devolved into a raucous bearpit that serves up cheap theatrics in place of sober and reflective debate. Where winners and losers are decided not by reasoned argument but by clever retorts and snappy putdowns...

I doubt if a Canadian Minister of National Defence would speak to our House with such detail and cogency as the UK Defence Secretary did at Westminster this January. And, if Mr O'Connor did, that many MPs from any party would understand what he was talking about.

Update: Blue Blogging Soapbox gives selections from the take note debate, Nov. 15, 2005 that indicate the thin nature of consideration in our House.

Here is a useful summary of editorial opinion in Canadian newspapers.

Upperdate: A good analysis of Canada's involvement by David Rudd of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!