Debates of Sept. 26th, 2011

Libya

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Bourassa. He is quite right.

It is not enough to have policies for specific countries. We must have a position that is coherent and consistent with our interests as Canadians. For example, when we look at the situation in North Africa, Canada is not involved in all the debates taking place, whether in Tunisia, Egypt or all of these countries, with respect to questions about democracy and what will be done to ensure that after the spring, we see a summer and not a winter. Canada can play a role. I can assure members that Europe, France and other countries are playing a role. Canada, which is not an imperialist country, has a certain degree of credibility. We have a large diaspora from the Maghreb. This is the right time for Canada to play a much more positive role than we have played to date. It is very important to address this matter in this way.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I observed that my colleague had great difficulty understanding where the NDP stood from the beginning. I want to ask the member a question, as my colleague for St. John's East did.

When we came out in support of the Libyan people, before other parties, including the government, it was for a no-fly provision through the UN. A couple of days after, the member, as the foreign affairs critic, and his party said that we needed to have NATO intervene.

I want to ask a very straightforward question. Was it and is it the position of the Liberal Party that, in these affairs, it is better to go through NATO first or should we have, as this party believes, the approval of the United Nations Security Council first?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many circumstances in the world today, it is a false choice. The fact is that the intervention in Libya is one that has been carried out under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has urged NATO to continue with its work with respect to the implementation of the no-fly zone, the implementation of Resolution 1973. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is not telling Canada that it is time to back off, go away, disappear, that it is time to say goodbye, that we should do our humanitarian work but choose to do the humanitarian work and have nothing to say on the defence side.

What we are saying is quite consistent. There needs to be a willingness on the part of the world today, not just Canada but of the world institutions, to put some teeth into its commitment to humanitarianism. If the responsibility to protect is going to mean something, the world will need to respond.

We were all surprised, frankly. I certainly was surprised. I do not know about the hon. member but I will confess to my surprise at the fact that the Security Council was able to find the courage to follow through and intervene in the way that it did. If that had not happened, what should Canada have done? That is an open question. If every intervention must depend on the entire United Nations apparatus and on Security Council agreeing, we hope that will always happen. Whatever we do needs to be done according to the principles of international law. Whatever we do needs to be justifiable.

This caucus, this party, this previous Liberal government was opposed to the intervention in Iraq because it did not have the support of the United Nations and it did not have the support of coherent principles of international law.

Our principles and our views are very clear. However, we need to understand that to intervene requires justification in international law. It also requires a willingness to see things through and not to simply walk away when it becomes politically convenient to do so. That is a very important principle for us as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion, which, I will like to tell my friend from the NDP, is in two portions. One is the extension of the NATO operation and the other is to go ahead in a robust, democratic way to rebuild the institutions of that country, which has been agreed to by all parties. However, there is no need for me to talk about the NDP position because the Liberal leader did an excellent job of indicating why the NDP's position is totally out of line with the events going on.

The leader of the Liberal Party talked about our foreign policy. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can say, in no uncertain terms, that this government plays a very active role on foreign affairs issues around the world. We have four basic pillars of foreign affairs: freedom, human rights, rule of law and promotion of democracy, which is why Canada is fighting and is leading the revolution in condemning Iran on its human rights record. Once again, Canada's government has shown it stands up for the promotion of human rights.

I will now address the extension of the Libyan mission and why it is necessary for us to support it. Very few people in this chamber have visited Libya. I have had the opportunity to visit Libya where I had the opportunity to go to Sirte as well, as part of the African Union summit held there. When I landed in Libya, my impression was a totally different experience. I could see the lack of democracy and the lack of engagement of civil society. I could see that people were subdued, something similar to a police state. The arrangements that were made by the Libyan authorities, by someone completely in total control and the people not having the ability to talk. Henceforth, it should not come as a surprise at all that the people of Libya came together in the Arab revolution in the spring. It was necessary and it happened. Those of us who visited Libya could see that and we easily knew that this was coming.

What stunned the whole world were the actions of Colonel Gadhafi to democratic reforms. It is quite interesting that when he was at the African Union summit he called himself the “king of the kings” and he wanted to promote himself at the leader of the united states of Africa. I am really glad that the other African nations saw that and put a stop to his nonsense. If he could not do anything with his own country, which is rich in oil resources, then one could say that it was time for him to go. It was great that the people of Libya stood up for change.

I am also very pleased that Canada stood behind them as part of its human rights act and part of its promotion of democracy as we supported the Arab spring that was talking place both in Tunisia and Egypt. Canada took decisive steps when the dictators tried to stop expressions of freedom in those countries. Canada and this Prime Minister took very strong steps imposing sanctions and freezing assets of dictators' families. As a matter of fact, there was a debate in the House to change that law because there was no UN sanction. This government introduced a law in Canada where we can actually freeze assets when the assets are stolen from the people of the country. That was very strong action taken by this government.

To go back to the issue, this government has said that we will work under the multilateral organization. Henceforth, when the UN Security Council heard in horror what Colonel Gadhafi was going to do, it agreed that there was a need to protect the civilians, People need to know that the security council is a very strong member of the African Union. The task was given to NATO. There is an obligation for Canada, as a NATO member, that when NATO is involved, we become involved. We cannot sit on the side and put forward caveats and say that we are a member of NATO, but we will not do this or that. That has been very evident in Afghanistan.

The parliamentary secretary, with our ambassador in Afghanistan, was a witness to the caveats that were there by other NATO members. At the same time, Canada stood immediately when NATO called for action over there, of the no-fly zone. It just confuses me that the NDP members said that there should be a no-fly zone. How should there be a no-fly zone? By whom? By just imposing that? Let us not talk about the NDP position. It confuses everyone.

We rose to the occasion. Our soldiers and our airmen went to fight for democracy, for our core Canadian values, to protect the civilians. They have done a marvellous job and NATO forces are led by a Canadian, as was said by the prime minister of Britain when he addressed the House.

After having all of those actions, and as has been rightly pointed out, we have gone all the way and the NTC has now taken quite a deep root there. The foreign affairs minister went to Libya and met with the NTC to see what its plan was. The Prime Minister has just returned back from a high-level meeting in New York with other leaders, chaired by the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The reconstruction will be done under the UN mandate. The whole development process will be all done through reconstruction building of the democratic institutions. It will all be done under the UN mandate and Canada will play a very strong role.

This weekend I was at the UN General Assembly at a meeting with my counterparts, this time from the African nations. It was very interesting that there was a change in the attitude of all the African leaders. They all now agree that it is time to move on. The NTC is in power. They have all recognized the NTC as a legitimate organizer and government of Libya. The NTC has now taken its seat at the United Nations. It is very important to see the whole world recognizing the NTC. This indicates a success of this mission.

However, we keep hearing reports that Gadhafi's forces are still fighting and still threatening. Therefore, it would be absolutely foolish to walk away and say that we went there to protect them but, as the NDP wants, we will leave them half way through, without giving them protection, so they are on their own. Even the defence critic of the NDP stated he saw on the BBC that the fighting was still going on, Gadhafi is not captured and his children are still calling for the fighting to continue. In recognition of this factor, NATO came out last week and said that the Libya mission would be extended for three months. Henceforth, we are back in Parliament telling that part of it. The world community is now saying that it is time to finish this job.

Colonel Gadhafi, or let us say bluntly, dictator Gadhafi, used to buy all his votes with his own money. He was not a democrat. We saw it in countries next door to Libya, whatever he was promoting, there was bribery. He was giving money to other countries and bought a membership to the African Union. That is fine. That is how he got his support. However, today, having come back from the UN, all of those countries have recognized the fact that the NTC is now in charge. The people of Libya have spoken and they have spoken very strongly.

It was a job for Canada and Canadians to go there and do it, and Canada did it remarkably well. Our soldiers stand out there.

I call upon the NDP to revisit its position and ask for an extension of three months. Hopefully, within a very short period of time, Colonel Gadhafi will be found, will be charged by NTC, brought to justice and he and his children will have to pay for their crimes. As soon as Colonel Gadhafi is found and he cannot tell his soldiers to fight, they will all disappear and peace will return to those cities he is still controlling. Then NATO's mission is done. Then the other mission comes in, which we talk about in the motion, of building the democratic institutions for that country.

When I was in Libya, nothing existed there. It is like starting from scratch. I also visited South Sudan. At the general assembly there were two new members. One was the new nation of South Sudan, which proudly took its seat at the UN general assembly. The other was the NTC, which took over Libya's seat as the legitimate government of the people of Libya. These were two monumental effects.

The world is now on the brink of sending a strong message. We see the Arab revolution and what is going on in Yemen. It is a cause of serious concern. We see what is happening in Tunisia, another cause of serious concern. We are not saying that there should be military intervention, or whatever. We have put very strong sanctions against Syria. However, when the dictators of these regimes see that the world is willing to act if they threaten their people, as we have done in Libya, then a very strong message goes out to them. The right of the people to speak is paramount, the promotion of democracy is paramount.

That is the issue that has come out from Libya. That is what the NDP should understand. The point still remains that the military mission is not complete.

When the defence critic said that attitude of the Prime Minister was militaristic, that is utter nonsense. We went there under the NATO call. We do not have any desire for military advances anywhere else, neither will we go anywhere else. That is an absolutely misleading statement made by the NDP. It cannot defend its position when it finds it is totally out of step with the values of the world.

I want to say in strong terms that around the international stage Libya is seen now as one of the key examples where the world spoke when a dictator was willing to slaughter his own people. We are getting, unfortunately, reports that thus is still happening.

The NDP keeps talking about regime change. What does it want to do, leave that dictator there to throttle his people? What about the humanitarian factor? Who would we talk to, that dictator who is not willing to listen? It is only in the minds of NDP members to think that they do not need this thing and they can talk to a dictator who does not want to talk to them.

Anyway, it is good news that the government has taken a very strong stand with these four pillars. We have stood up on the international stage. Even the NDP has to admit that it was a great thing we did, that the military acted very responsibly.

It is very important. Our military stands for Canadian values. We promote our Canadian values. In the case of Libya, it was a very clear fact that not only were we protecting the civilians under the UN charter, but we were upholding our Canadian values with our military support.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to refute a number of attacks that the hon. parliamentary secretary has made on our party and me, but we did not go to Libya at the request of NATO or as part of NATO. We went there on our own in response to resolution 1973. NATO came afterwards to coordinate the command because it was the one capable of doing it. The Americans were coordinating it first, but they did not want to do that.

The government gave lip service to the Arab Spring, for example, failing to really support the efforts in Egypt or Tunisia. It then failed to provide any financial support to the new regimes, saying that we were already giving to some international fund.

One of our worries is that the same thing is happening in Libya and that the government is prepared to spend money on the military mission and will continue to do so into the future, instead of taking the position now that the job is mostly done, or almost done, as far as any military involvement and that Canada does not need to be there.

However, Canada could be putting more resources and money into the post-conflict issues, which we talked about and which our amendment seeks to have Canada do.

Why will the government not do that? It did not do it in Egypt. It did not do it in Tunisia. It seems to me that the government is not going to do in Libya, as it is only interested in continuing the military aspect.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. As soon as the Arab Spring started in Tunisia, the government acted very strongly, freezing assets and with sanctions and in supporting the democracy movement over there. When it happened in Egypt, we were there.

However, Canada does not act unilaterally. Canada acts with its allies and partners to ensure there is an effective use of taxpayer money.

Henceforth, in all the areas that the member has talked about, where he just wants Canada to take a unilateral action, the answer is no. We work with our partners, our NATO partners and our like-minded country partners, the Arab League, the African Union, collectively, to ensure we support the principles I have outlined.

We will continue to do that and we will continue to do that in Libya as well. First, we need to have the security, as we are doing in Afghanistan.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little more about the irresponsible position of the NDP. I find it absolutely stunning.

In March 2011 Gadhafi was saying that he would fight for every square inch in his land and that he would die as a martyr. Even as early as August, the NDP was talking about abandoning the people of Libya.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary this. If we actually were to follow the irresponsible position of the NDP back in August, or now, what would the dangers be in terms of that stance?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our country has been at the forefront in promoting democracy and the rule of law. We have been giving support to establishments and institutions that do that.

The NDP seems to think that we can go halfway and then turn our backs and disappear. As I have said, what the NDP is saying is very confusing and difficult to understand.

For my good friends on the NDP side, security remains a key point if we want to bring development to that country. Let us look at Afghanistan. With the security situation in Afghanistan, we were able to build schools, send girls to school, do immunizations and promote human rights and women's rights.

If the NDP wants to support Canadian values, it must recognize that comes with the price of supporting and engaging in missions with our partners, in this case NATO.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree, as the Green Party, that the responsibility to protect civilians is the reason we became engaged in Libya and is our primary responsibility. There are troubling indications that the new rebel government is not acting to protect civilians if they are assumed to have ever been supporters of Mr. Gadhafi, including an entire family, women and children who have been shot upon because they have been mistaken for family members of Gadhafi. There is also the looming crisis for sub-Saharan migrant workers within Libya who lack human rights protection.

In this ongoing mission, I doubt that the Canadian Forces will be invited to protect those groups because the Libyan rebel government has said no foreign troops, whether United Nations or others, will come into Libya to help secure civilian safety.

How does the hon. parliamentary secretary see Canada's role in protecting civilians now?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question with regard to holding the NTC accountable. It is understandable there are concerns regarding that.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs visited with the NTC. He sat with its members and asked them to clearly show what plan they had to run the country on the basis of the principles of the rule of law, human rights and so forth.

As well, as I just said, the Prime Minister has gone to the United Nations to attend high-level meetings concerning how the NTC will be held accountable for its actions and what it has to do. If disturbing reports should come out, I can assure members that Canada will make its views known to the new government in Libya.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify a couple of things because the parliamentary secretary took maybe a bit of licence with the past. He does that every once in a while and my job is to bring him back to what I think is reality.

The fact of the matter is that we supported the no-fly provision from the beginning. He knows that. In fact, as my colleague said, it was not under NATO command and control when the no-fly provision was first brought in. I want to know whether he knows that. Can he tell us who was actually providing the oversight for the no-fly provision before NATO came into play?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely confused. With whom would he expect to have a no-fly provision? With the Libyan air force? It had to be NATO. Who gave NATO the mandate? The UN gave NATO the mandate. The UN has no forces there.

Let me get this straight again.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The U.S.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with whom does he expect to have a no-fly zone? The task was given to NATO by the United Nations.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to help my friend the parliamentary secretary, the answer to the question I posed is the United States was the country that was actually engaged with the no-fly provision. It is important to have the facts. It disturbs me when I hear the parliamentary secretary say that NATO was in charge of the no-fly provision when it was not. We saw this before. I remember well in 2006 during the debate on Afghanistan when it was pointed out to the government that we were not under the command and control of NATO at the beginning. We were actually under American command and control. That is without prejudice. It was the fact, and we have to have the facts on the table.

I want to start off with some facts as we address the motion and the amendment that we have put forward.

The New Democratic Party was the first party to put forward the idea of civilian protection through the United Nations, through the no-fly provision. We took that position seriously because of the threat of Gadhafi on the Libyan people.

It has not been mentioned enough here today, but we took that position because Canada was responsible for Gadhafi being able to buy the munition that he was using against his own people. Canada was doing truck and trade with him, but that has not been brought up much by members on the other side. We were happy to have oil and gas contracts with Gadhafi. One Canadian firm was building a prison. No one talked about that, but the Libyan people knew that. They knew that the Canadian government was blessing Canadian corporations to trade with Gadhafi.

Let us be honest in this debate about what was happening. Make no mistake that we aided Gadhafi in what he was doing. NDP members were very clear in their position. We stood with the Libyan people and we said they needed to be protected.

We are going to hear a lot of other points from the government but let us have some facts here. I am not associating with any individual member of Parliament here, but let us acknowledge that Canada was collectively responsible for aiding and abetting Mr. Gadhafi because we were doing truck and trade with him. That is a fact, and I think everyone on the other side would agree with that. One corporation was building a prison. We know what was going on in the prisons. We only had to read the reports from Amnesty International and others. Let us not pretend that we did not know. Let us be factual.

What else did the NDP do? We said that we should protect the Libyan people. We said there should be a no-fly provision. Unlike my friends in the Liberal Party, we said it should be through the United Nations. A couple of days after we brought forward our position, the Liberal Party brought forward its position. To be fair to those members, they thought it could not happen through the UN. They thought the only way to go was through NATO.

Our position and our principle on this are very clear. I heard the leader of the Liberal Party suggest that he did not think it would happen through the UN. My goodness, we have to try. When it comes to multilateral action, the UN is the place we should approach to try to get acceptance for multilateral action. That is exactly what our position was and still is.

What happened is the motion was brought forward and we amended that motion. We worked with the government to amend the motion in the House. Everyone accepted the amendments we put forward. The amendments were to ensure there was a timeline of three months. That was the responsible thing to do.

We said there should be no boots on the ground, and the government and the other parties agreed with that.

We said that the motion should adhere to United Nations Resolution 1973. That had to be in the motion. It was not just about supporting the military component, which we agreed should be a part of it. We understood that. Let us be factual about that as well. We had to protect civilians and the way to do that was through the no-fly provision. We get that, but we had to have a timeline. We had to make sure this would not turn into a conflict with boots on the ground as they say.

The second motion came before the House. Again, we thought it was important to put forward an amendment. We asked that reference to the disturbing phenomenon we have seen in the Congo and other places where rape is being used as a weapon of war be put in the motion. We asked that there be resources to ensure there is support for victims and an investigation of rape as a weapon of war. That amendment was from the NDP. It was absolutely critical for us to have that in there, because it is one thing to acknowledge something, but there also needs to be support. We worked to change the motion to include that.

There is something else that is absolutely vital when we talk about the situation on the ground in Libya. We added that this would be a Libyan-led reconciliation and reconstruction, that it was not the place for Canada or anyone else to dictate terms from outside. That is exactly what has happened in the past and we should not see it again, that somehow, because we supported intervention to protect civilians we would dictate the terms. That is the old politics in global affairs. I think the government agrees it should be a Libyan-led initiative. We added that amendment to the motion.

We also said that after three months we should end our support for the military part of the equation and bring the matter back to the House for review, and here we are.

That is the trajectory of our participation in this debate and the motions that were passed by the House. Today the situation on the ground requires a lot of heavy lifting in terms of reconstruction and civilian support. There are a couple of things which I think Canada could do.

First we need to have a comprehensive approach, including multidisciplinary support for humanitarian law, human rights, law enforcement, economic development, constitutional processes, election monitoring and other essential elements for state building.

Then we need civilian political leadership. Usually the Special Representative of the Secretary General is responsible for the arduous task of coordinating the efforts of the United Nations agencies, regional agencies and other governments.

Finally, the Libyan people have to take ownership of the peace building process and of establishing accountability of Libya's national institutions and political players.

On these three things and the idea that we can help with an overall approach, a multi-disciplinary and multilateral approach to help the Libyan people rebuild their country, is where we would like to see our focus.

That is why we amended the motion. We amended the motion to have that comprehensive approach and to make sure that we are not putting all our eggs in one basket. Frankly, that was our concern with the extension of the mission in Afghanistan.

As an aside, I am glad we are having this debate in the House because, unlike the case of the extension of the mission in Afghanistan, we are able to actually debate it. Members will recall that when the government decided to extend the mission in Afghanistan, even though there was a military facet to it, we did not get to debate or vote on it in the House. I welcome the fact that the government is doing it this time. Frankly, it was one of the amendments we got into the Libyan mission resolution before.

The civilian political leadership that I referenced is usually something we let others do, but I think Canada has to do more here. There is a very large challenge in front of the Libyan people, and that is also the case in Egypt and Tunisia. There is a challenge of coordinating the actions of the UN agencies. People in the House who have worked on the ground for the UN know that coordinating the UN agencies is a really critical role and will dictate whether or not there will be success on the ground. I know that Canada has a lot to offer in this area. We should be putting our focus there.

Finally, there has to be an ownership of this by the Libyan people for peace-building. We know that the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission is one that has had a lot of support from actors like Canada in the past. In fact, it was a Canadian who helped get it going. We have the capability to help with peace building, but we need to make sure it is focused on Libyans doing the development and the work in concert with other actors. I think that is where Canada could play a role.

It was said in the House by others that somehow the NDP is abandoning the Libyan people. I just gave an overview of how we were involved from the beginning. I ask other members of the House to at least acknowledge that we might disagree on how to get there, but let us be honest in that I think we all want to help the Libyan people. We want to help Libya rebuild. We want to make sure that they do not go back to the terms that they were living under before. Let us change the tone of accusation and talk about what propositions we have.

When we are talking about Canada's role in the world, I do not think it does us good service to attack the motives of each other. I think it would helpful for Canadians to see that there are choices in front of us, although perhaps we disagree on those choices.

Hopefully members will have read our amendment. We believe that right now, since we have fulfilled our commitment of the motions that were passed in the House on the military side, we could put our focus on supporting the civilian and governance mission and put our resources there.

No one is abandoning Libya. No one is going to stand by and watch the return of Gadhafi. However, we can play a role by doing the heavy lifting in supporting development and governance. This is an area in which Canada has a lot to offer. We are putting this idea forward because we believe it is how we can support the Libyan people.

I have observed over time, particularly with the Arab Spring, that it is very difficult for nation states and countries to stay in for the long haul. It is easy sometimes to be there just for a short period of time. We think it is our obligation and our collective responsibility, for the aforementioned reasons of having truck and trade with the Gadhafi regime, not just to leave after he departs. We need to be there for the long haul to help with institution building and constitution making.

With regard to constitution making, think of what we have to offer.

In 2007 I was in Iraq. I was there because were invited as Canadians to talk about constitution building, to talk about our example of a very diverse population that has different economic interests throughout and how we keep all that together.

The failure of the Bush administration to bring Iraqis in to look at how they would organize their country is a lesson for all of us. The Iraqis were asking me and other Canadians to join them in looking at how they could perhaps do things differently.

I think that is where Canada can play a role. The federal system we have here deals with a diversity of regional differences and linguistic differences. We have had lots of acrimonious debates over the years, and sometimes it is tough. However, we do it in a way that respects the diversity of our country. That is what people are looking for, and they trust us. That is what we should be offering right now as Libya looks to start anew.

The other thing we can help with is rebuilding their health system. I know of many Libyan Canadians who have already gone to Libya to help rebuild the system. Many Libyan Canadian doctors, on their own dime, have already gone and helped. We could be helping rebuild their health system.

When we look the opportunities for Canada to help, there are many. All we are saying here on this side of the House is that we believe we have done our share in terms of the no-fly zone. It is something we had advocated from the beginning. It worked. We actually kept it in our motion, making sure that there is an opportunity for us to help even more.

As we go through this debate, let us look at what each of us has to offer. What the NDP is saying very clearly is that we can offer continuing support to the Libyan people by making sure that we can provide Canada's excellence and professionalism in areas like institution building and making sure that there are services for all Libyans in their health system and in other areas.

That is what we can do. We believe that is the right thing to do right now. At the end of the day, I think that is what Canadians want. We are proud of our ability to lead internationally. We are proud of our capability to ensure that what we have here we can share with others, not in an arrogant way or a way that undermines the sovereignty of a country, but in a way that actually strengthens it.

I will finish by saying what I said at the beginning: we had a collective responsibility to act in Libya. Whether or not we should have acted is not the question; the question is how we should act now. That is what our amendment is about. That is what I think Canadians want to see. That is why I hope there will be some support from other members for our amendments.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech, as I did to the earlier speech by the defence critic for the New Democratic Party.

In both of the speeches there was an implication or innuendo that somehow the original motion had neglected the rebuilding part of what is so necessary in Libya. I think it is important for all members of the House, and indeed Canadians who may be watching this debate, to be reminded that the original motion clearly included the rebuilding phase.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to read a small portion of the original motion.

...that the House continues to support Canada's engagement in all spheres in the rebuilding of a new Libya, including human rights, democratic development and the rule of law

Later the motion goes on to refer to UNSC resolution 1973 and the “rebuilding of the new Libya”, and to note that the House continues to offer its wholehearted and unconditional support to the brave men and women of the Canadian armed forces, who stand on guard for all of us and continue to protect Libyan civilians from the risk still posed by the Gadhafi regime.

In his remarks earlier today, the minister commented on our commitment to improving the access to humanitarian aid, improving women's rights, and improving religious freedom. The reality is that there needs to be security to have those issues advanced. How would the member envision these improvements continuing to be worked on without the continuing presence of our military personnel to provide that security?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to untangle the member's point, but he seems to be saying that our participation through UN resolution 1973 was about security on the ground. I believe that if he reads the text, he will see that it was to provide protection to civilians through a no-fly provision, but perhaps we can talk further about that later.

The point is about what is required right now. We amended the motion of the House earlier to ensure there was support for those who were victims of rape and for those who had to flee. Now it is a matter of what we need to emphasize right now.

We think we should be putting our focus on rebuilding, reconstruction and constitution making, if asked. Certainly we should offer. Again, this is about choices that we have in front of us. We believe the choices for Canada are very clear. We should go directly to help rebuild Libya and help it with its nascent democracy.

If we are not able to do that, I think we have failed. It is one thing to provide support to protect civilians, but we have to be there for the long haul and for the hard work ahead. That is what our emphasis is on this side of the House.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to summarize the positions of the various parties. It appears that the government's position is largely one of extending military involvement, notwithstanding some wording in the resolution. The NDP's position is that it is time to withdraw the military and go with development and diplomacy. Our party's position is that we really need all three in order to achieve that. This is why we will be supporting the motion as amended.

I am somewhat disappointed in the position of the hon. member's party with respect to the phrasing “we have done our share”, and my question in some respects follows the previous hon. member's.

Does the member not see that if we are withdrawing militarily, we will possibly create circumstances through which a conflict will continue, and that the very goals the member wishes to achieve basically through development and diplomacy will be put in jeopardy? In fact, if NATO withdraws and if Canada in particular withdraws, Gadhafi's loyalists will be emboldened, and there would be greater likelihood that this conflict would go on for a longer time rather than a shorter one.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague was wrong in saying that they were going to support the motion as amended. I am not sure if the position of the Liberal Party is in support of our amendment. We may need some clarification on that.

The member is getting a little ahead of himself, because he is saying that if we follow the NDP, the whole thing will be done and no one will be left to support the mission on the military side. We are following along the lines of what the House passed in terms of the two resolutions. I remember that the second resolution basically said that three months should be sufficient and that if we could not end things by September, then there would be questions about the whole thing.

We are not talking about withdrawal. We are talking about Canada's support for this part of the mission being done. That is what the House debated, and that is why we are here today discussing it.

If the member supports our amendment, which would change our contribution on the military side, I do not think he really believes that the whole thing would collapse.

We are talking about what is a priority for Canada right now. Norway and other countries supported the no-fly provision, then said they had done their share on the military side, and then focused on other aspects of the mission. That is what we are talking about: the rebuilding side. Those are the facts.

I would like some clarification from the Liberal Party members as to whether they are supporting our amendment or not. As I said, I would love the support and I look forward to clarification on that matter.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by thanking the member for Ottawa Centre for so clearly articulating the position of the NDP when it comes to the mission in Libya. As was stated, it is very committed to supporting the Libyan people.

However, we are hearing a lot of talk about the regime change in Libya. Could the member speak more to the distinction between this rhetoric and the actual purpose of UN resolution 1973?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to get back to what this is about. Although it has to do with the UN, it is not about NATO. It is about the Libyan people.

If we look at how we can best support them, it is by returning to the motion we helped to amend the last time there was an extension. It explicitly states that we will support a Libyan-led reconciliation and development. We believe that should be our focus.

Although I have not heard much about it today, some members on the other side had strayed toward the notion that it was actually about changing government. We can stay away from that language and still deal with Gadhafi. I said that at the beginning of my speech.

We supported Gadhafi by doing trade with him. Entering into contracts with him for oil or to build prisons made us collectively responsible.That is why we believed we had to act.

It has been implied by some that because we do not believe in taking sides in a conflict we have suddenly become Gadhafi's best friend. Of course that is ridiculous. That is why I say the tone of the debate is important. It is fine to disagree on how to help the Libyan people. That is what this place is about. There are choices in front of us. Our choice is to start helping the Libyan people by focusing on institution building.

I do not believe there is an air force under Gadhafi's control any longer. Certainly there are things that need to be dealt with. However, we believe that right now Canada's role should be one of helping Libyan civilians build institutions and rebuild Libya. That is what people want to see.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I am very pleased to rise and talk to some of the things Canada has been doing to help the Libyan people and how we are involved with our international partners.

We are all familiar with the events that led to the crisis in Libya. On February 16, the Libyan people began rising up against the tyranny of Moammar Gadhafi. After four decades of oppressive rule, the people of Libya expressed their desire for change.

Gadhafi's response defies any comprehension. He attempted a brutal and bloody repression of the dissent. Gadhafi used the Libyan military to conduct operations against his own people. He pitted Libyan soldiers against Libyan civilians. The resulting conflict plunged the country into chaos. Countless refugees and over 685,000 migrant workers fled the country. Helping them return to their homes and countries of origin is a priority for the international community.

These events set the stage for today. Canada responded to the crisis with a whole-of-government response. While the Canadian International Development Agency never had a bilateral aid program in Libya, Canada responded to the humanitarian needs of the civilian population. Although the humanitarian situation is now rapidly stabilizing, some needs persist in specific locations: the need for water, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian workers.

The reports of sexual violence against women deeply troubled our government. Accordingly, we helped protect women and girls from gender-based violence including sexual assaults. The Minister of International Cooperation announced additional funding in June of this year to address this issue. As a trusted partner, the International Committee of the Red Cross provides protection and medical services to women who have suffered sexual violence. In total, Canada has committed $10.6 million, of which CIDA provided $10 million, to our humanitarian partners. Those partners include the UN World Food Programme, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations Population Fund.

Allow me to give the House a more detailed breakdown of how Canada disbursed its humanitarian assistance. The International Organization for Migration receives support for repatriating those migrants who had been displaced by the fighting in Libya. To date, the IOM has repatriated 208,000 third-country nationals to their countries of origin.

Canada gave support to the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet food, non-food, water, sanitation and emergency medical needs inside Libya and to support the relief efforts in Tunisia and Egypt. To date, the Red Cross has reached 780,000 people.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies received Canadian support for humanitarian relief, including food, non-food items and medical support to displaced migrants in Egypt and Tunisia. This support helped its members reach 200,000 people.

The United Nations World Food Programme provided emergency food assistance to displaced and conflict-affected populations in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

Our support to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees provided shelter, non-food items, water and sanitation for refugees and migrants who had been displaced to neighbouring countries.

The Canadian Red Cross Society received support from our government to transport humanitarian relief supplies from its stockpiles in Dubai to Tunisia.

As well, we worked with the United Nations Population Fund to help protect women and girls from gender-based violence, including sexual assaults, and to provide critical care to victims of gender-based violence in Libya.

In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade contributed financial support to help protect UN humanitarian workers.

Let me bring fellow members up to date on the current situation.

Most of Libya, including Tripoli, is now firmly under the control of the interim National Transitional Council. Many nations around the world recognize the legitimacy of the NTC. Outside the UN last week the new flag of Libya flew as the international community met for a general assembly. Now that the NTC has been established, Canada hopes that a democracy will emerge over the next two years.

In light of the urgent requirement to ensure stabilization, the NTC must focus on the essential tasks of establishing security throughout the country as well as delivering food, medical services and emergency assistance to people in need.

Libya is a relatively resource rich country with a per capita income of $14,000 to $15,000. That is why CIDA did not operate there in the past in an official bilateral capacity. As Libya's assets are no longer frozen, Canada expects it to lead the way and provide most of the funding for its reconstruction efforts.

On September 1, our Prime Minister attended the Friends of Libya meeting in Paris chaired by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The meeting explored opportunities for international partners to support the NTC in its efforts to establish a democratic state.

Following the meeting, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would lift the economic sanctions since the brutal Gadhafi regime no longer held power over the Libyan people. Canada has re-established its diplomatic presence in Tripoli. As well, it has secured an exemption from the United Nations Security Council's sanctions committee to unfreeze Libyan assets so that the Libyans can meet their humanitarian and reconstruction needs.

The government will continue to monitor and assess the situation on the ground taking into account the needs identified by the NTC, the United Nations and other partners, including Canadian non-governmental organizations and the private sector.

We remain committed to the Libyan people as they try to put the brutality of the Gadhafi regime behind them. The job is not yet done. Canada remains committed to our Libyan friends in their quest for freedom and security. We cannot abandon them in this time of need.

Our Prime Minister gave a remarkable speech to the Canadian armed forces personnel involved in this crisis. I would like to read a section of it into the record.

He said:

...thanks to [our men and women in uniform], there is new hope [for Libya], which gives some proof to the old saying: 'a handful of soldiers is better than a mouthful of arguments.' For the Gaddafis of this world pay no attention to the force of argument, the only thing they [understand] is the argument of force. And that you have delivered in a cause that is good and right, and all Canadians thank you for the great job you have been doing.

Ladies and gentlemen, Gaddafi is now out of power--not yet finished--but his remaining control is inexorably ebbing away. And history will record this: that it was the good work of Canada's Armed Services --your work--working with our allies, that enabled the Libyan people to remove Gaddafi from power.

They used to claim that in international affairs, and you’ve heard the quote many times: ‘Canada punched above its weight.’ Well, to punch above your weight, you first have to be able to punch, and that is what you have done here. Numbers don't tell the whole story, but it bears repeating that the RCAF has flown--without caveats--more than 750 strike sorties against Gaddafi’s forces--a good 10 per cent of the total strikes.

Thanks to our men and women in uniform and thanks to our humanitarian efforts Canada punched above its weight again. We punched above our weight and helped free the Libyan people from the brutal oppression of Moammar Gadhafi. We must finish the job.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the defence minister talked about the overall costs for the Libya mission.

I listened to the member's speech with interest. I am wondering if she could confirm the price tag of $100 million.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Minister of National Defence confirm those numbers.

I can confirm for the House that the international development money that has gone into Libya for assistance with humanitarian aid is $10.6 million. We have assisted people who have been displaced by the conflict. We are working with our international partners like the International Red Cross to see that people have assistance with food, water and medical services.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is regarding the health and welfare of the population.

I would like to know if the main health priority continues to be injuries or if it is now secondary interventions? Are there shortages of life-saving products, including antiretroviral drugs, chemotherapy regimes, immunosuppressive drugs, insulin, psychiatric drugs, as well as blood products, dialysis supplies, laboratory reagents and vaccines? Can the hon. member comment on medical stock supplies now?