Jack Harris

[Search and Rescue, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday I will join in a rally in St. John's to protest the closure of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre. The people of my province know how vital this centre is to the safety of those in peril at sea, but the government will not listen to them. Instead, the minister belittles the work of the rescue centre by referring to it as a call centre.

When will the Prime Minister apologize for these insulting remarks and finally reverse this irresponsible decision?

[Afghanistan, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the truth. A year and a half ago, this House voted for a public inquiry into Canada's transfer of detainees and significant risk of torture in Afghanistan. Instead, we got a backroom deal which kept the lid on it for over a year. Now, the day before this House is scheduled to close for the summer, we are getting a document dump.

Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that this will satisfy the need for public accountability and a judicial review of Canada's international obligations?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue on her very fine speech on this extremely important issue to Canadians. I also note, for the record, that the member has served in the Canadian Forces and, through her knowledge, has been able to give a very detailed presentation of what is going on in Libya from that perspective as well.

Could she also elaborate on another aspect of this motion before us today, and that is a series of amendments that have been put forth by the official opposition? Why does she think it is necessary to have these amendments in order to have a proper resolution, reflecting the will of our party and the will of Canadians?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate the member on his re-election and on his position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Now the minister two assistants, but these two parliamentary assistants seem to be adding, unfortunately, to the ambiguity of the government's position here.

When the member rises in the House and says, “Gadhafi must go. Gadhafi must go. Therefore, we are continuing our mission”, pardon me if I assume from the member's remarks that the mission is to get rid of Gadhafi.

I am not trying to be nuanced here. Nobody likes Mr. Gadhafi, or Colonel Gadhafi, or whatever title he goes by. However, the fact of the matter is this is not about regime change and if the UN resolution is to be followed precisely the way we believe it should, then the talk of the parliamentary secretary is confusing people and is leading to me to wonder whether General Bouchard is right when he says, “My job is not regime change” or whether the parliamentary secretary is when he says “Gadhafi must go. Therefore, we are continuing our mission”.

Which is it? We cannot have it both ways.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some figures on the cost of this mission. The total cost estimate is $60 million. Today, the Rideau Institute has questioned that figure, saying that it is more likely to be in the range of $80 million to $85 million. We know the government is not that good with numbers when it comes to military costs and expenditures. Could the member tell us where these numbers come from and how he supports their accuracy?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is another country than Canada.

However, Canada is an international actor. We support the United Nations. We support human rights and we supported the responsibility to protect as a doctrine.

As someone said recently, if we are going to have UN-led world, then there have to be countries willing to participate and support UN actions.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we hear from this government and heard today a phrase that it likes to use, the “whole of government approach”. Now a whole of government approach sounds great; it sounds like something is really happening.

However, whenever I hear that phrase, I immediately ask where is the content? Where is the detail? What part of government is involved? Where is the diplomatic effort? What exactly are we doing on the humanitarian side?

When I hear about whole of government, my conclusion is that there is no answer to that question; it is just the cover the government is using to say that it wants to be more involved.

The contact group is a good example of that. Who was there? I have nothing against the associate minister of defence responsible for procurement, but the associate minister is not the person to send to the contact group on Libya. What is that all about? Where is the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Why is he not there? Or the parliamentary secretary? Or someone else? Or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, if there are issues related to defence? I do wonder when we talk about that.

We also have to see the specifics. That is why we have these things in our motion. We are hoping to get the kinds of answers that the Canadian people truly want to see, that Canada is doing more than just sending jets to participate in this because the government wants to show we can participate in international affairs and show some leadership, et cetera. These are the talking points that we are hearing from the government, but we want to see some real action on all fronts.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that UN resolution 1973 was aimed at achieving a ceasefire as soon as possible and to engage in a settlement of the existing differences and, essentially, to re-establish a new political future in Libya in light of the opposition. It is not up to Canada to decide what that should be. It is up to the Libyan people.

The question is based on a false premise, that we here in Canada, that we in the Canadian government, should decide who should participate in any government of Libya. That is for the Libyan people to decide. That is why our motion talks about a Libyan-led solution to the crisis and to the future of government in Libya. I guess that is the simplest way to put it.

Regime change by a foreign nation is really intervention in someone else's affairs or taking sides in a civil road, which leads us down the slippery slope to intervention in every crisis in the world.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a high level of assessment of targets throughout this mission to date.

My colleague and I asked for and received a very high level and detailed briefing by Foreign Affairs and military officials on how this was operating. We were involved with the Judge Advocate General's office and the Judge Advocate General himself was part of this. We went over in great detail how these targets are chosen, the level of authority given, the ability of the pilots to turn back, which has actually happened, when there is some doubt as to the nature of the target and the possibility of civilians being injured. I know that one error was made in targeting rebel forces as opposed to government forces. There has been a very low level of civilian casualties on the NATO side. That is commendable.

I would also refer hon. members to the article in yesterday's paper where General Bouchard talked in specific detail as to how this actually happens and how missions are turned down and turned back, how missions must be approved at the highest level, even coming back to Ottawa in case of Canadian targets. That is commendable.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. We are trying to achieve something here that Canadians can support and there is indeed a legitimate debate taking place just as there was on March 21.

Although we share the goal of protecting civilians in Libya, there is a certain set of issues that our party, in particular, has found important to insert into the debate and into Canada's actions in Libya. We found it necessary to do that back in March when the motion that was being discussed between the parties and being presented by the government, after the United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, was simply dealing with the military aspect of what Canadian efforts would be.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about what goes on behind the scenes. Well, behind the scenes over the weekend leading to that resolution there was considerable input by my colleague, the critic for foreign affairs, the member for Ottawa Centre, and myself on the shape of that resolution. It was very important for us to see in that resolution Parliament supporting and promoting all aspects of UN resolution 1973, which is again what we are doing here today.

In his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepted our interest to have on the record the changes pertaining to the humanitarian side and the stepping up of diplomatic efforts in achieving a lasting resolution in Libya.

The situation, of course, is changing, but the situation is changing because we had an expectation I suppose that this would not last very long. However, we have seen it last a lot longer than we expected.

We have heard that the diplomatic efforts needed to be stepped up and of the need for, as the resolution itself points out, a ceasefire as a primary goal of the intervention in order to protect civilians. We have also heard over the past number of weeks a considerable amount of talk by, in some cases, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, particularly, the Minister of National Defence on something that is seen to be more than that. The mission and goal of protecting civilians had changed to something different. We were into some sort of regime change as an objective of the NATO mission.

We have an objection to that. This intervention is based on the responsibility to protect, and the necessity of intervening in another country militarily is part of that end, but it is also to avoid a situation where interventions take place to affect a change in the regime in some other country.

It is not for this country to do that. This is why we have insisted in our amendments that there be recognition that the results of what we are proposing here would end up with having a Libyan-led political transition that must take place in Libya, and that is the goal here.

I have heard the Minister of National Defence come out with statements that I would refer to as a “muscular militarism”, a bellicose state that Canada is somehow going to play a different role in the world from here on in. We are using our military as an aim in foreign policy and building ourselves up in the world through that means.

We do not support that approach. We do not support that kind of foreign policy for Canada. It is not in keeping with Canada's tradition and we speak out against it.

As we speak out against that, we also recognize that it is not what the Canadian leader who is on the ground directing this mission on behalf of NATO says. I will quote from yesterday's Globe and Mail in an extensive article by Paul Koring, who is very knowledgeable in military affairs. He interviewed Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard and said:

But he carefully sticks to the UN mandate that the conflict isn’t to achieve regime change, just to protect civilians.

He talks about Colonel Gadhafi, as many would, and we all understand that.

He quotes Lieutenant General Bouchard as saying:

This is someone is giving orders to go and kill his own people...He has lost his moral authority to lead his nation--

This is the general who is coordinating all of the NATO actions, including the efforts by the French and the British who on their own wanted to use armed helicopters as part of this, to which he insisted would have to be brought in under NATO command as well.

When talking about Gadhafi the general said:

He has lost his moral authority to lead his nation…but my job is not regime change.

I thank General Bouchard for stating that so emphatically and clearly, so that we will not be confused, regardless of the kind of statements that we hear from the Minister of National Defence.

As defence critic for the New Democratic Party and the official opposition, I do have to raise one important point coming out of the Minister of National Defence's speech. I have to acknowledge that he was very moderate in his tone today. I thank him for that. I hope he continues that and that it is evidence of a new approach by the government on this issue.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I congratulate him on his new position and on being elected, and joining us here in this House. I know he himself has broad experience in providing diplomatic service to our nation and I thank him for that. However, I have a problem and perhaps he can address it. I did not get a chance to ask the minister himself.

It has to do with perhaps a bit of redefinition by NATO of the objectives because the minister sort of said this came from resolution 1973, but it actually comes from the NATO mission objectives. One, of course, is to end the attacks on civilians. That is consistent in both of those.

The one that causes me some difficulty from a strategic point of view is the verifiable withdrawal of the regime's military and paramilitary forces to bases and unhindered access for humanitarian aid.

I accept the latter, but not the verifiable withdrawal of the regime's military and paramilitary forces to bases as a requirement and objective of the UN mission.

We know a ceasefire is the objective. There have been various attempts to see that happen by asking Mr. Gadhafi to take steps that he has not taken. However, if the objective is to get everybody back to their barracks and back to their bases, how can that be accomplished if one of the targets of the NATO mission has consistently been the barracks of soldiers operated by Gadhafi? If barracks are being targeted and at the same time the objective is to get everybody to come back to the barracks, how does that make military sense? Is there not a significant conflict?

I hope that the hon. parliamentary secretary will have an opportunity in questions and comments to address that because I think it is an important point if we are to achieve the possibility of a speedy resolution to this particular conflict.

For example, I note that Turkey has been active on the diplomatic score. We saw a report on Sunday regarding members of the Turkish diplomatic corps meeting with Mr. Gadhafi and, in fact, offering him guarantees of protection in an attempt to get a ceasefire operating there. Unfortunately, there has been no success to date. Nonetheless, there seems to be some significant effort in that regard, an enhanced diplomatic effort by our partners.

I believe we still have a good relationship with Turkey despite some resolutions by this government and we should because Turkey is key in this regard. I believe the parliamentary secretary could tell us from his own experience in Afghanistan and elsewhere that Turkey is a key state in dealing with people and other nations, and other countries in that part of the world. I will leave that to my foreign affairs colleague to talk more about that.

However, I believe Turkey provides a terrific potential for a bilateral relationship with Canada both economically and obviously on the diplomatic side. Here is an example where Turkey may have some credibility in that region and can help in this matter. We should perhaps work closely with it.

I do still have a problem with this stated objective here and how that intersects with the ability to achieve a ceasefire, which frankly is the first objective. If we look at the United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, number one is to obtain a ceasefire and protect civilians. That is the way to do it.

We realize we are dealing with an unusual individual in the case of Colonel Gadhafi. I will not use some of the epithets that were used earlier. We do know, of course, that he stands accused of significant humanitarian crimes and war crimes, and we all hope these are dealt with in the appropriate forum. In the meantime, there is significant effort to be undertaken.

I will add to some of the concerns we had here. We recognize, of course, that there is a lot of work still to be done. We have had an intervention in the form of a request to members of Parliament. I am sure other members of Parliament have received these. I know my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, and I received correspondence from the Canadian Libyan Council seeking our support for the continuation of the support for UN resolution 1973 and Canada's action. It specifically referred to the continued shelling and bombing. The letter of June 5 said:

[...] it is our wish that NATO step-up its efforts in the Western Nafusa Mountain region where civilians have been suffering from shelling at the hands of Gadhafi troops for months.

Then the letter makes reference to the humanitarian aid report for further information. This is the Canadian Libyan Council that speaks on behalf of Libyan Canadians across the country. It has expressed very strong support for the intervention by Canada as part of this mission.

This is an important function that still continues. We do not want to see a circumstance where we get involved in a quagmire with no end. We want to see swift action to resolve this issue, and I think it may be that the objectives spelled out here in the NATO objectives could be a hindrance to that if that is stated as an objective without the means to get there, particularly if there is continued bombing of barracks and no other means of going about that solution.

With these kinds of concerns here, the bellicose talk and the muscular militarism we are hearing from the Minister of National Defence in particular and others, we are also hearing from other countries. We have heard it from the U.K., France and other countries at the G8.

We all share a similar view of the fact that Colonel Gadhafi is not the kind of person we have any respect for. We would think that any post-conflict regime or situation in Libya, as chosen by the Libyan people, would not include Colonel Gadhafi. I think that is a given. If the people of Libya had a choice, I think that is what they would be. However, we want to see this as a Libyan-led solution and not one that is affected by military action under the responsibility to protect.

We have to be careful about what we are doing and we have to be careful that we do it in a way that respects the international regime under which we are doing this. The responsibility to protect is an emerging doctrine that is becoming a part of the convention in international law. It is something we must do right because if we do not do it right, it may be very difficult to do it again. That is an important marker to lay down here, that, when talking about this kind of action, a lot of people in this country, and rightly so, are very leery of Canadian involvement in military action outside this country. We have seen from history what happens when we start something and do not know where to finish it.

We have seen that in the Afghanistan conflict. Our party took a very strong position on this. There was a point when we said that we wanted Canada to leave. Canada was not, in our view, to continue the military mission in Afghanistan. We felt it was time to bring that to an end.

We have seen what can happen when we start in one place and all of a sudden something called mission creep takes over. That was the danger we spoke about on March 21, and it was a danger that we kept repeating when we heard talk of regime change in Libya as part of the goals of this mission. This is something that we want to avoid. Canadians do not want us to get into another quagmire, where we see Canadian involvement to the extent that Canadians did not know what they were supporting in the beginning.

There are many who believe that when we talked about a no-fly zone, it was simply a matter of taking planes out of the air that were going to bomb facilities or bomb civilians. However, the reality set in pretty quickly when bombing missions were taking out anti-aircraft guns and tanks and planes, and their ability to drop bombs on civilians. That shocked some people in this country. When we start taking that further again and start talking about regime change or using loose language, which is irresponsible by the leaders of this country, then Canadians get very worried.

We want, as much as possible, to frame Canada's actions clearly within UN resolution 1973. Our amendments to the motion today are clearly designed to do that, to emphasize that all aspects of UN resolution 1973 must be acted on by government. We have laid out some specific measures that we would want to see in any resolution passed by the House in order to continue this mission.