A history of openness in parliament for combat missions. Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made history when they put extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan until February 2009 to a House of Commons vote. Heres why... Not since the Second World War – and even then only marginally – has Parliament played a meaningful role in the deployment of combat troops overseas. From the Korean War to the 1991 Gulf War to Somalia, successive Canadian governments only engaged Parliament in debate or sought its approval for troop deployments long after the fact. In each and every House of Commons debate about Parliament’s marginal role in the deployment of troops, the arguments, the language – right down to the precise words – have been virtually the same since 1950 and the Korean War. Then-Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent’s cabinet committed Canadian destroyers, air lift and a special brigade of troops to the United Nations “police action” in Korea while the House was out of session. Parliamentarians were outraged when they were called back into special session to give consideration to Korea after the fact, but were lectured that they ought to trust cabinet decisions. Conservative Opposition Leader John Diefenbaker was livid, arguing that Parliament’s lack of involvement amounted to a negation of democratic oversight. He said in part: “If cabinet is to be trusted; if we are to accept at face value what ministers say, then we had better all be absent from this House. We would need no Parliament.” That was virtually the same argument the Liberal Opposition made when Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government committed ships and CF-18s to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991. In 1994, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government went one step further, formerly undermining direct parliamentary involvement in military deployments by introducing “take note” debates. “Take note” debates abolished the possibility of quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent, meaning that they exclude parliamentary votes.A series of “take note” debates in 1998 and 1999 eliminated votes on the Chretien government’s commitment of CF-18s to the Kosovo air war. This policy of take note debates continued in Paul Martins short stint as PM as well. So, Harpers decision to allow a vote on Afghanistan and now this week to vote on participating in air strikes against ISIS overturns decade after decade after decade of abuse and to restore a meaningful role for Parliament on the issue of military action overseas. And it should be applauded!
Posted on: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:26:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015