Thank you, Chair.
You won't be surprised that I am concerned about the focus of the mission and the mandate. I'll read from the mandate passed in the House of Commons on October 2, wherein one of the three elements of the actual vote, item (b), says:
note that the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations;
Of course we've all seen references recently to the statements of the Prime Minister on September 30 that the role is to advise and assist but not to accompany the Iraqis into combat.
I guess, General Lawson, that's why you could say with great confidence in October, to national media in answer to a specific question about pinpointing targets, that “our contingent of 69 over there [the ground troops] are entirely employed in training up counterterrorist agents...so they will have nothing to do with that. As far as we know, all coalition troops that are on the ground in Iraq are being used in the same role of advise and assist, but not accompany and not engage in direct combat.”
Also it would be assumed, consistent with what The Wall Street Journal would have been assured by the Department of National Defence in December, that no troops were targeting for missile strikes or were present on the front lines.
So I think, General, what was told to Canadians by Generals Vance and Rouleau last week, specifically that one of the three main objectives was to assist Iraqi security forces in the defence of Iraqi positions and in the prosecution of offensive operations by enabling air strikes from the ground, was referred to as some sort of evolution subsequent to your statements in October.
My question is where the orders to change that came from and when that decision took place.