In The Media

Canadians Need to Know Exactly Why They are Deploying Troops into Combat Zones

by Hugh Segal,
June 17, 2013

The following column is offered by Sen. Hugh Segal, chair of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism and a senior research fellow at the  Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI):

The failure of the western world to engage constructively to end the violence in Syria, driven in part by Chinese and

Russian paralysis of the United Nations’ Security Council, has produced near catastrophic impacts on Syria’s people and its neighbours in the region.  Just as every deployment has its costs and risks, so too does inertia have its own costs and risks, which can be seen playing out in the Middle East as we speak.

For Canada and its allies, the need to reflect on the political and technical requirements for future deployments has never been more compelling.  This need is made even more pressing by the fact that a mix of Iranian and Russian arms shipments  to the Assad regime, and the deployment of Iranian non-state actors such as Hezbollah, have combined with paralysis at the UN to tip the balance towards the ruthless dictator. This is a pattern that, when extended to the challenges in the Pacific region, necessitates some very careful reflection on what circumstances, and under what conditions Canadian forces might be deployed in the future. Why Libya and not Syria? What are the exigencies and political imperatives that should define any future Canadian deployments?

Canada’s challenging but constructive combat deployments in the first Persian Gulf war, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya over the last quarter of a century all had different technical and political exigencies. Humanitarian deployments to Haiti and elsewhere also have unique sets of requirements both political and structural.

Generally Canada does not deploy alone, but does so with allies who share either a mutual treaty obligation, as was the case in Afghanistan, or deploy on the direction of the United Nations in order to enforce a Security Council resolution in an area in crisis.

Canadians may be facing a future where even aggression against allies and friends, or brutal violence by regimes against their own people, may result in the global community embracing pragmatism over principle, containment over involvement, and reflection over engagement.

What this may well mean, to the comfort of terrorists and rogue states, is that the countries of the West will not only be driven by a deafening “why now?” question in the face of almost any provocation, but more importantly “why us?” This question has manifested itself even within NATO on challenges such as Libya and Bosnia. A review of what Canada’s exigencies would be for a joint deployment in any combat theatre is of value and in need of update. It is the kind of review that would benefit from a reflective and non-partisan discussion in Canada’s Parliament.

Prime Minister Harper’s 2006 parliamentary approval doctrine that no serious deployment of Canadian troops can take place without a parliamentary vote in the House of Commons was an important foundation for the political and technical exigencies Canada needs before deploying.  As was the non-partisan Afghanistan Task Force that, under the leadership of John Manley, Paul Tellier, Derek Burney, Jake Epp, and Pamela Wallin, set the exigencies for a continuation beyond 2011 of the Canadian Afghanistan deployment.

This constructive departure from history reasserted both the non-partisan and parliamentary role in establishing exigencies and criteria.  In the pre-Harper era, take-note debates often took the place of actual votes.  William Lyon Mackenzie King had Canada vote separately to enter the Second World War to underline the post-1931 Statute of Westminster foreign policy independence of Canada. The 2006 Harper doctrine of parliamentary approval underlined the supremacy of Parliament on combat deployments. Both are vital principles for our foreign and defence policy.

A clear set of Canadian expectations around the purpose, dynamics, operational command, shared real-time intelligence and areas of responsibility are essential for any future deployments. These exigencies are not “wouldn’t it be nice options” but important requirements for an advanced democracy that has often carried more than its fair share of military duties, risks and casualties in joint operations in defence of sovereignty, freedom, and peace.

Sen. Hugh Segal is the chair of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism and a CDFAI Senior Research Fellow.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

The Future of North American Trade: Assessing the USMCA

October 13, 2018

On today's Global Exchange Podcast, we convene our roster of North American trade experts to discuss the newly signed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Join host Colin Robertson in discussion with Eric Miller, Laura Dawson, Sarah Goldfeder, and Larry Herman, as they discuss the pros and cons of the new deal, as well as what happens next.


Saudi Arabia’s spat with Canada was a lesson. Trump ignored it.

by Emily Rauhala (feat. Thomas Juneau), The Washington Post, October 17, 2018

Oilpatch scrambles to ship ‘distressed barrels’ as industry loses $100 million in revenues daily

by Geoffrey Morgan (feat. Kevin Birn), Financial Post, October 16, 2018

Donald Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 ‘poison pill’ won’t work in Asia, say experts

by Jacob Greber (feat. Hugh Stephens), Financial Review, October 16, 2018

Feds aiming to select preferred design for $60B warships by end of month

by Lee Berthiaume (feat. Dave Perry), The Canadian Press, October 16, 2018

Ex-ambassador delivers aggressive defence of Saudi arms deal

by Murray Brewster (feat. Thomas Juneau), CBC News, October 16, 2018

Trump gains power over Canada, Mexico Trade

by Sabrina Rodriguez (feat. Sarah Goldfeder), Politico, October 15, 2018

Trump: Saudi king ‘firmly denies’ any role in Khashoggi mystery

by James McCarten (feat. Colin Robertson), The Canadian Press, October 15, 2018

Louise Mushikiwabo remplace la Canadienne Michaëlle Jean à la tête de la francophonie

by Claire Gillet (feat. Jocelyn Coulon), L’Express, October 12, 2018


Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Suite 1800, 421-7th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4K9


Canadian Global Affairs Institute
8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 5S6


Phone: (613) 288-2529


Making sense of our complex world.
Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.


© 2002-2018 Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Charitable Registration No. 87982 7913 RR0001


Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Twitter | Sign in with Email