Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in this particular debate. Like other members in the House, I will take this opportunity, since it is my first occasion to officially debate, to thank the constituents of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for handing me the honour of serving them once again for the next four and a half or five years.
I will begin by talking about the subamendment that we in the Liberal Party have moved in the House, which reads:
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.
My hon. colleague spoke of the many situations in which we have involved ourselves in this particular conflict, and certainly for all the right reasons, reasons that pertain to the general philosophy or responsibility to protect, as my colleague talked about, or R2P, and how we have engaged in this type of diplomacy over the past 10 or 15 years. It is certainly incumbent upon us to uphold the values and security of these people, as well as their well-being in whichever situation they find themselves throughout the world, whether it be in the Middle East, areas of eastern Europe or in the Asia Pacific.
I just want to deal with the situation specifically in Libya. Over the past little while we have seen what is being called the Arab spring and the situation where governments have been overturned. In some situations, although not totally absent of violence, they certainly were far more peaceful compared to other situations that we have currently, whether it be the mass exodus of people throughout Syria and the situation we are discussing today, which is Libya.
We have had examples such as Tunisia and Egypt which were certainly situations not without violence but, nonetheless, far better regime change scenarios than what we are faced with now. We are now faced with that particular dictator, who has been in office since the late 1960s and, ironically, came in under peaceful means, who is now being forcibly thrown out of office by the international community, or at least that is the goal.
I noticed an article in The Economist magazine several weeks ago that kind of outlines the situation regarding the people on the ground, the average citizens. It states:
Colonel Qaddafi’s forces are running increasingly short of fuel. The people of Tripoli, his embattled capital, are short of just about everything, including food. The rebels in the east, based in Benghazi, are managing to import their basic requirements—and are getting diplomatically, politically and militarily better organised. The Qaddafi regime may hold out for a while yet, but time is not on its side. It is possible that it may implode.
We have not reached that scenario yet, but, as I said, that article was from a few weeks ago and we still find ourselves in that situation. We do, however, find ourselves in the wake of United Nations resolution 1973 regarding no-fly zones and, of course, UN Security Council resolution 1970, which talks about the strategic involvement of forces around the world. In this particular case, this is strong language from the UN spurred on by nations such as the United Kingdom. The British forces have taken the lead in this in many cases and, therefore, we are looking at what we feel is our ability to measure up when it comes to the situation for the people in Libya and also the basic human rights that are being trampled on in the most vicious and vile manner by a dictator who we know as Moammar Gadhafi.
I am very honoured that we have this opportunity to debate this in the House. So far, we have had a good, civilized debate, an illustration of just what we are fighting for in the nation of Libya, which is that some day the people of Libya can attain what we are doing here today, having a debate and the information bring put forward in the House to be received by the people of Canada. That, in and of itself, shows the model that we are striving for.
Although our forces are being engaged in dangerous tactics, such as strategic bombing and the actions of the HMCS Charlottetown, these are necessary actions by a government that believes we have a responsibility to protect. In this particular case, that is what drives the policy here. We want to protect people, particularly women and children, and their ability to have peace and security.
The international efforts underway in Libya, under resolutions 1970 and 1973, will be remembered as necessary resolutions carried out by the international community under the lead of Lieutenant General Bouchard.
I had the honour of meeting General Bouchard five or six years ago in Winnipeg. He is a gentleman with a great deal of responsibility on his shoulders with the NATO-led forces. He is indeed Canadian.
We called for the implementation of a no-fly zone and we support the military mission in Libya; however, this should be accompanied by diplomatic and political outreach efforts. I said earlier that this House is a model for which nations strive, that many nations have achieved, but some have not.
We need to help build the capacity for them to reach a level of political discourse that is peaceful, that provides security and well-being for all its citizens, and not just the select few. That way, like our country, the most vulnerable in society would be looked after and the institutions would remain to honour them. That is what we strive for. The measures taken by the UN, the NATO-led mission and by our brave soldiers, will hopefully be achieved in a much shorter time than we imagined.
We must protect Libyan civilians. Parliament must have a say in this and all other combat operations, which I am glad we are doing here today. This has been a very civilized debate and I am honoured to take part it in.
We support the continuation of humanitarian aid to the people of Libya through organizations such as the United Nations Refugee Agency, which has done great work over the past little while and will continue to do so. As the active players, we are in and under the structure of the United Nations, and this is something that we are dedicated to. I am glad to hear that everybody in this House is of the same opinion.
The International Red Cross, as we have seen time and again around the world, is a beacon of hope for so many. It has been a shining inspiration for us, who may not require its assistance, and for many nations ravaged by natural disasters, such as Haiti. I had one in my riding last year and the Red Cross did play a role as well as the Canadian military.
In this particular situation, we should do all that we can in this House to provide the assistance required by the United Nations Refugee Agency as well as the International Red Cross as they do fantastic work.
Diplomacy development should be a significant element in Canada's approach to the situation in Libya. It is that capacity-building of democracy that we have been so good at over the past 30 years or more, since the days of Lester Pearson. We strive to become the broker of what is good in society, which is the capacity to build democracies through the infrastructure of social policies such as medicare. We strive for universal health care and for those who are most vulnerable.
It is beyond this particular mission, this three and a half months that we are debating, that we must look to. I am glad to hear that we are talking a lot about the humanitarian efforts involved in this mission that go beyond the particular timeline set out in this debate.
