Article content continued

If the Harper government did opt to participate fully in the U.S. campaign, it would likely be JTF 2 members involved in hunting ISIS leaders — and neither the government nor the military would want that debated in Parliament.

Holding a vote on combat deployments is something the Conservatives have long championed, notably in the two extensions of Canada’s combat mission in Kandahar and the Libya bombing campaign.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has tried to cast Harper as flip-flopping by pointing out that he pledged in 2007 to hold votes on “all” troop deployments.

But no vote was held on the Afghan training mission, even though it contained a certain degree of risk and saw one soldier killed, said University of Ottawa defence expert Philippe Legasse.

The law doesn’t require the government to consult with MPs when it puts troops in harm’s way. The opposition should be careful what it wishes for because a vote tends to stifle subsequent debate, especially in a long conflict, Legasse added.

“The effect of having a vote is a point of finality in a way because it allows the government to say this issue has been settled, the Commons has voted with us, and therefore we’re following the democratic will of the Commons,” he said.

“The executive can simply say, ’Let’s move on,’ even if the opposition has voted against them.”

If the opposition really wants to do its job, it would be on its feet every day asking questions about the deployment, he added.

“The Commons’ job isn’t to pretend it’s there to make decisions,” Legasse said. “The Commons’ job is to hold to account those that have the responsibility for making the decisions.”

If the government was smart, he said, it would be upfront if and when JTF 2 becomes involved.

“The prime minister and the defence minister should get up, declare what they’re doing, explain why they can’t give more details than they’re giving and explain the rationale behind it,” Legasse said.

“You can do that without getting into any secret information.”