House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
Pam Goldsmith-Jones Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will go over the budget, which is dedicated to the promotion of human rights, pluralism, inclusion, and respect for diversity. It is three times the amount originally committed to in previous efforts, and hardly a downgrade.
All I can say is that I believe that the member opposite should stop living in the past and should recognize the work we are doing, building on its beginnings and expanding to the inclusion of all human rights.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, after the government announced it was going to deploy our troops, our men and women in uniform, on a mission, I asked the Minister of National Defence a very simple question: Why? Why would he do this? More importantly, why would he do this without debate in this place?
The talking points that he used in answer to me were shameful. They denigrated the service of our men and women in the armed forces. They denigrated Canada's commitment to upholding the rule of law and democracy around the world, because they could not explain why. That is wrong. It is plain wrong.
I asked someone who has significant experience in this field why we should deploy our men and women, why we should do this, why, in any situation, should Canada's troops be deployed into a situation? The response I got was that there should be some return on investment. In the heady decision of sending Canadian Armed Forces into harm's way, the potential loss of life that we incur should be justified by some sort of end goal.
The problem here is that the government cannot tell us what the end goal of this deployment is, and it cannot explain why we are doing this. There has been no discussion with Canadians. Even worse, the government does not have the courage to back that of our men and women in uniform when they go into the field. The government does not have the courage to take the debate to this place.
It is absolutely wrong. Here is what is going to happen tonight. I am going to ask my colleague across the way: Why? Why are we sending men and women into harm's way? This is what is going to happen in response. A woefully unprepared member is going to read government talking points, obfuscating the fact that the government will not bring this to a debate in the House of Commons.
Every time that Canada has sent men and women into harm's way, we have had a debate in the House of Commons and a vote in this place, so that men and women who have been elected to serve their constituents can go back to them and say, “Here is why we are sending people into harm's way.” The government will not do it.
There are decades of precedent for doing this. It is being over-ruled by the government. Why? It is not going to explain that to Canadians. It is not going to explain that to Canadians tonight. My suspicion is that it is because it wants to trade such a mission for a seat on the UN Security Council.
Here is what Canadians are going to get when my colleague rises across the way: government talking points and a lack of courage. She will not answer this very question. She will not stand up and say to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, “This is why we are sending you into harm's way. This is how we are going to provision you. This is what we are going to communicate to the Canadian people about why we are doing that.”
I will say this right now, that lack of courage to answer the basic question of why is shameful. It is a denigration of the act of public service in this place.
I ask very simply: Why are we sending men and women in uniform into harm's way? What is the ROI? What is the return on investment for our armed service to put their lives on the line? Why? Why will the government not put this question to the House of Commons?
Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country B.C.
Liberal
Pam Goldsmith-Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, this government is a determined peace builder and will do its part in the world to contribute to peace and security. We demonstrated this by re-engaging with the United Nations. We will not lose that opportunity, which the previous government did, and we will commit up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces members for deployment to peace support operations.
We have the support of Canadians. In fact, a recent Nanos Research survey showed that nearly 75% of Canadians think that participating in UN peacekeeping missions is a good or very good use of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and equipment.
As the member opposite knows, no decision has been made as to where the Canadian Armed Forces will be deployed. This decision will be based on informed consultations with the United Nations and with Canada's allies. Our policy is one of engagement, not of isolation, unlike the previous government.
It is also important to the decision-making process to have an informed understanding of regional requirements, which can only be gained by on-the-ground assessments. That is why the Minister of National Defence recently travelled to Africa. There he met with senior government officials and ambassadors from the United States, France, and the European Union. He also met with representatives from non-government organizations, think tanks, and the United Nations. This visit builds on previous trips to Africa and, of course, to the United Nations headquarters.
In August, the Minister of National Defence travelled to Africa with General Roméo Dallaire and Madam Justice Louise Arbour, who assisted him in gathering information and provided their interpretation and understanding of the needs in terms of peace support.
These meetings and discussions help inform how the Canadian Armed Forces can best contribute to building peace and security within the whole-of-government approach.
The Canadian Armed Forces have a lot to offer in this regard. Our troops are highly skilled and can make a meaningful contribution through a range of capabilities. These capabilities could include ground troops, leadership for command and headquarters positions, air transport, and capacity building.
Rest assured, the safety of our troops is always at the forefront of any mission. We will always act to mitigate, as best as possible, the level of risk Canadian Armed Forces personnel face. Wherever our troops are deployed, they will have the appropriate equipment, the necessary training, and the proper rules of engagement.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, can members imagine being the spouse or the family of one of our Armed Forces members who the government is going to ask to go on this mission and hearing that response? That was shameful.
The present government cannot answer a simple question. It cannot answer why. Why would we send our men and women into harm's way? Why are we doing that? Why is it prioritizing this?
I ask my colleague opposite, if she has any respect for this job, to stand up and give Canadians the truth. Give them the reason why men and women should go there. If she cannot explain why, will she simply deny and simply put to bed the allegation, the rightful allegation, that the only reason the government is doing this, the only reason the government is taking this measure, is to secure a seat, for its own political gain, on the UN Security Council?
Pam Goldsmith-Jones Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for their dedication to service.
Second, this government is committed to international peace and security, with an informed, whole-of-government approach.
Third, seeking a seat on the UN Security Council is one tool in a range that we bring to Canada's role in the world, and we certainly are not going to let Canadians down in that regard, as the previous government did.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)