Debates of June 14th, 2011

Libya

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion before the House with regard to the crisis in Libya and the potential extension of Canada's participation in the mission that we entered last March. I will make comments and then propose amendments in my remarks.

If we look at the timeline of this issue and its trajectory, we really have to go back not to Tripoli or Benghazi or Misrata but to the events that happened in Tunisia. We are all well aware of what happened there, where the so-called Arab spring was launched. It is important to note the similarities between what happened in Tunisia and Egypt and Libya, but there are profound differences in each of these situations, and I will elaborate on them later.

What is notable in all of these situations and in what is happening in Yemen, Syria and Jordan, and the list goes on, is that the people of the respective countries have decided to hold their regimes to account. This is unprecedented in modern history in the region. It is something worthy of note, particularly for these countries in a post-colonial era, where the people themselves have decided they will set the agenda, that they will decide who is going to lead them and to throw off the shackles of oppression and suppression.

On February 15 in Benghazi, riots were triggered by the arrest of a human rights activist, and that is important for people to note. There was finally a coalescence of humanitarian action around those who typically have been isolated, arrested and tortured. People said they would no longer stand by and watch their fellow citizens jailed and oppressed. The riots soon turned into a fight against government forces, with protestors peacefully demanding that Colonel Gadhafi step down, similar to the situations in Tunisia and Egypt.

Just days later on February 21, two Libyan air force pilots decided to defect because they were ordered to use their monopoly on violence, as it were, in this case their jets, to massacre their fellow citizens. It was just after that on February 24 that anti-government forces coalesced around Misrata, evicting forces loyal to Gadhafi.

On February 27, we saw the first UN resolution, resolution 1970, which looked to impose sanctions on Gadhafi and his family. On March 1, the UN General Assembly suspended Libya's membership of the Human Rights Council, and aid agencies reported at that point that 147,000 people had fled Libya for Tunisia and Egypt.

It was on March 5 that the Libyan National Council met in Benghazi and declared itself the representative of the Libyan people.

On March 6, the former Jordanian foreign minister was appointed by the UN as a special envoy to Libya. The next day a regional flash appeal for the Libyan crisis was launched by aid agencies, and foreign workers started to flee Libya.

On March 9, over 100 physicians who were deployed in eastern Libya by the Arab Medical Union coalesced to support the humanitarian crisis there. I might note that many Canadian Libyan doctors and civil society coalesced in support of the humanitarian crisis.

It was on March 10 that forces loyal to Gadhafi bombed the oil town of Brega and took control of another town nearby, just west of Tripoli. It was then that we started to hear calls, after this massacre and bombing, by the Arab League. It was on March 12 that the Arab League called on the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

There was also support from the African Union, which expressed:

[Its] deep concern at the prevailing situation in Libya, which poses a serious threat to peace and security in that country and in the region as a whole, as well as to the safety and dignity of Libyans and of the migrant workers, notably the African ones, living in Libya. [The] Council is equally deeply concerned with the resulting humanitarian situation.

It was after the cry for help from both the Arab League and the African Union that on March 17 the UN Security Council voted on resolution 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone and all necessary measures to protect civilians from the government forces.

On March 20, Libya declared a ceasefire. The problem was that it continued to oppress its citizens and use violence against them, which clearly showed the cards of the regime, that it was not serious about a ceasefire at that point.

On March 24 NATO was given command to enforce the no-fly zone. It did not take full control of that until other countries signed on. I might note that Canada was joined in the mission by countries like Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, the U.K., France, Italy, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Jordan and Morocco.

These are important points because many people have forgotten how we got here. The fact of the matter is that we were asked by the African Union, the Arab League and the United Nations to act, and that is why we supported the initial motion of the House.

As has been noted by many, there have been many changes on the ground. For that reason, I think amendments are required to support the humanitarian concerns that exist, especially the internally displaced people and refugees resulting from this conflict; to ensure that we investigate and prosecute rape as a weapon of war, which is something my party has asked for in places like the Congo; and to ensure that there is a strengthened diplomatic pledge by the government to ensure that we fall in line with UN resolution 1973.

I say this because it is not a crisis that will be solved by Canada, by NATO or by more bombing, but by diplomatic and humanitarian pursuit and making sure that the UN is in the lead and is coordinating matters. For the New Democratic Party, it is absolutely important that the UN is involved. I say that because some would put their trust only in regional representation. We in the NDP believe that the UN is the right body to coordinate a crisis of the proportion we have seen in Libya.

I might also note that Libya has challenges. Libya is different from Tunisia and Egypt. It is in some ways about having to look at not just democratic development, as has been mentioned and is certainly true, but also at state formation. For 40 years we have seen one person dominate that particular state, tear down institutions and ensure that he has full power over the people of Libya. So there is a problem and challenge there that is different from the other two countries I have mentioned.

It is also clear to all that if we are to pursue the UN resolution in a way that is meaningful, we need to strengthen diplomatic support. I was glad to hear the minister announce that there would be recognition of the national council.

I would also hope that we work with the diaspora community here. I also would hope that we would see a continued support for diplomatic efforts. Without that, we are not living within the spirit of UN Resolution 1973.

Finally, I want to touch on the need for full accountability and transparency.

I realize that after the initial motion was passed in this House we were in an election. However, it is absolutely imperative that the House and Parliament are seized with this issue through our committees of Parliament and that we actually live up to the same standards as other countries when it comes to transparency of our military mission as well as humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. For that, we believe an amendment is required that is in line with the spirit of the motion as presented.

I also believe we need to ensure that we have not only what was mentioned today by the minister, more humanitarian support, but that it needs to be explicit in the motion as well, and I think that amendments are required for that.

Finally, we have to say after three and a half months of a military commitment to the mission, that would be it. However, that is something that we will abide by, in terms of this motion, in terms of a three and a half month commitment. It is important that amendments be made to assure Canadians that this is not just about a military mission, that this is about making sure we live to the spirit of UN Resolution 1973. For that, I would like to amend the motion with the following. I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) substituting the word “consent” with the word “support” and the word “consents” with the word “supports;

(b) adding after the word, “therefore”, the following:

“, with the objective of protecting civilians,”

(c) adding after the words “with UNSC Resolution 1973”; the following:

“the House supports an increase in Canada's humanitarian assistance to those affected by the crisis and efforts to strengthen Canada's support for the diplomatic efforts outlined in UNSCR 1973 to reach a ceasefire leading to a Libyan-led political transition, and supports the government's commitment to not deploy Canadian ground troops”

(d) adding after the words “war by the Libyan regime” the following:

“and supports Canada's participation in the international effort in investigating, preventing and prosecuting these alleged crimes;” and

(e) adding after the words “under UNSC Resolution 1973” the following:

“, appreciates the government's full and continued co-operation on committee meetings and the sharing of information in accordance with the highest levels of transparency practised by our partners in the operation”

I submit these amendments and I look forward to the House supporting them.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The amendments are in order; therefore, we will proceed with questions and comments.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate my colleague for winning in the election and coming back as a foreign affairs critic. He and I have been sharing this portfolio for almost five years since Conservatives formed the government. We have a lot of respect for each other. I am glad to have him back as the NDP critic for foreign affairs.

I have a simple question. The member for St. John's East asked the minister about a regime change. On many of the issues that are being debated by panels, the member is always talking about regime change. The minister made it very clear that the military operation is not about a regime change. However, it needs to be made very clear.

I would like to know the NDP's position on this situation. As long as Mr. Gadhafi stays in power, how can we expect him to bring peace to that country? How can we expect him to not target his people as per the mandate that we have received from the UN?

It becomes critically important that while we do not have a military operation for a regime change, the need for Mr. Gadhafi to go as quickly as possible to bring peace to that country remains paramount.

I would like to know if the NDP agrees that Mr. Gadhafi needs to go, so that we can expect peace to return and to continue to work as was put in an amendment and as the minister said in his speech?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the question and look forward to spirited debate in the next number of months and even years.

This is a critical point for Canadians. We cannot decide on whom we like and do not like and go around the world taking out people we do not like. We have to abide by UN resolutions by international law.

My response to the parliamentary secretary would be to quote Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, who recently said the following in the press in reference to Gadhafi.

“This is someone is giving orders to go and kill his own people...He has lost his moral authority to lead his nation…but my job is not regime change.”

It could not be more clear that the job of the House and of the Government of Canada is not to decide on the regime, but it is to make sure that we protect civilians. That is why, in our amendments, we have made sure that it is explicit. I would caution the government not to wander off into that kind of language. It does not help the mission, it does not help the people of Libya, and it does not help us do our work here.

Let us live within the spirit of the UN resolution. Let us live within the spirit of what we have agreed to as a responsible nation state.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the Government of Canada on the Libyan mission. It is about time that the national transitional council was recognized as the legitimate government. Better late than never.

But, I am a bit concerned by the fact that we are taking such a piecemeal approach to this. Every time I see a situation like the one in Libya, I think about General Roméo Dallaire and Rwanda. Canada is a citizen of the world and must be involved in helping civilians. I would like my NDP colleague to speak more about the overall situation in the Maghreb, which includes Egypt as well as Libya. How can we avoid taking a piecemeal approach to these countries, given that the entire Jasmine Revolution will be affected?

Second, Canada is unfortunately often lacking in terms of foreign policy. A military operation should not dictate how things are done. In a democracy, the military carries out foreign affairs decisions. Does the member think that Canada should be playing a more active role in diplomacy?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we should be doing more and we have been critical of the government for not doing more. We think there should be an increase in the aid budget and that we should ensure we are investing in diplomacy abroad. We should actually be doing something the government promised in the throne speech, which was to have an institute for democratic development. This would be something that would aid the crises in Libya and other places.

A very important question is, “why Libya; why not--?” and then fill in the blank. It could be: “why not Syria?” or “why not Yemen?”. We need to be seized of that important question, particularly in the case of Syria.

However, let us not be fooled by the fact that there are some people who would look to what is happening in Libya and say there should not be any intervention and support at all. Think about that. I think of the comments made by Maher Arar just yesterday. He said that we need to ensure that the UN intercedes with Syria. However, that is not to turn our back on Libya. We need to see strong, committed support in terms of diplomacy, in terms of a resolution and in terms of ensuring the United Nations is front and centre in that.

Could Canada do more? Absolutely. Should we pressure the government to do that, in particular with the situation in Syria? Quite obviously. That is something we will continue to debate in this House in the next number of weeks.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion in the press particularly, and I go back to the time of the first resolution before this House on March 21. The suggestion was that there was no debate or discussion and that this was something people just did haphazardly. However, the member will know that in the weekend preceding that particular resolution for the House, there was much discussion between the parties that were involved regarding that resolution. One focus of the discussion was to have the resolution changed to say that not just military, but all aspects of UN Resolution 1973 are supported, endorsed and urged upon the government to pursue.

I wonder if he would comment on what has happened since then. My perception is that the focus has been almost entirely and solely on the military aspects of the resolution. Would he comment on that and why we are bringing forth the amendments we are making today?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to remind people that when we initially passed the motion in the House in March, it was amended. That was to ensure that we did follow UN Resolution 1973, but also that we would not have ground troops and that we would ensure there was a timeline. The reason we are here today debating the motion is we wanted to make sure there was a timeline.

Those amendments matter because they ensured Canadians and us as parliamentarians, that it was not a blank cheque. I agree with my colleague from St. John's East that there needs to be more focus on the diplomatic side on the humanitarian support. That is why we put our amendments to this motion forward.

It is welcoming news that the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood today and recognized the fact that there needs to be more diplomatic and humanitarian support. We look forward to hearing more from the government on that.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused about the hon. member's statement. He started out in solidarity with the oppressed in Libya and went on to suggest that we should have faith in the UN and not regional representation but then he said that we could not decide who we like and who we do not like.

I wonder if the opposition's position is to recognize Libya's rebel council as the country's sole legitimate representative.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely believe that recognizing the council would be an important element toward making progress in Libya.

We need to be clear that regional groups must be within the ambit of the United Nations. When regional representatives of the Arab League and the African Union pushed for the UN to adopt a resolution, we fully supported that.

However, for clarification, we do not support unilateral actions by NATO to involve itself without the support of the UN.

We absolutely think it would be a progressive action to recognize the council so that there is someone to work with on the ground.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning with the member for Toronto Centre.

First, I thank the hon. member for appointing me as the CIDA critic in the Liberal shadow cabinet. I also thank the people of Sydney—Victoria for once again placing their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa.

Helping people around the world in need has always been a passion of mine even before I entered politics. Since entering politics, the last 11 years I have had a lot of input on the foreign affairs committee and I have travelled to many countries to see the benefits of the help by Canadians.

As the Liberal critic for CIDA, I am honoured to stand in this House today to talk about our country's role in Libya post-Gadhafi.

I will begin by commending the brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces for the amazing job they are doing in Libya and around the world on behalf of all Canadians.

What will we see in Libya after the Gadhafi regime is gone? We will see reports of injustice toward Libyan women, men and children. We will hear more reports of mistreatment under a regime that must be dealt with. Funds will be needed for infrastructure but, most important, Libya will be without a democratic and judicial system, a basic right that we all cherish in this country.

When the G8 met at the summit last month in Deauville, the Prime Minister said that he did not intend to contribute any more funding to new democracies in Egypt, Tunisia or any other country that is now facing rebellions, such as we have seen in Libya and Syria, even though he strongly supports the democratic movements in these regions.

Democracy will not flourish without funds and proper guidance. The absence of social and government cohesion will be a tremendous obstacle in any possible transition to democracy. In fact, a post-Gadhafi Libya must first embark on a process of basic state formation, particularly the construction of a national identity and public administration, and, of course, the return of law and order before this democracy can take root.

The government seems to be in need of a bit of a history lesson. Some historians say that World War II may not have happened in Europe if the allies had assisted Germany in the reconstruction and instilling proper institutions. Instead, the victors after World War I were mostly interested in obtaining more land. The allies learned from this mistake and after World War II they set forth with a major reconstruction effort in western Europe. This was known as the Marshall Plan which was enacted in 1947 as a way to help rebuild Europe. This was also set up to discourage Communism from entering the region.

Canada also played another big role in the development of Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We see that many of the east bloc countries have instilled our democratic institutions and our Charter of Rights in their constitutions.

Another example in Europe is the role we have played in the former Yugoslavia. We now see that justice is still moving forward in the court system .

At present, Europe is a thriving democratic region and, over the last century, Canada played a big role in making that happen.

Another example is after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. Iraqis were faced with turmoil and civil war. This House and many Canadians may not know but, under the Paul Martin Liberal government, Canada pledged over $300 million over seven years for reconstruction. The largest share of Canada's contribution of $115 million was disbursed through the international reconstruction fund for Iraq and was managed by the World Bank and the United Nations.

Canada's support focused on the development of stable, self-governing and prosperous Iraq, with a representative and a democratic government respectful of human rights and promoting equality between women and men. The Canadian assistance in the areas of social and economic development also helped meet human needs, such as food, water and medical care.

Another more recent example of the work we are doing is in Afghanistan where we are helping it move forward as the conflicts diminish. Why are we not taking lessons learned in Afghanistan to other missions such as Libya?

Afghanistan is Canada's largest ever bilateral aid recipient. We are rebuilding schools, helping to build a governance structure and we are training the military and the police. We also have programs to support maternal and child health. We are doing it in Afghanistan and we must continue to do it in other countries.

Another personal experience I have witnessed with the reconstruction of another country post a notorious regime was in Panama. In 1980, Panama, under Noriega, was a police state with no democracy. The largest revenue was from the drug trade. After the fall of Noriega, the Panama Canal was handed over to the people by the U.S. and a new constitution was formed, but the economy also had to be restructured. I was asked to help with the reconstruction of its agriculture industry. I witnessed a transformation in Panama, which is now one of the most democratic and thriving countries in Central America.

Those are all examples that the House must realize have made countries vibrant and democratic.

Where is the government's post-Gadhafi strategy? The government has been notorious for its lack of detail. Why has it not put forward a more detailed plan regarding the future of a post-Gadhafi Libya or what if any role will Canada play in it? There is a known presence of extremist forces in certain areas of Libya, including some links to al-Qaeda. There is a very real fear that the extremists will gain a footing in a power vacuum that will undeniably occur once Gadhafi is finally ousted.

We know the situation we are facing in Libya. I have spoken of the great contributions Canada has made to help foster democracy. The reality is that the government has changed the way Canada operates on the world stage. By only offering to take military action and letting other multilateral international organizations do the restructuring is not acceptable.

The Prime Minister in a recent speech talked about playing a bigger leadership role on the international scene, but what we have seen is completely the opposite. It was with great interest yesterday when we heard in the House the member for Toronto—Danforth criticize companies for working in Libya. The companies the hon. member criticized will be instrumental in rebuilding Libya.

We need to work with Libya to help with reconstruction. There will be a benefit for our companies as we get the oil industry back and get everything to work well in that area. We saw the situation in Egypt where there was insufficient international support after the regime change left Egypt in a vulnerable state.

We cannot let this happen in the Middle East. We especially cannot let it happen in Libya. I ask the House to vote for the subamendment by the member for Toronto Centre.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my friend for winning his election and returning as the CIDA critic. I worked with him when he was the parliamentary secretary for international trade.

I am a little confused. In his speech he talked about post-Gadhafi. At the current time, he is talking about the UN resolution and saving civilian lives. However, that will not happen until Mr. Gadhafi is gone.

The member has already jumped ahead to a post-Gadhafi situation. He stated that we should learn lessons from Afghanistan and other situations. Of course we should. We helped it build its democracy but we are working with governments that have been elected by the people. They are working to build their government. The government there has legitimacy.

In Libya, however, at the current time its government is under investigation by the International Criminal Court. Therefore, how can he say that we have learned from Afghanistan and that we should move into Libya right away?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite is satisfied that I was re-elected, but I am sure a lot of other Conservatives are not. However, I am glad to be working with the member opposite again on the foreign affairs file, but we have to look at the future. What are we going to be doing in that country?

Right now we are concentrating on military action and that has to be dealt with. We have to get Gadhafi out of there, but we have to look at the future.

As was mentioned earlier in the House, are the funds there? Are we just going to rely on the multilateral groups to go forward with this, or are we going to put funds to help in the reconstruction? Companies in Canada will want to know if money will be available to make that happen as they go forward.

We need to look forward. I know the Conservatives go day by day, but we have to look month by month, and I hope the hon. member will recognize that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I, too, want to welcome him back to the House and congratulate him on his appointment as critic. However, I would like to clarify something for he and his party.

It was very clear that the question from my leader yesterday was about the fact that Canada was part of the equation in terms of supporting Mr. Gadhafi and that we had Canadian companies involved, in some cases, in building prisons. God knows what would happen to those prisons under the Gadhafi regime. The point is, from this day forward, should we not be seized with that to understand and learn that we do not want to do business with regimes that oppress their people like the Gadhafi regime?

This is not about the spoils of war. This is not about ensuring Canadian companies get in there and get a deal. It should be about human rights and democratic development.

I would love to know what the member thinks about that.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, the reality is this. We can look at China and many other countries around the world where Canada plays a big role in reconstruction and infrastructure. Lavalin is doing work in Libya to help with clean drinking water, irrigation and issues that would bring prosperity up and help the people in the region. It is not there supporting a regime. It is not supplying weapons to the regime. It is there to help with infrastructure for a country that needs it.

I know the NDP looks at this one way, but we have to see the big picture. We have to look at how reconstruction happens. There must be reconstruction and institutions in place to help the country move forward.

Some may say that we should not be in China because a communist party is running the country. However, we have to be there and our country can do the job. Not only that, but when other countries do that reconstruction, they also introduce democracy to the people in the area working for them on these projects.

The NDP has to think outside the box and see the benefits of Canadian companies working in these countries.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to spend some time in this debate. I want to express my appreciation to the member from Sydney—Victoria for sharing his time. When we become a Gideon's army, we have to share more, and we are happy to do so.

The member from Ottawa Centre and the minister have outlined some of the history of the conflict. I simply want to say a couple of things in addition to the comments that have been made by my friend from Sydney—Victoria.

First, we should not make the mistake of believing that military intervention on its own represents a diplomatic and comprehensive solution to the challenges that we face in the world. It is very important for Canadians to have the understanding that while Canada deeply appreciates and respects the work that our military is doing in Afghanistan and in Libya, as it has done in many other conflicts, the resolution of these conflicts requires more than simply a military effort. This is the first principle that we need to observe.

There are many times when it becomes a little easy to think that if we send planes over and drop some bombs, we are doing our bit for the mission. However, I was pleased to hear the minister today reflect on the fact that Canada's role needed to expand well beyond that.

Also, for my colleague from Ottawa Centre, we are fully supportive of the amendments he has proposed. I hope very much that those amendments will be satisfactory to the government.

We need to understand what is happening. We live in an unstable world where democracy does not exist for everyone and where human rights are not respected. In certain areas of the world, people live in terribly difficult economic conditions and an unstable political climate where repressive governments do not respect human rights. That is the world we live in.

As the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria said, we could rhyme off examples of significant progress that has been made. We have seen much positive change in Eastern Europe and Latin America over the past 50 years. There are still major challenges in Africa, the Middle East and China in particular. China is not currently a democracy, but it is a country of more than one billion people.

The question becomes, what is this standard? How do we deal with the fact that the world is not fully democratic, that the world is not one that fully respects human rights? Do we simply take the case of national sovereignty and say that we can never intervene in the affairs of another country, or do we understand, which I think we have to do, that the entire evolution of international law has taken us to this point where we have to say that what goes on inside a country is just as important as what happens between countries. The question is not so much any more what are the rights of the state, vis-a-vis other states. The question much more is whether the rights of citizens in countries, who are being mistreated by their government, are important.

This afternoon, and I am sure the minister will be there, we will be commemorating the Holocaust. We will be reflecting on the fact that the world turned away from those who were being viciously discriminated against in Germany. We waited for a long time and then the interventions came in Poland. Then the interventions came in Russia and then in all of eastern Europe, and six million people were killed because they were Jews.

After the second world war, we began to realize that we had to develop some sense of the rights of the world community and the rights that people had as a result of the injustices that were being faced.

That is the way we have to understand what is happening in Libya. People ask me, “Why Libya? Why not Syria?” How do we explain this intervention and not that one? The answers are not always simple and, in fact, the answers are not always clear, but we are, slowly but surely as a world, taking the human footsteps toward the point where we can say that we will not allow people to be brutalized by their own government, that we will not simply sit back and do nothing and that we will intervene. Yes, that intervention may have a military component and people will be killed as a result of that intervention, and none of us should take joy in the fact that it is a consequence of what happened.

However, we also understand, from everything we have learned in human history, the consequences of appeasement, of not facing up to dictators, of letting people get away with impunity with killing their own people.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I move:

That the amendment be further amended by inserting after the words “political transition”, the following:

That the Government of Canada engage with the Libyan National Council (LNC) based in Benghazi as a legitimate political entity and representative of the Libyan people; that it provide the LNC with advice and assistance in governance, including women's rights;

And further by inserting after the words “alleged crimes”, the following:

That it ensure that Canadian citizens, landed immigrants, or visitors to Canada are not subject to any threats or intimidation by representatives of the Gadhafi regime.

I would add that I fully support the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party. We had additional language, but we did not want to be redundant in simply putting forward the same perspective. I hope these proposals will have the support of the government. They are entirely consistent with the comments which the minister made today, and I hope they will be accepted.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Liberal Party for his intervention and I would like to congratulate him on his return to the House, formally, and of course on his position.

There were a number of things he said in his speech that are important to note around the whole trajectory of what it means to ensure that the rights of civilians are protected. I want to underline the point that he made because there has been a lot of debate around why Libya and why not Syria.

I would ask my colleague, in terms of Syria, if he would please comment on how it is consistent to ensure that we have a diplomatic solution to support the people of Libya at a time when we are still having to deal with Syria. Some would say that there should not be a continuation of our support in Libya because there is a need for support in Syria.

I would simply ask him to comment on that and perhaps on what we could do in the case of the situation in Syria that has--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must give the hon. member for Toronto Centre equal time to respond.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I had a magic answer.

I remember asking questions slightly higher up in the food chain over there about Sri Lanka as to why we were not intervening in Sri Lanka. I remember many government ministers saying, “What do you want us to do? Send in troops?”

The Secretary-General of the UN has now commissioned a panel to look into the possibility of war crimes in Sri Lanka.

In the case of Syria, it is a deep and genuine tragedy that is taking place. Thousands of people have been killed. Yet, the world community has not been able to rouse itself to deal effectively with the crisis. We have carried out some sanctions, we have carried out some efforts to restrict the activities of the al-Assad government, but we have not been able to find an effective solution.

There are many countries at the UN, two in particular on the Security Council, that do not want an intervention because they do not want the eyes of the world to be focusing on them, and they both have vetoes. They have taken a very, I regard, reactionary position with respect to the obligations of the community to intervene when there are such clear examples of abuse of a population.

I think we have to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, this is more a comment. I want to thank the leader of the Liberal Party for his speech and intervention on this issue. I appreciate his wise counsel.

There is no doubt that military action will not solve the problem alone. However, the problem will also not be solved without military action. I want to say to him and to my friend from Ottawa Centre that I think Canadians should be very pleased that all members of this place have approached this issue with the best interests of Canadian values in mind. It has not been a partisan one; it has been collaborative. It is a good day for this Parliament. So, I just wanted to congratulate the leader of the Liberal Party for his speech.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am almost overcome by the good feeling, but I am aware that it will never last, and I am fully aware of what else might follow.

I hope the government will understand that respect is a two-way street. If there is greater transparency in operations and a willingness to discuss issues and to go through them on a systemic basis, then the better off we are all going to be. There is always a great deal of goodwill on this side. Our caucus looks forward to discussions on policies that are based on this approach. The more we can do it this way, the better off we are all going to be.

I want to express my appreciation to my friend the Minister of National Defence, who accommodated us by giving us some briefings and giving us further information. I deeply appreciate it.

The more we can get on like this, the better off we will be. Question period is coming at 2 o'clock, so we will see how long it lasts.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I think we have seen a high-water mark. Early days albeit in this Parliament, but the great traditions of this place include taking part in thoughtful and inclusive debate on subjects such as this.

I am pleased to participate as well in the debate regarding Canada's mission in Libya. The motion itself is clear. We are seeking an extension. There will be a vote.

Libyans themselves, most importantly, have been adamantly opposed to Gadhafi's autocratic regime and they took to the streets. Exasperated by the denial of their basic human rights, the endemic corruption in their country, and the concentration of Libya's wealth in the hands of few, in the hands of the repressive regime and its associates, they demanded that their voices be heard. Democracy has sprung in the Arab spring. Libyans have asked for a say in the affairs of their own nation, something we as Canadians believe is a basic right and a fundamental element of any good government.

The peaceful protests were met with brutal repression, devastating air and ground attacks, behaviour that is absolutely contradictory to Canadian and universal values of human rights and freedom of democracy. These fundamental pillars are truly fundamental to any functional society and they have been absent under Gadhafi.

It soon became evident in Libya that unless the international community assisted the people, further atrocities and massacres would follow. Let there be no doubt, we have already saved innumerable lives. The maniacal ravings of a lunatic made it very clear what the intentions were.

The international community did not stand idly by. I would suggest it moved with unprecedented speed and collaboration. The Arab League, for example, called for an intervention to protect the civilian population of Libya. The United Nations Security Council quickly recognized the deteriorating situation and it passed resolution 1970 on September 26 and resolution 1973 on March 17, calling for the protection of the Libyan population, including an arms embargo and the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

Canada and our allies in NATO and partners in the Arab world, including Qatar, the UAE and Jordan, answered the call and proceeded to enforce resolution 1973.

We launched Operation Mobile on February 25 and pre-deployed to Malta. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the participation and support that was provided to us by the people of Malta.

The Canadian Forces are playing a key role in Canada's response to the crisis in Libya, and we can all be proud of the leadership that our country has been showing since this crisis began. We quickly contributed to the efforts of the international community to stabilize the troubling situation in Libya and to protect its people.

Members of our armed forces were first deployed to Libya to help evacuate Canadians. Two C-17 Globemaster aircraft, two C-130J Hercules aircraft and approximately 80 soldiers were deployed to Malta, making it possible for hundreds of Canadians and others to leave the country safely.

Madam Speaker, I should have indicated at the outset that will be splitting my time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

After the passing of resolution 1973, Canada again acted quickly and decisively in support of the UN Security Council's decision. On March 18, we announced a deployment of fighter aircraft to assist international efforts to enforce the United Nations resolution. Three days later, the government was extremely pleased to garner unanimous support here in the House for the parameters of Canada's military deployment.

When NATO took command of all operations on March 31, the Canadian Forces were already well engaged in the international mission. We leaned forward, and ask we speak, six CF-18 fighter aircraft and one spare, along with one CC-150 Polaris air refueller, two CC-130 Hercules tankers and two Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, as well as the HMCS Charlottetown with an embarked Sea King helicopter are all participating, along with and most importantly the support personnel in theatre. That is roughly 650 Canadian Forces men and women in uniform.

With a navy frigate and several air force assets in action, Canada has been at the very forefront, at the point of the spear in the NATO-led Operation Unified Protector, aptly named I might say.

Under the very capable command of a Canadian general, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, who is heading up the overall NATO mission, we can safely say in this place and throughout the country that we are all very proud of the leadership being demonstrated by Lieutenant General Bouchard and all of the men and women who are participating with our allies.

The Canadian Forces operations, whether air patrols or strikes, aerial surveillance or refuelling, maritime patrols or interdiction are critical and are having the desired effect. Along with the contributions of our allies and partners, they have significantly and steadily brought about progress.

The NATO-led international mission is fulfilling its mandate, consistent with the UN resolutions. It has saved the lives of civilians, as I mentioned earlier, and has considerably reduced the ability of Gadhafi's regime and its forces to plan and conduct attacks against the opposition and the civilian population.

It is weakening the infrastructure that supports the Gadhafi regime. We have seen high-level political and military defections in recent weeks, and the support for Gadhafi is weakening. The opposition is holding ground with increasing capacity to counter Gadhafi's attacks.

Unfortunately, some of the conditions that led the international community and Canada to intervene still exist. The situation has improved in certain areas of Libya; however, acts of violence are still being committed.

Forces loyal to the Gadhafi regime continue to terrorize the people of Libya. Libyans are still suffering and are still in need of protection. Moreover, considerable restrictions are preventing aid workers from providing care and delivering urgently needed items.

Aid workers are often unable to reach the people who are most affected by the violence: the disadvantaged, the injured and those in need of immediate assistance.

As the Prime Minister stated a few weeks ago, Gadhafi and the Libyan government are clearly failing to fulfill their responsibilities to protect the Libyan population. Not only have they lost all legitimacy but they are also an obvious danger, and continue to be, to their own people. Two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Council accused Gadhafi's regime of committing not just war crimes but crimes against humanity, when it carried out systemic attacks against the Libyan population over the past few weeks. He has been indicted.

Clearly, pressure must be maintained on the Gadhafi regime to ensure that civilians are protected against further attacks, and strikes on his command and control posts must and will continue.

To address a specific suggestion by some critics, withdrawing Canadian Forces from the NATO-led mission at this point would clearly send a wrong signal. More importantly, it would have dire consequences for the citizens of Libya, given the important role we are shouldering. It would be contrary to the core Canadian values of freedom, democracy and human rights, and it would not conform with our commitment as a country to the international community and would undermine the credibility of the alliance.

On June 1, NATO members announced that the alliance mission, Operation Unified Protector, would be extended for a period of 90 days, which is the subject of this debate. The decision sends a clear message to the Gadhafi regime that NATO partners and allies are determined to continue its operations to protect the Libyan people, to sustain its efforts to protect the United Nations, to fulfill the United Nations mandate and to keep up the pressure to see it through. Alliance members and partners alike expressed firm resolve to continue the mission and work together to bring about success.

Maintaining the Canadian Forces' contribution to these operations is the responsible thing to do. It supports the international community's effort to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis and continues to demonstrate Canadian leadership and our commitment to NATO as a credible partner and ally. We need to continue our commitment to Libya until the terms of the UN Security Council resolution are met.

Just to remind all members of what those three existing goals are, they are: to ensure that all threats and attacks against civilians have ended; to make sure Gadhafi's regime and military and paramilitary forces have verifiably withdrawn to their bases; and that immediate full and safe unhindered access to humanitarian relief to civilians is guaranteed.

I conclude by remarks be referring to the inscription on the cabinet wall, which says, “Love justice, you that are the rulers of the earth”. This is the wisdom of Solomon. I suggest that we take that advice. It is the responsible, compassionate and right thing to do for our country and the people of Libya.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, Libya is a country of different tribes. It is deeply divided along tribal and geographic lines. There must be a major push for peace building after the bombing, the fighting and the civil war. Peace building is the tough work of developing the physical, social, political and security infrastructure for sustainable peace. It is the societal integration after a civil war and it is critically important.

Does the government have a peace-building plan now? If it does not, does it plan to build or develop one?