Parliament ought to vote on mission
Peacekeeping action in Africa needs consensus
The Liberal government, t hrough defence minister Harjit Sajjan, has indicated there will be no parliamentary vote on Canada’s imminent peacekeeping deployment to Africa.
Asked about a vote in the House of Commons, Sajjan replied: “No. We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible on this.”
There is no requirement for any Canadian government to seek the authorization of the House of Commons before sending troops overseas, but while it may not be necessary, it would be desirable.
It may be that an uncooperative parliamentary calendar has persuaded the Liberals that there is no need to consult the people’s house. MPs return to Ottawa on Sept. 19 but by then Justin Trudeau will be in New York, where he is expected to announce to the United Nations General Assembly where Canadian troops will be deployed and what they will be doing there. The broadly accepted, and likely correct, assumption is that the government sees this move as its golden ticket to a seat on the UN Security Council.
But that does not preclude the mission being debated and voted upon in Parliament, the “shield and expression of democracy,” in the words of Winston Churchill.
The British leader’s private secretary wrote that even at the height of his powers, “when he could have got away with almost anything,” Churchill always reported to the House of Commons on matters affecting the conduct of the Second World War. “I am,” he used to say, with uncharacteristic humility, “the servant of the House of Commons.”
Justin Trudeau was elected on a promise that he would give Canadians a stronger voice in Ottawa.
But to duck a vote on an African deployment would reverse years of political convention established by that great scourge of all things democratic, Stephen Harper.
The former prime minister might have had his own reasons for bringing the Afghan mission to a vote in 2006, not least of which was a desire to split the Liberal Party (which it duly did).
But he was not wrong when he pointed out it was unconscionable Canadian forces had been sent abroad without the blessing of the House of Commons ( previous Liberal governments had held “take note” debates but not voted on deployment).
“It is i mportant to be able to tell diplomats, relief workers and soldiers on dangerous missions abroad that Canada’s parliamentarians believe in their objectives, and support what they are doing,” Harper told the House in May 2006.
The word “support” is key. As pointed out by Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor of international affairs at Carleton University, past motions haven’t asked the Commons to “authorize” missions. Instead, the gov- ernment requests the House “support the government’s decision.”
This is something the Liberals believed in when they were in opposition, calling on the Conservative government to consult the legislature before deploying troops in Iraq.
No one disputes the right or ability of the executive to rule on military deployments. But wherever the Canadian Forces end up in Africa, it promises to be a perilous adventure. In Sajjan’s own words, it is likely that there will be “no peace to keep.” In such circumstances, a cabinet decision is not an adequate substitute for a debate and vote on the duration of the mission, the rules of engagement and the strategy for an exit.
It is one of the great attributes of our parliamentary democracy that it can adapt and annex conventions that make it stronger — a flexible system of governance that can “go out in all weathers,” to again quote Churchill.
If the purpose of this deployment is to impose peace in a region where it doesn’t currently exist, Canadian troops will be involved in combat, even if the prime ministers bursts blood- vessels arguing they are not engaged in a combat mission.
It would be a retrogressive step if the convention of a parliamentary vote on such a dangerous deployment were overturned.