Harper's statement has significance only to the vast majority that haven't been paying attention to actual events (again). This one's been cast in stone for over 18 months - "agressive engagement" is a) the entire frigging point of going to Kandahar, a decision that was taken a long, long, long time ago, and b) as natural to the Canadian Army as breathing. Same shit we were doing in Yugo - oddly it didn't "resonate" with that same "majority of Canadians" then, either (i.e., the Canadian public didn't pay attention, again). We buried a lot more guys during Yugo than we have during Afghanistan thusfar and they were in missions that were a boatload more ambiguous than this one. The Canadian public took it then, and they'll take it now - so long as they have that vague notion that we might be doing good and the death toll stays in the dribs and drabs (i.e., nothing like the BLT in Beirut). They'll say they aren't comfortable with it but it'll make no real difference to their voting patterns whatsoever.

The Canadian public knows exactly jack shit about the military and it has exactly zero effect on their voting behaviour. They'll hop up and down to tell you how much they care when you ask, but frankly they don't.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

...with Cabinet. As a practical matter this means that the power resides with PMO (as with pretty much everything else these days, it seems). Practice has been to debate the issue, but that frequently takes the form of "take note" debates. A good summary of the issue (and its history) can be found here.

As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear. The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.

Of course, Parliament, especially the House of Commons, plays an indispensable though indirect role by voting or withholding funds and by retaining or withdrawing confidence in the government of the day. Moreover, short of an actual vote, there are other mechanisms that enable parliamentarians to hold the government accountable for its decisions and to register their own views. These include questions to ministers, debates on the Estimates, and take‑note debates.(2)(3)

Although Parliament has a specific statutory role in some national emergencies under the Emergencies Act and with respect to the active status of the Canadian Forces under the National Defence Act, Cabinet is required to seek parliamentary approval only in the event of conscription or specific states of emergency. Without consulting Parliament, Cabinet can deploy troops by an order in council.(4) Section 32 of the National Defence Act only “requires that Parliament (unless it is dissolved at the time) be sitting whenever any element of the Canadian Forces is placed on ‘active service’ by the Governor in Council, or within ten days thereafter.(5) Although the Act does not specifically give Parliament any say in the matter,(6) the requirement may reinforce Cabinet’s accountability to Parliament at such times by ensuring that parliamentarians are on hand to question and challenge the government.”(7)

It's important to note that one of the specific states of emergency that requires Parliamentary approval is a declaration of war, but that's something that is going to be exceedingly rare in any future Canadian deployments. The notion that we'd be committed to hot war without an extant authorizing framework like NATO or the UN is pretty improbable. As I understand it, in those contexts we wouldn't be declaring war, we'd be authorizing the use of force to honour extant treaty obligations.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

...that I've found is army.ca - note that this is not an official Canadian Forces site; it's a public discussion board frequented almost exclusively by CF members. It's a bit odd (a considerable understatement) and it tolerates fools not at all, but if one wants to know what the guys (and gals) are thinking, that's where to go. I don't find it a good place to discuss general things, but if one has the background to understand what they're saying, it's a very useful place to listen.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

...than a jeep. The G-wagon that was hit by the IED was, in fact, the armoured variant (and I've been told that the CDS has publicly stated that even a LAV-III, were it to have been struck by that specific IED, would have been destroyed). I don't know how the armoured G-wagon compares to an armoured HUMVEE, but I would expect it to be in the same category. In addition to the armoured G-wagons, they have LAV-IIIs, Bisons, and a few "interesting" highly specialized vehicles used for route-proving - in brief, there's no shortage of armoured vehicles of various sorts. Any sensibly designed military formation/unit is going to have a mix of heavier and lighter vehicles - each brings different things to the table, things that may be essential to some curcumstances may be deadly liabilities in others. For instance, the G-wagons can go places that the LAVs, even though they are much heavily armoured and armed simply can't go.

The Taliban aren't "shelling" the Canadians by any reasonable definition of shelling. If they hang around to correct fire, they get obliterated by Canadian gunners and their shiny new M777s or engaged from the air. What the Taliban are doing is taking rockets (107 mm of late) and rigging them for delayed fire -- this means that they take the rockets, aim them very crudely towards something that they want to hit (usually using a bipod) and rig them with a delayed firing circuit (a float in a water filled can is traditional, but with the ready availability if time delay circuits in consumer electronics I suspect they're using more sophisticated firing devices). Some hours (or even days) after the rocket is laid and the Taliban leave the scene, it goes off and heads vaguely towards its target. As a tactic it's harassment, nothing more. The military utility of this sort of thing is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable - it sounds important to the civvies, and it really sucks if you happen to be underneath where it lands, but it's pretty much like getting hit by lightning. The fact that the Taliban is reduced to tactics like this and IEDs is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.

Our bases at Kandahar and elsewhere are pretty much nothing like the Green Zone. For one thing, a much higher percentage of our people actually come out of our bases and conduct operations.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.