OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 123 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, October 6, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 6, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 123 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 123 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 123 (Version officielle) 147 123 06 10 2014 2014/10/06 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Georgian Bay Channel to Lock 45--Port Severn Motion No. 502 The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion. The Speaker : The hon. member for Newton—North Delta has seven minutes left to conclude her remarks. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to make it clear, I will be supporting the motion that refers to the Trent-Severn Waterway at Port Severn.

One of the key things for many parts of Canada is that our waterways play a critical role, not only for tourism but also for transportation of goods, leisure, and people living on many of our waterways. Whenever we go into a region to look at the maintenance required--desilting, for example, in this case--it behooves the government to consult with environmentalists, the stakeholders, the business community, as well as the residents in those areas. One of the key things that the government has an allergy to, as I have said many times, is meaningful consultation and then having transparency in how it proceeds.

We are hearing from this community and those impacted by this waterway of the critical need for maintenance and the need for government to invest in infrastructure. I could talk for days about the government's abandonment of meaningful investment in infrastructure. In my riding of Newton—North Delta, we are in dire need of federal funds to invest in a public transit system because of the gridlock that we experience. Our bridges need upgrading. We have a tunnel that goes under the Fraser River that is in need of major work.

Therefore, when I am looking at the need to invest in infrastructure, I find the government is lacking. Going back to the desilting and deepening of the Trent—Severn Waterway that we are talking about here, I am also reminded of the dire need to do that in my riding. The Fraser River is an amazing river. I do not know if anyone has travelled down it as a tourist or has walked along it, but it is also what I call a “working river”. It carries goods out to the port. It is a river in need of major desilting.

I know that the mayors from Delta and Surrey have spoken to the government on the issue of the need to look after the infrastructure there, and to also take a look at our ports. It is not just wood being transported down the Fraser River. There is also coal and other goods that are being brought up the valley. I have talked to the authorities who tell me that a major investment is required on an ongoing basis to look after the port to make sure that transportation of goods can carry on in a productive way. At the same time, the Fraser River, as we all know, is a great attraction for fishing and tourism.

For those particular aspects, we also need to look at the river as it enters the ocean with the silt that builds up, and how much we need to invest in order to keep the river functioning for tourism, leisure activities, fishing, and for it to be a working river to transport goods. Those kinds of investments require a federal government with a vision, one that is willing to consult with municipalities, the business communities, and the residents around that area, and then put in resources to look after the infrastructure that we need so badly in the country. We are not the only ones saying that.

We hear that from all kinds of people, whether they are environmentalists, the business community, or citizens who live around that area. We are blessed in Canada with such amazing waterways, whether it is B.C., Ontario, or Quebec, coast to coast to coast. In many ways we are reliant on our waterways as a way of communication and keeping linkages for some of our communities. That has become very important.

(1110) The NDP absolutely supports responsible investment in infrastructure, and I stress that. Investment in infrastructure should not be just so that certain ministers can go to their ridings and make grandiose announcements. Serious investment in infrastructure should look at Canada as a whole, seeing where the gaps are, and then investing in a major way. Whether in Montreal, Vancouver, or in Toronto, it should not matter. We need to see that kind of investment.

If we are investing in infrastructure, we must also balance economic, environmental, social, and legal concerns because some of our waterways are shared. We have international jurisdiction over some of those. However, the number one thing for us right now is that we need investment. Investment in infrastructure would boost the economy, create jobs, and is good for every Canadian across this country. [ Translation ] Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Motion No. 502.

The motion asks the federal government to invest money in improving the Trent-Severn Waterway in the Great Lakes region. I have been interested in our freshwater resources for years. In preparing for this morning's debate, I learned more about a region and a waterway that were somewhat familiar to me. I learned a lot from reading the speech by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North . It is interesting because there are connections between that waterway and the Lachine Canal near my riding alongside the St. Lawrence.

Like the Trent-Severn Waterway, the Lachine Canal is a Canadian historic site managed by Parks Canada. There are connections between the two regions. I am interested in this issue not only because it involves our freshwater resources, but also because of the connection between these two historic waterways: the Lachine Canal and the Trent-Severn Waterway. [ English ] Water levels, whether they are high or low, are always a problem for those who live beside or use a particular waterway. I know this because my riding, as I just mentioned, is on a waterway, the St. Lawrence River.

There are many marinas, sailing, and boat clubs along the St. Lawrence. We can see from one year to the next the impacts caused by low water levels or high water levels. Low water levels are a problem for a number of reasons. When water is shallow, there is greater sedimentation, which then requires dredging. That is the subject of this motion. It is also very hard for recreational boat owners to get out of the marina when the water levels are low. Sometimes they are unable to leave that space because of the physical limitations that come with lower water levels.

We know that commercial shipping is also affected by low water levels because there is not usually much space between the bottom of a ship and the riverbed. Sometimes we are talking about two or three feet, even for the big Great Lakes vessels. I understand that my hon. colleague's attention to this issue is very important. I learned that the Trent-Severn Waterway, which is quite long and includes some free-flowing parts and canals, is in great use. It has 160 dams and 44 locks, and there are 50,000 residences along the waterway.

This is a very important issue, and I support the request for a very modest sum of money, from what I have read, to drag a portion of the waterway which is at Port Severn. I believe there will also be some blasting required, which I would imagine makes the project a bit more expensive. What we are talking about is a particular part of the waterway in a particular region, the Great Lakes region. However, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the issue of fluctuating and especially diminishing water levels in the Great Lakes in general.

(1115) What is causing those fluctuations and specifically the falling water levels? There are three causes that we know of, and we learned this from the IJC's Upper Great Lakes Study. One cause is from the dredging of the St. Clair River, which is apparently allowing more water to leave the upper Great Lakes. Another cause is from the shifting of the earth's crust. The ice age compressed that part of the continent and over time the lake beds rise a little and tilt, causing some water to flow out of the region.

Also, there is the problem of climate change, which leaves less ice cover in the winter and there is thus more evaporation. This is a broader issue, and the government is going to have to look at the issue in broader terms. I hope the government listens to the hon. member for Simcoe North and does the work for which he asks. However, we need to look at the issue of the falling Great Lakes water levels more broadly and the government will have make some investments.

The hon. member who spoke before me talked about infrastructure investments, and, yes, I would have to agree, but there are other kinds of investments that the government will need to make, which I would like to address a little later. We have a problem with climate change and there is some uncertainty as how climate change will impact the Great Lakes. We know climate change will cause less precipitation in some areas and more in other areas. The problem around the Great Lakes is that we do not know where the greater precipitation will occur, at what latitude.

This is an issue when we talk about the Great Lakes because the basin is so small relative to the surface water. It is not a huge basin where if it rains farther north the water would still make its way into the lakes. No, it is a very small basin and if the precipitation is above or below the lakes, that water will not necessarily make it to the lakes. We cannot say with certainty how climate change will impact the water level, but we have to plan for the worst case scenario and for falling water levels because of the attendant costs of falling water levels.

I mentioned earlier that there were other investments that needed to be made above and beyond infrastructure investments. When the hon. member talked about the infrastructure investments that would be required, she talked about big physical constructs no doubt that might better regulate water flows and so on. There is a group called Great Lakes Our Water, or GLOW, in Georgian Bay, and we are essentially talking about Georgian Bay here. I am told that part of its focus has now shifted to another problem in the area, which is an invasive species, a kind of reed that is quickly proliferating in Georgian Bay.

However, GLOW also has a campaign called “Stop the Drop”. I was speaking to GLOW's executive director, Colin Dobell, not long ago on the phone. Then I met him on Friday at the meeting of the Freshwater Alliance here in the region. I learned that Stop the Drop was focusing on a technology that would allow us to better predict the impact of changing water levels, in this case, of dropping water levels. This is called LIDAR technology. LIDAR technology is essentially a radar technology that allows us to construct integrated topographic-bathymetric models to visualize the impacts of variable water levels.

Typically it is used to see how rising sea levels will impact on coastal areas, but it can also be used to predict what the impact of dropping water levels will be. It is very important that the government put some money into applying LIDAR technology in Georgian Bay so the area can adapt to the impact of climate change.

(1120) Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 502 put forward by the member for Simcoe North . I have known the member for Simcoe North for some time now and have always found his actions on behalf of his constituency to be above reproach. Whether it was serving on committee with the member or watching him discharge his duties from the chair of the Speaker, he has always worked hard in this place for the constituents he represents.

I find his engagement on this specific issue, that of deepening and straightening the marine vessel navigation channel south of Port Severn, to be indicative of his work on such important causes. When one travels the 400 highway, the beautiful community of Port Severn is always a great destination to stop and take in one's surroundings. This lively community is really representative of all the great things Ontario's waterfront communities have to offer citizens and visiting tourists alike.

Being from a community on the Great Lakes myself, I can speak to the overall importance that being so closely located to our incredible freshwater resources means to a community. Many day-to-day activities within such communities greatly involve the commerce centred on various marine influenced industries. Boating and angling are two recreational pastimes that are important to the over 50,000 residents who make up the Trent-Severn Waterway, and many more citizens enjoy other waterways across the province, considering that there are over one million lakes and rivers in Ontario.

We are greatly blessed by such bountiful resources, yet at the same time management of the infrastructure on such waterways can present very serious challenges for policy-makers. As a long time municipal representative acting in the capacities as mayor of a town and warden of a large county in southwestern Ontario, and now as the federal representative in this place for Sarnia—Lambton, I can speak to the necessity of proactive management of these waterways and the infrastructure located on them. I would like to share with the House my perspective on these issues and why I strongly support Motion No. 502.

There are three important factors we must consider when we examine the issue of deepening and straightening an important and frequently traversed vessel navigation channel like we are discussing today. The first issue to consider is the multitude of dynamics that form the foundational approach for waterway infrastructure management and help guide policy-makers toward endorsing a decision to conduct certain types of rehabilitative work on a specific area of a waterway's vessel navigation channel. Second, we must consider the true economic impact of such a proposal.

When conducting a cost-benefit analysis, it must be shown to be truly in the best interests of the community and impacted waterway, as well as the citizens and tourists who rely on these marine passageways, in order for such a proposal to be considered truly economically viable.

Last, we must consider the original objective of such waterways and how any proposed work to deepen or straighten a vessel navigation channel, for example, could possibly impact the use and nature of the waterway in question, and also how the original working conditions of such a channel may have become an issue with the natural passage of time. In this case, the waterway has become dangerous for larger vessels due to the presence of shoals and rocks in a very narrow channel passage.

In terms of the foundation of waterway infrastructure management, I raise this issue first to ensure that it is well known that much deliberation goes into policy-making decisions that would impact our waterways. Those of us who live adjacent to the Great Lakes are well aware of the matter of water levels, both high and low levels, and what issues they can present for our communities. The cyclical ups and downs of the Great Lakes had previously been on the downside for a period of many years, but over the past several months we have seen a rebound in historical water levels.

This is the type of issue that policy-makers would examine as a potential factor in whether certain types of work, such as deepening a marine channel, could or should proceed. The reality is that regardless of water levels, considerations must be made as to the necessity of the work as it stands now. Considering the dangers to the passing boats through the channel area in question, it would seem that even with the rebound in water levels this past summer, dangers still exist in this specific area. We must also examine the economic impact of such a proposal.

(1125) In terms of the true economic impact of Motion No. 502, we should consider the overall value of the commercial and recreational boating and fishing industry, as well as the multitude of linked industries and businesses to these sectors. With recreational fishing's economic output measuring somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion across the Great Lakes and with the boating industry being even larger, there is no doubt as to the impact these sectors have on the Ontario economy and also the overall economic well-being of Canada.

My community of Sarnia—Lambton greatly relies on boat traffic for tourism, and recreational and commercial fishing are important to the marine industry here as well. Therefore, I have a good understanding of these issues. I take further experience from my work on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in which work was done on issues of great importance to the shared Great Lakes resources. Therefore, I understand these issues from an in-depth perspective.

As the member for Simcoe North acknowledges, the issues impacting the channel near Port Severn are, indeed, causing operators of larger vessels, whether they be pleasure craft or commercially operated vessels, to reconsider travelling through that zone due to the danger posed by current conditions. This would obviously create an economic impact that should be considered.

The member for Simcoe North alluded to these factors in his introductory speech in this place, when he acknowledged that 30-foot vessels were having difficulties navigating the shallow channel and many were simply choosing to avoid travelling here altogether. From an economic perspective, this would place great stress on the smaller communities such as Port Severn, given the importance the associated revenues from the boating and angling industry would have for them. Numerous communities in Ontario have come to greatly rely on marine traffic to boost revenues from commerce across their entire communities.

This is not unlike impacts that can occur in areas of my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, where we have water access along the St. Clair River and Lake Huron. The communities in this region also rely on the tourism dollars generated from these waterways and ensuring that any boat can make berth is a crucial element to the economic fortunes of a community. Any issues relating to accessibility for boaters on waterways in my riding are always of huge importance to municipal stakeholders, and I have worked closely with them on issues related to various marine infrastructure rehabilitation projects in the past.

Again, these are simple issues that basic marine infrastructure management and a nation such as Canada, blessed with a vast amount of marine resources, has the ability to remedy such issues with efficiency and precision. The economic factor becomes even more of an issue when one considers the costs of damage to boats, whether recreational or commercial in nature, from passing through dangerous channels. If a pleasure craft operator damages an expensive boat, the repair costs would ultimately represent a financial drain that otherwise could have gone into other areas of the economy.

If a commercial operator damages his craft, it could mean costly downtime for his business, laid-off workers, and expensive repair and insurance costs. The trickle-down effect from such an occurrence becomes rather drastic when one stops to think about it from the perspective of an operator of such a business enterprise. Last, let us look at the original objective of the waterway in question. Clearly, it was and remains a marvel of architecture and Canada is a nation seen to have mastered the usage of canals and other marine infrastructure-oriented work in our short history.

When originally built, the marine channel was quite suitable for vessels in operation at that time. Of course, that was almost 100 years ago. As members will understand, the technological advancements surrounding marine navigation have led to larger vessels that can travel further than ever before. Even more important to understand is that society has grown up along the waterways, and communities on these waterways have come to greatly rely on the tourism aspect of boating and angling in these areas.

Therefore, the channel that was appropriate for most marine traffic 100 years ago has now become crowded and, in fact, dangerous based on the testimony heard from the member for Simcoe North , who has been well briefed on these issues relating to the specific waterway from his community stakeholders. This is commonplace in Canada, where we have tended to build infrastructure in historic spurts. Hence, it is not uncommon to see the need for rehabilitation and regenerative efforts in repairing old and decaying marine infrastructure.

I hereby express my strong support for what is proposed in Motion No. 502 and would call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to do the same.

(1130) Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Motion No. 502, the motion put together by the member for Simcoe North . I can say I shared an office floor with the member and know how hard he works and the diligence of his work. I praise him for bringing an issue before us that includes the Great Lakes. As critic for the Great Lakes for the NDP and Canada-U.S. border relations, I can tell members that the Great Lakes are going to frame much of our relationship with the United States for the next 10 years.

Whether it be on fresh water, whether it be on invasive species, whether it be pollution, there will be a lot of discourse, and there has been, and I will highlight some of that in my speech. However, I want to touch on Motion No. 502, specifically, right now, because it is an important issue for the community and is an important issue with regard to infrastructure, with regard to planning, and with regard to ensuring that our natural resources, when they are affected, are handled appropriately.

Motion No. 502 looks to study Georgian Bay and the westerly limit of the Trent-Severn Waterway, at Port Severn, a channel that is not living up to the needs of the current boating culture that wants to use and access the channel, because it is too small. Specifically, there are a number of challenges people need to know about when we look at expanding this channel. The channel is currently rock-faced. There are sharp turns in the channel. It is narrow and not wide enough for vessels to pass each other. It is subjected to unexpected swift currents, as well.

Why these things are important is that the tourism industry, in particular, and the boating culture need to use this facility, and it does not do itself justice anymore. In fact, the Canadian Coast Guard also provides navigation devices and aid. There have been some attempts to work with the current infrastructure, but it is so challenged that it does need a review. It is hurting the economy and tourism in the region by deterring boaters from making use of the channel. That is a loss to not only that local community but also to the entire Great Lakes.

One of the things I want to focus on is the challenges in the Great Lakes, which are significant. We have proposed a series of things that correlate to this. It is about planning. It is about having a plan. One of the first things to talk about is the lake water levels. We have tabled a motion in the House of Commons that calls for a study of the lake water levels in the Great Lakes. We saw this last winter, being a better winter for the Great Lakes, but prior to that in a series of different years we saw the lake water levels lowering.

That has actually hurt this facility, which Motion No. 502 addresses, as well. The key thing is that we need planning. Every year, when the lake waters go down, a number of different communities scramble with different types of resolutions, asking for federal funds and provincial funds to deal with dredging and other types of work.

There is a problem with that because we go from crisis to crisis, as opposed to having a sustainable fund or a sustainable business plan to deal with the lake water levels rising and lowering, and then also understanding that when we do dredge, we cannot be disturbing some of the sediments and contamination in the actual sediments. Therefore, we are conflicted in terms of how we can deal with that. What we are proposing, as New Democrats, is that we study those levels and then, on top of that, we create a business plan that comes into operation, depending on what takes place.

We have a natural ally in the international joint commission, the binational commission, which has done wonderful work for many decades and which continues to do some really good work on a series of different things. It could really be an asset. For example, if lake water levels go down again this year, we could identify the number of communities that are affected by say maybe two or three centimetres.

We would know those target spots, and those organizations and those municipalities, as well as the different docks and even cottages and other types of regions, which could be honed in on in terms of dealing with those problems, as opposed to just waiting for them to respond to emergencies and crises. We are hoping that our motion gets passed.

(1135) It is also about our economy. Obviously the shipping community has to deal with it as well. It depends upon the type of aggregate that is coming and going into different ports, and what type of infrastructure construction is taking place across Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, which use the Great Lakes as a shipping and movement distribution vehicle to get those materials to those projects. Again, it is about having a business plan to deal with this. If we are more efficient in terms of our economy with regard to our shipping, it is also going to help us environmentally.

Again, we will know what the consequences of these actions are going to be. There are a couple of other things that we have pushed forward that are really important to note on the Great Lakes. In the transition that is taking place, there is an issue with regard to microplastics right now. We have had some good meetings with the industry. Microplastics and microbeads are in a lot of things, such as toothpaste, shampoo and conditioner. They are the little plastic beads that are added to products because the other types of materials used are rough on the skin.

Consumers like the microbeads because it makes products feel smooth. When it is used in toothpaste, there is no roughness in the mouth. The problem, however, is that the microbeads end up going down the drain into our municipal water treatment systems and up into the Great Lakes. Once they get to the Great Lakes there are consequences. First, sometimes the fish and other wildlife mistake it for algae, and then digest and eat them. It then becomes part of the food chain. Later on when people are fishing in the Great Lakes, that becomes part of the experience.

I was not aware of this until someone starting doing some research on this, but alternatively, some of the microplastics wash up in the sands, in the shoreline, and because it is plastic it becomes a heating source with the sun on them. It can change the ecosystem of the beach and other areas that are affected. There is a campaign to ban microbeads. Some industry leaders have been really good on this and I think there is some change there. I know it has affected Canada-U.S. relations. Illinois, as well as New York, has passed a resolution, defining the size and shape of what can be in these products.

I know a lot of states, as well as members of Congress and the Senate, are concerned about this issue. The industry is open to and is looking for a Canada-U.S. solution. I am hoping the government takes some initiative on this because there seems to be some positive will to move forward on this. I am meeting with some groups this afternoon about this issue. There are alternatives that can be used in those types of consumer products that would not cause the environmental damage, whether it be to the beaches, shores or wildlife. There can be natural remedies.

These are things that could even be beneficial for our economy, because products could be manufactured in a way that they would be good for the environment when they break down. I do want to touch on a couple of other issues just briefly, with regard to the importance of the motion and other issues in the Great Lakes. There is the issue in Kincardine right now, where they want to build a deep repository for nuclear waste. We are fighting against that. We believe it is wrong and hope the government does something about it.

It is hurting Canada-U.S. relations because the U.S. has legislation that nuclear waste cannot be stored within 10 miles of the Great Lakes, and we are trying to put it within one kilometre. I tabled a bill here in the House last week on invasive carp getting into Canada. We are calling on the government to let the CBSA officers of this country stop and refuse invasive carp that comes in if it is not eviscerated, cut and gutted. If this species gets into our lakes and our inland water systems, there will be a significant impact and a loss of fisheries.

This is an invasive species that should be stopped and the government can do that at no cost.

(1140) The Deputy Speaker : Resuming debate. Seeing none, the hon. member for Simcoe North will have his five minutes of reply. [ Translation ] Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking all of the members who participated in the debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport , and the member for Essex . [ English ] I also thank the member for Beaches—East York , the member for Ottawa South , the member for Newton—North Delta , the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis , Sarnia—Lambton and Windsor West .

I thank each of them for their compliments of my work on the motion and for their support of the motion. It was clear through the comments that we heard on this particular question and on the motion that there are a number of different questions and concerns that arise out of any debate that involves not only our important Canadian waterways but in this case the Great Lakes.

Many of those members of Parliament whom we heard from take their economic means from and much of their local enterprise is derived from things such as recreational boating and all of the things that come from that, from retail to services to marinas. All of those economic interests are affected when we clear up impediments such as the canal at Port Severn. As members heard, this is a beautiful part of our country.

We do everything we can to attract recreational boaters and tourists, for a whole host of reasons, to experience the wonders of Georgian Bay and the inland waterway that stretches from Lake Ontario all the way up to Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. This is what connects much of that summer-season commerce and we know we want to keep that going strong. That is what the direction of the motion is. I would just finish off and somewhat encapsulate what we heard with a quote from the lockmaster at Lock 45, the immediate lock there. He was there for more than a decade and his family has been there for generations.

He summed it up this way: ...very frustrating for the boaters, as well as for me and the staff, because they thought it was our problem. The years passed and water got lower and lower; the problem magnified. Boats had problems going downstream. With any current, they were on the rock shoal. Boats couldn’t meet under the bridge. The boats from 36 feet and upwards started avoiding the locks because of the dangerous and unsafe area. That is exactly the precise direction of the motion, to address that particular issue.

Once again, I thank all hon. members for their support of the motion, and I look forward to seeing it pass should the members consider it that way. (1145) [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to)

[ English ] Suspension of Sitting The Deputy Speaker : Given the time, I declare that the House will stand suspended for 14 minutes. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:46 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Military Contribution Against ISIL Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) moved: That this House (

i) recognise that the leadership of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has called on its members to target Canada and Canadians at home and abroad, (ii) further recognise the clear and direct threat that ISIL poses to the people of the region, including members of vulnerable religious and ethnic minority groups who have been subjected to a sustained campaign of brutal sexual violence, murder, and barbaric intimidation by ISIL, (iii) accept that, unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow, (iv) affirm Canada’s desire, consistent with Canadian values and interests, to protect the vulnerable and innocent civilians of the region, including through urgent humanitarian assistance, (

v) acknowledge the request from the Government of Iraq for military support against ISIL from members of the international community, including from the Government of Canada, (vi) further acknowledge the participation of Canada’s friends and allies, including numerous countries of the Middle East, in the broad international coalition committed to the fight against ISIL, (vii) note that the United Nations Security Council has become seized of the threat posed by international terrorism with the unanimous passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178, and, accordingly: (

a) support the Government’s decision [to contribute Canadian military assets to the fight against ISIL, and terrorists allied with ISIL, including air strike capability for a period of up to six months;] (

b) note that the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations; and (

c) continue to offer its resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to open the debate on such an important issue for Canadians and for global security. It is right that all sides of the House have the opportunity to make their voices heard. That is why I travelled to Iraq with opposition critics last month. That is why we called the committee back early, before Parliament was sitting, to discuss the deployment of military advisers.

That is why the government supported an emergency debate on the second day of this parliamentary session. That is why we have tabled this motion to debate a new phase of operations. There are significant questions not just of process but of principle at stake here in the House today. Let us focus on the issues at hand with the seriousness that Canadians rightly expect. I will defer to my colleagues on some of the details of different aspects. The Minister of National Defence will speak to the military mission, but let me be very up front about the key facts off the top. How long will this mission last?

It will last six months. How many CF-18s will there be? There will be six. How many other planes will there be? There will be one refueling aircraft and two surveillance aircraft. How many supporting crew members will there be in a neighbouring country? There will be 600. We are asking our brave men and women to fly over the skies of Iraq and confront a new generation of terrorism. It is a terrorist threat that has directly targeted our country. I hope that we can draw a line under debating the debate. The government has agreed on its intention.

The Prime Minister has articulated clearly the direction in which he intends to lead. How many military advisers will there be? There will be up to 69, aiding and advising those who will confront ISIL forces. The motion before the House is very clear about what we are doing, and it is just as clear about what we are not doing. It also sets out the clear purpose of the mission. Every step of the way, I have wanted Canada to show a strong and united front in the fight against ISIL. It saddens me that it appears that this will not happen.

It is fair to say that all sides of the House have at times been known to produce more heat than light, but this issue is much bigger than that. This House is bigger than that. Canada is bigger than that. We have heard those words in this chamber before: that a big country does not need small thinking. We must think big for who we are and what the promise of our people holds for the future.

As former distinguished member of the House, Bob Rae, said: This is not about “peace” versus “war.” This is about...the collective capacity of governments and international institutions to deal effectively with perpetrators of violence. By now, everyone is familiar with ISIL's brutal methods. This is not just another conflict. The struggle is not against a state or even a foreign dictator. This is a struggle against a group of terrorists that rape and pillage and slaughter anything and anyone that stands in their way.

These terrorists are creating a proto-state, a place where they can train for attacks against Canada and the west. It is a place where brave and idealistic people like Alan Henning, a humanitarian worker, are beheaded on camera. It is a place where women and girls are auctioned off in slave markets and the heads of minorities are mounted on spikes in town squares. It is a place where the medieval arrogantly confronts the civilized. On Friday I read an account from a shopkeeper in the Kurdish town of Makhmur. He said: We had to leave.

We were so nervous because everybody knew that [ISIL] had killed everyone they found in some towns. Those people claim to be Muslims but they have no religion except killing. That is their belief. With the support from air strikes by the Obama administration, this man's town was recently taken back from ISIL's grip. He then said: I know all about what Canada is doing.... ...it will be very good what the Canadians will soon do in Iraq.

(1205) This supportive message has been echoed by my counterpart in the Kurdish regional government. [ Translation ] We cannot predict the future, but we can examine the current situation closely. Just three years ago, al Qaeda in Iraq was in bad shape. Now its successor controls vast lands and resources, creating ideal conditions for launching sophisticated attacks abroad. Last weekend, we heard about a death pact between Pakistani Taliban and ISIL. We have to attack this scourge, and for good reason.

Moreover, the new unified government immediately asked for help. [ English ] Our government recognizes the multi-pronged nature of this crisis. As we attempt to halt ISIL's advance, no one who has read the many stories or heard some of the stories for themselves in Iraq can forget about the human cost of its merciless march. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is truly hard to comprehend. To get a sense of the scale of this human tragedy, imagine if more than the entire population of Montreal, every single Montrealer, had to flee their home in terror. That is 1.8 million people.

That is women, children, the elderly, and targeted religious minorities. Canada has been quick to respond to this unfolding crisis with practical support. We are already the seventh-biggest donor in the world. The head of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq has praised Canada's co-operation. I would like to focus on one element of this challenge today, one that has had far too little attention so far. As a new report by the United Nations has described, ISIL's brutality is matched only by its depravity.

In one case over the summer, it herded up 150 women and girls, mostly Christians and Yazidis, and sent them to Syria to be given to ISIL fighters either as a reward or to be sold as sex slaves. Iraqi forces capturing towns from ISIL have reported finding naked women tied to trees. Sexual violence and conflict is a despicable crime that targets the most vulnerable. This is an issue that Canada has been taking a lead role in and will continue to in the upcoming weeks and months. We must ensure that the women and girls who suffer at the hands of ISIL are never far from our minds.

We will ensure that their protection is central to the efforts of the United Nations and G7 through initiatives on women, peace, and security. Canada will support a specialized expert on sexual violence against women to be part of the UN Human Rights Council's mission to Iraq, and I can announce today that we will contribute up to $5 million to help victims of sexual violence in Iraq get the assistance and treatment they need.

We will contribute another $5 million to partners, including Justice Rapid Response, a Canadian-created initiative, to investigate and prosecute crimes of sexual violence in ISIL-held territory. We are also partnering with the United Kingdom's Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my former colleague William Hague, who has taken up this important cause, to find ways of taking this commitment further on the ground. This is something that I have personally worked on in recent years.

When we look at a humanitarian crisis of this size, there is always more that can be done, but we can all be proud of how much Canada is doing in this regard. That said, we must be careful not to draw a line between security and humanitarian assistance. That is not just a false distinction; it is a dangerous one. It is not either-or. Sending someone a doctor, a lawyer, or an aid worker is great, but it will not stop the people they trying to help from getting slaughtered in the first place or stop this humanitarian crisis from growing.

(1210) When our house is on fire, we have to call the firefighters, as well as an ambulance. Major Mariam al-Mansouri knows this. She is a fighter pilot for the United Arab Emirates, helping to strike against the same terrorists who are raping and murdering countless other women. Ultimately, this comes down to what kind of nation we see ourselves as, and as the recent beheadings have reminded us, we cannot stand by as international humanitarian workers are themselves at risk of being slaughtered.

We cannot confront a network of death, as President Obama calls it, solely armed with bandages, platitudes, and investigations. Do we stand with close allies like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France; nations like Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands; and Arab friends, like Jordan and the United Arab Emirates; or do we stand aside as they put themselves on the line? Canada is better than that. As I have repeatedly said, I believe the fight against terrorism is the struggle that will define our generation.

That does not mean this mission will last a generation, as one of my friends opposite has said, but I believe we will be judged in future by whether we took on this fight or ducked it. Just think for a moment what could happen if we do not act. When I sing “we stand on guard for thee”, maybe I do not sing it very well, but I mean it well enough. I mean it as a citizen, and I mean it as a member of Parliament who sees this as the highest responsibility we have to our constituents. If we do not deal with ISIL and its ilk, they will deal with us.

Anyone who accepts the premise that ISIL is a threat to our security while leaving the fight against ISIL to others is abrogating their moral responsibility and their duty of care. If someone is an out-and-out pacifist, I can respectfully disagree with that, but if we believe that in the realities of this world, military action is sometimes one of the necessary courses to take, then let us have a serious debate. I was glad to see that the House gave time for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on Friday.

Her argument was more principled than political, based on the belief that military action is wrong and counterproductive. That view may not be right, but it is sincere. Others seem to be grasping for any reason, though, not to support Canada's mission. Some in this House have questioned what our most elite soldiers could possibly teach Iraqi or Kurdish forces. They have questioned the effectiveness and honour of the Royal Canadian Air Force. They have deflected by pointing at other concerning situations in the world. At the end of the day, we know that pedantry is easier than principles.

It is easier to make excuses than to take responsibility, and it is easier to criticize the risks of action if we are not held accountable for the risks of inaction. However, any government or aspiring government should be held to a higher standard than that. I believe that Canada should be held to a higher standard than that. To quote: “Leadership is not about making the easy decision that goes along with things. It is about taking a stand with our values and our principles.” That was not the Prime Minister .

It was my friend, the leader of the Liberal Party, who said those words a week ago, and I invite members of his party to reflect on them today. The member for Papineau likes to talk authoritatively about the way Canada is supposed to do things. Well, throughout history, my Canada has done its

part in defending the ideals and values that have made our country the envy of the world. My Canada heeds the call. My Canada protects the vulnerable. It challenges the aggressor. My Canada does not leave all the heavy lifting to others. We pick up our tools and we get on with what needs to be done. There was a time when the Liberal Party believed in that.

(1215) The dark clouds of terror are gathering in Iraq and Syria, threatening to strike their thunder from India to Spain. We must not let this storm descend on Canada, and we know that it will if left unchecked. When terrorism is thrust upon us, we must be strong in its face and repudiate it with every ounce of our ability. These terrorists stretch their delusional fantasies across generations and across borders. I urge us to come together in solidarity with those who are being victimized and brutalized, to come together in solidarity with those who are standing up against this terrible, barbaric threat.

As members consider whether to support this motion, I encourage them to ask themselves: What would they say to that Kurdish shopkeeper? What would they say to the women and girls fearing that ISIL will come for them next? What would they say to that fighter pilot looking for a wingman? Let us debate what needs to be done, but let us be Parliament at its best. Let us be Canada at its best. I encourage and urge all members to support the motion before the House. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the minister has taken us up on our request for protection for those who are victimized by sexual violence. We on this side of the House appreciate that. We have been asking for that for months. I have to comment on what was in the minister's speech and what was not. The announcement he is making today, the idea of robust humanitarian support to save lives, we were hoping could have started a month ago. That is not in the motion. In fact, it was a reference in the Prime Minister speech.

What was in the Prime Minister 's speech and in the motion were doors opened that we are very concerned about. I would like the minister to respond to two concerns we have. The first is with respect to opening the door to potential bombing in Syria. Our allies have explicitly closed that door. Why would we do any truck or trade with Bashar al-Assad, who has done such heinous, horrible things to his people? Second, why is there no definition of the territory in which these air strikes will happen? This relates to my first question. These are important issues. They are not defined in the motion.

That is one reason we cannot support the government.

(1220) Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the issues of women, peace, and security; gender-based violence in conflict; and rape as a weapon of war are issues Canada has been working on for a number of years, particularly with the leadership of William Hague in the United Kingdom. Financially, we have been there. In terms of justice, we have been there. We will continue to be there. That is why this was an important part of my remarks. I want to deal directly, though, with the issue of Syria. First, this government is no friend of Assad. We have been very clear on that.

This government is also the only major western government that two and a half years ago did not recognize the opposition in Syria as the sole and legitimate representative of the Syrian people. We took that position at first because we wondered if there would be a place in a pluralistic Syria for minorities. We feared that there might be a small number of radicals and extremists in the opposition. Those fears, unfortunately, were well founded. The opposition has become infected with radical extremists, including ISIL and the al-Nusra brigade. Canada does not support Assad. We do not support his opposition either.

When they commit war crimes, we will stand up and speak ardently against them. What we said in the motion is that we will not intervene in Syria unless the government there agrees to that. We will confine this mission to Iraq. We have been very clear on that. We have been clear on what we are doing and what we are not doing. It is tremendously important that this be before the House. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his words and also for quoting me both accurately and in context, which is always nice to hear in this place.

The question I have goes to what happened in the run-up to the 30-day mission that just ended. At the end of August and in early September, I actually had the opportunity to speak with the minister on multiple occasions about the intention and shape of this 30-day mission, which was a non-combat, advisory mission. We were still sending troops into the area. The Liberal Party was happy to support this concrete action that would help in the fight against ISIS. One of the commitments made by the government around that 30-day mission was that it would assess the effectiveness and results of that mission.

Can the hon. minister please share with us the results of the assessment of how effective our 30-day mission was? Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence , who will be speaking in this place shortly, would be best to answer the assessment of the Canadian Forces, as he is the minister responsible. There is no doubt that the Kurdish Peshmerga forces are very battle tested, but they are battle tested in the mountains, not in a more conventional war with a front line. There is no doubt that they need support, advice, and counsel, and that is exactly what the government committed to.

We had a challenge with the previous Iraqi government in getting troops into the field as quickly as we would have liked. The good news is that Iraq has a more inclusive government today, one that is working with the Kurdish and Sunni populations, which we did not have at the outset of that deployment. However, I will allow my colleague, the Minister of National Defence , to speak to the issue.

(1225) Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech and for his leadership on Canada's response to the threat of ISIL. Some members of the opposition and commentators in the media have raised questions about the legal basis for Canada's involvement in a military mission in Iraq. I wonder if the minister could address those issues for us. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the democratically elected government of Iraq has asked the world for assistance and has asked Canada to participate.

This initiative has obviously been before the United Nations Security Council, where the Prime Minister showed great leadership by speaking, as I did at a previous Security Council meeting, in the last two weeks. It obviously has the blessing of both the UN Security Council and the government of Iraq. We do not have any legal authorization in Syria. As despicable as the political leadership is in Syria, and with respect to the motion before Parliament, we obviously do not have any legal basis at this stage for that effort. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to raise one question about some of the remarks the minister made just now in answer to the parliamentary secretary's question and also, on the weekend, on CBC radio. He said that there was a unanimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council regarding the operation in Iraq. Again, the minister said that it has the authorization of the UN Security Council.

It is very clear, and I want to give the minister an opportunity to clarify it to the House and to the public, that UN Security Council resolution 2178 deals with the whole issue of foreign terrorist fighters travelling from their home countries to Iraq or elsewhere. It is a very general resolution. It deals specifically with asking countries to prevent people from within their borders, on a domestic basis, from engaging in foreign terrorism. That is the thrust of that motion. It was not a motion to authorize any campaign in Iraq involving military action such as is being suggested in the motion.

Would the minister please clarify those remarks? I think it is very misleading to suggest that the United Nations Security Council has authorized either the U.S. campaign or the campaign we are talking about here today. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, there were two Security Council resolutions. Under the United States' chairmanship and presidency of the council, Secretary Kerry had one meeting and President Obama presided over another meeting. The legal authorization is that the democratically elected Government of Iraq has invited and asked for this support and assistance.

The Security Council does not need to authorize it, but is certainly seized with the issue in support of the initiative. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I present my prepared remarks about the government motion to send Canadian troops and fighter jets to Iraq for a combat mission, I would like to address some of the comments made by the minister who just spoke. [ English ] I will start by reminding my friend that although his answer to my colleague, our critic for defence, was artful, it was not accurate.

He said on the air this weekend that there was a United Nations resolution that unanimously allowed for this mission. That is simply false. There is no such resolution. We can read it in its entirety. It is quite long. The

preamble is very long. It sets things out. It is simply not true that this is a United Nations mission. The minister is far too intelligent and far too experienced to know that. He said that on the air, and people will be able to check the record of what he said and compare it to what he just said again here today. The other thing is that in his remarks earlier, the minister claimed that the government had articulated clearly the reasons for this mission, the end game and what it was supposed to be about. That is not true, and I will point that out citing

chapter and verse of the alternating versions we have received from the government. There was something most shocking in Friday's speech in the House by the Prime Minister , and I am anxious to hear the Prime Minister today. It is always important to hear from his foreign affairs minister , but the Prime Minister, of course, should be front and centre in this debate. In describing ISIL, the minister said that the reason they were going to go after this group was because they raped, pillaged and slaughtered. No one is underestimating the horrors that we have seen.

In this day and age, they come instantaneously either to our TV screen or through other media. However, if we contrast that with what was in the Prime Minister 's speech verbatim Friday, repeated just now by the foreign affairs minister , the foreign affairs minister said that his government was no friend of Assad. I am more than willing to take the foreign affairs minister at his word, but actions speak louder than words. What the Prime Minister did say in his speech on Friday was that if there were a request from Assad to bomb in Syria, he would follow that request.

What that means in real simple terms that every Canadian can understand is that the Prime Minister of Canada is according a great deal of credibility to Bashar al-Assad and his murderous, genocidal regime. We give them no such credibility on this side of the House. How can the government on the one hand claim that the Assad regime is not even worth talking to and then on the other hand say “but when they ask us we're going to respond to their request”? They are mutually exclusive and it shows a total lack of structure in the thinking of the government. It also shows a lack of rigorous thought.

It shows a lack, frankly, of ethics on the international stage. We also heard the minister say a little earlier that one could not deliver humanitarian aid unless one was involved in the combat mission itself, in the bombing. Hon. John Baird: I did not say that. Hon. Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, look at the countries that are indeed close to us, many of which the government likes to cite, but that are not involved in any combat mission. Italy, Germany, Norway, all close NATO allies, all are involved in providing aid and all are rejecting air strikes, as Canada should reject air strikes.

The minister said as well that people were grasping for any reason. What a haughty and dismissive way to deal with people who just do not agree with him, that more bombing is a way to peace in a region that has already seen too much war. We respectfully disagree with the government on this.

(1230) Thoughtful editorial comment across the country has said just the opposite. I will only read two, but they are well worth reading. I will read Agnès Gruda from La Presse of Saturday, October 4. I will then read Peggy Mason, who just yesterday, Sunday, October 5, wrote a very thoughtful piece in the Ottawa Citizen . It is important to know that Peggy Mason is Canada's former United Nations ambassador for disarmament and an adviser to the then Conservative external affairs minister, Joe Clark. Hon. John Baird: Progressive. Mr. Thomas Mulcair: Mr.

Speaker, the minister throws out the word “Progressive” as if it were a slur. Yes, she was a Progressive Conservative. [ Translation ] In the Saturday, October 4, 2014, edition of La Presse , Agnès Gruda wrote an

article about this war, which is looking grim. It reads: Australia has done so, as have France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. A dozen countries have already agreed to participate in the American air strikes [not UN air strikes, American air strikes] against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) armed group. And Canada will join them next week. The debate on this military engagement brings back bad memories of the war against Saddam Hussein, in which Canada had the good sense not to participate... However, the Iraq of 2014 is different from the Iraq of 2003. This time, we are not facing an imaginary threat.

Since it took Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, four months ago, ISIS has had ample time to show what its men are capable of. A report published by the UN on Thursday describes the abuses that have been committed against Iraqi civilians in the past four months.

Summary executions, gang rape, abductions and public hangings: the men of ISIS are slaughtering civilians without remorse. On the ground, jihadists are threatening to expand their territory. Yesterday, the battle continued for the Syrian town of Kobani on the Turkish border. So yes, there are excellent reasons to want to stop these bloodthirsty fanatics, including by means of an international military offensive, if necessary. But not just any military offensive.

Unfortunately, the United States' military operation is rather haphazard... “The strikes so far have had a negative impact politically,” notes Robert Blecher, an International Crisis Group analyst who believes that the coalition is repeating past mistakes. One of the main risks associated with this offensive is that it could end up alienating the very people the coalition is claiming to save from the Islamists.

Robert Blecher gave the example of Syrian villages that were bombed one day by the American army and the next by the Bashar al-Assad regime. “On the ground, it is very difficult to understand where, exactly, the missiles are coming from. And it is very difficult to explain to the dominant rebel groups why Assad is not being bombed.” Rebel groups that are waiting for western aid are left with the impression that they are being fed to the sharks,

whereas civilians feel as though they are the target of fire meant for the Sunni. According to Robert Blecher, “This is creating an extremely difficult situation politically.” And exactly who are the targets? Two weeks ago, the Americans bombed a brigade affiliated with another group of jihadist rebels, the al-Nusra Front. However, this group is fighting on two fronts: it is fighting against Bashar al-Assad AND against ISIS, its arch-enemy. By raining down fire on the al-Nusra Front, the United States lent a helping hand to the “bad guys” they are trying to destroy. That is rather ironic.

(1235) Let us come back to Iraq. There too, the line between the good guys and the bad guys is not always clear. According to the UN report, the Iraqi army and various Shia militias are not all sweetness and light. Here too, then, the air strikes might have unintended consequences, including radicalizing those we claim to be protecting, in all the confusion. “No one knows exactly what the coalition's strategy is”, sums up the German weekly Der Spiegel in a lengthy analysis. This current offensive raises more questions than it answers.

Is this fight against ISIS only, or all Islamists, including the members of the al-Nusra Front? That raises another question: how do we avoid helping Bashar al-Assad, thereby alienating the Syrian rebels we might not want to alienate? More broadly, is there a post-war political strategy, both for Iraq and for Syria? Finally, is enough care being taken to ensure that there is local support for this offensive, without which is it doomed to fail? When ISIS appeared in Iraq in the mid-2000s, the response did not come from the sky...but from the local Sunni tribes, which managed to contain it.

It has been able to expand as much as it has this year because those same tribes no longer trust Baghdad's Shia power. To deal with the very real threat that ISIS represents, we need to offer a “political solution to Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis”, suggests Robert Blecher. He claims this solution exists, even in Syria, where there are still Sunni rebels that are entirely acceptable to the international community. The problem is that the current war against ISIS might convert these potential allies of the West into enemies...

With all these religious faiths, tribes and civil wars, the situations in Iraq and Syria are extremely complex. Simply put, yes, ISIS can be fought with weapons, but this war is looking pretty grim. Nothing in the [Prime Minister]'s speech suggests that he plans to use his power of influence to realign things. That was an opinion piece in French by Agnès Gruda in La Presse .

Peggy Mason, Canada's former UN ambassador for disarmament and special adviser to former Progressive Conservative minister of external affairs Joe Clark, was quoted yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen , as follows: (1240) [ English ] “[Prime Minister]'s Iraq plan may make matters worse, says former ambassador”. [The Prime Minister] will put Canada’s proposed combat military mission in Iraq to a vote on Monday. Recent polls have suggested that Canadians slightly favour the bombing mission to confront the threat posed by the extremist organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

It comes as no surprise that Canadians want to help and “do something.” But [the Prime Minister]'s plan to send Canadian warplanes to join the U.S.-led coalition’s bombing of Iraq may just make matters worse. [The Prime Minister] and his allies are underestimating their opponents as a bunch of religious extremists bent on spreading wanton mayhem and terror. Islamic State may be brutally ruthless, but they know exactly what they are doing.

Their core is made up of seasoned, motivated fighters and an extremely experienced leadership that go back to the “dirty war” waged by the American and British Special Forces in Iraq between 2006 and 2009. ISIL is playing a strategical game of chess with its every move, while the West is playing military tic-tac-toe. ISIL is not just a military organization, it is a political movement with a well-thought-out ideology, however abhorrent it may be to the West. It governs the huge areas it controls in Iraq and Syria.

Ruthless in eliminating any potential opponents, it also provides electricity, food and other vital services for ordinary people in the areas it controls. That is why American air strikes against ISIL recently targeted not only oil and gas facilities but also grain elevators--a highly problematic course of action in both legal and humanitarian terms, particularly if the conflict is to be a long one. To date Western military action has been disastrously counterproductive. [The Prime Minister] says “we” are not responsible for the chaos in Libya.

Yet it is absolutely clear that the NATO-led military victory in Libya was a pyrrhic one which paved the way for the civil war that followed. We have to remember how we got to this point. Time and again in the past, we have chosen war over negotiations. Look at the lessons of Libya. Had we not exceeded the UN mandate in Libya (which excluded regime change), we could have negotiated a power-sharing deal...that would have promoted incremental democratic reform and not left a power vacuum to be filled by extremists, including ISIL. Exactly the same lesson can be learned from Syria.

Had the West not insisted on Assad's immediate departure and refused to allow Iran a seat at the table, Kofi Annan's power-sharing arrangement within a transitional government would have paved the way for incremental democratic reforms in Syria and, once again, would have left much less room for extremists like ISIL to operate. A UN mandate privileging inclusive governance and democratic reforms in concert with robust military support has been central to recent progress in Somalia and Mali.

A UN mandate is also possible for effective intervention in Iraq and Syria if all necessary players, including Russia and Iran, are brought fully into the negotiations, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are at the core of the political strategy, not just token participants. A comprehensive, broadly supported and UN-mandated approach is long overdue in the heretofore disastrously counterproductive war on terror. Let this enlightened approach be the basis for Canadian action in Iraq and Syria.

As I said, that is from Peggy Mason, Canada's former UN ambassador for disarmament and adviser to then Progressive Conservative external affairs minister Joe Clark. (1245) [ Translation ] Twelve years ago, the Government of Canada launched a reconstruction mission in Afghanistan, a country ravaged by the war that began in 1979 with the invasion by the former Soviet Union. The objective was to bring stability and security to the new government in Kabul. Over the years, the Liberal government radically transformed the mission. What began as a reconstruction mission quickly transformed into a combat mission.

This did not change when the Conservatives came to power. On the contrary, the mission and the combat role were extended. A few dozen specialist members in a mission that had a very short timeframe became 40,000 Canadian soldiers in the longest combat mission in the history of our country. We spent at least $30 billion, 160 soldiers were killed, thousands were injured, and let us not forget—because we tend to forget them—the thousands of men and women who returned suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

The Canadian Forces strayed far from the original reconstruction mission, which had turned primarily into a combat mission. What is interesting—and you know it because you were there, Mr. Speaker—is that despite all the vicious attacks against him by the Conservatives, Jack Layton had the courage to do what had to be done and to say what had to be said. [ English ] Jack Layton asked tough questions to the Conservative minister of defence at the time. It was the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills who was the minister.

Here are key questions that the former minister might remember Jack asking him: What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives? What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced? What are the criteria that [we will be using] to measure progress? What is the definition of success...? Does it sound familiar? Of course it does. Those are the same questions that the NDP are asking today about the deployment in Iraq.

In fact, the very same questions were asked about the mission in Afghanistan to the Liberal government just a few months before they were asked to the Conservative member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills , with good reasons. These questions are legitimate, and Canadians deserve answers. (1250) [ Translation ] The NDP also forced a debate and a vote in the House of Commons. At the time, the Prime Minister managed to extend the mission in Afghanistan with the support of the Liberals.

The NDP opposed extending the mission, and I am still very proud of that today. [ English ] Even if we have not always agreed, there is a proud tradition in Canada and in the House of working together respectfully on issues of war and peace. In 1991, for example, NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin was sworn in to the Privy Council so that she could receive classified information on the first Gulf War. The same courtesy was extended to Bill Blaikie, and the Prime Minister himself, at the beginning of the Liberal engagement in Afghanistan. Later, that was extended to Jack Layton as well.

It is only fair to say that the Prime Minister continued this tradition at first. The Prime Minister briefed Jack Layton on our mission in Libya, and he briefed me on our mission to Mali, yet now, as the Prime Minister takes Canada to war in Iraq, there is silence. Worse yet, Conservatives have gone out of their way to stifle informed debate. The Prime Minister , with the support of the Liberals, launched us into the war in Iraq with what he claimed was a 30-day non-combat mission. He promised Canada's involvement would be “re-evaluated at the end of this first deployment”.

On September 15, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said there were already 69 Canadian soldiers on the ground. On September 26, the Prime Minister himself claimed there were “several dozen” Canadian Forces personnel in Iraq. However, according to Radio-Canada, these claims were false. The first 26 from Canadian Forces did not arrive in Iraq until 23 days into the 30-day mission. The Prime Minister did not deny that when I asked him the question specifically in the House last week. How can we evaluate a mission when troops have been on the ground for only a week?

It sounds disingenuous. The promise that Canadian involvement in Iraq would be re-evaluated after a month, frankly, was just that; it was disingenuous, if not a sham: a 30-day mission to get Canada into this war without a debate or a vote in Parliament, setting the stage for this escalation. The lack of clear and honest information from the government only continues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs refuses to state where Canadian aircraft will be based. He said it is an operational detail that he is not prepared to discuss. However, other countries have been told where their forces are stationed.

For that matter, Canada has always revealed where its aircraft have been based in past conflicts. Why the refusal to provide this information now? In one breath the Minister of Foreign Affairs insisted that Canadian Forces will be under the command of the Chief of the Defence Staff of our country, but he said in the next interview that it will be “working under the leadership of the United States”. What is that supposed to mean? Just as the Prime Minister has refused to provide clear information about the mission, he has been unable to clearly explain the mission's goals.

We are a long way from the boast of the minister at the beginning of his remarks today. On September 30, when asked how he would define victory in Iraq, the Prime Minister said that ISIS was planning attacks “against large populations in the region” and “against this country”, Canada. He said Canada would “work with our allies on a counterterrorism operation to get us to the point where this organization does not have the capacity to launch those kinds of attacks.” However, in his speech to the House last Friday, the Prime Minister was already walking back on that description of his goals.

Then he said we needed only to “degrade the capabilities of ISIL”, specifically their ability to conduct large-scale military movements and operate in the open. This weekend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs lowered expectations even further, saying that if they could “contain this problem, stop it growing”, that alone would be a “significant accomplishment”. Inaccurate information and shifting

definitions of success have been the hallmarks of the American war in Iraq since the invasion began. Remember the United States has been in this conflict for over 10 years. It has been fighting ISIS, under one name or another, for over 10 years. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council, the Islamic State of Iraq, and al-Sham, Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade.

Why does the Prime Minister think he can use military force to accomplish what others have been trying unsuccessfully to do since 2003? The Prime Minister has twice insisted in this House that the mission will not become a “quagmire”. It is his word, and he keeps using it over and over again, saying that it will not be a “quagmire”. Wìth the Prime Minister throwing around the word quagmire multiple times when this mission has barely begun, let me be honest, we do not think it bodes very well.

This weekend on The West Block with Tom Clark, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was already contemplating returning to the House of Commons for another extension after the next six months, planning for the next escalation before this one has even begun, before it has even been voted on in Parliament.

Robert Fowler, Canada's longest-serving ambassador to the UN and adviser to three Prime Ministers on foreign policy, said, “Our coalition's mission will inevitably creep.... [we] will bomb evermore. ...predators will hunt more widely and more indiscriminately.... [we] will kill and maim many, many more innocent civilians than the caliphate could behead in its wildest dreams.” In fact, the Prime Minister has already acknowledged that he is prepared to extend the bombing to Syria.

What is more, the Prime Minister has even set the bizarre and distasteful standard that he will launch air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria if asked to do so by the regime of brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. The list of Assad's own atrocities is almost unspeakable, and we find it reprehensible that the Prime Minister would give him any credibility at all, much less a voice in determining what our brave women and men in uniform do to defend our country. Let us look at a list of those atrocities from official sites. Assad's attacks are ongoing.

The United Nations has noted that there were 29 massacres by forces loyal to Assad in 2014 alone.

(1255) There has been the use of chemical weapons. The attack in the Ghouta area of Damascus is the most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since 1988 and the worse use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century. The United States estimates that just under 1,500 civilians were killed. There has been the indiscriminate use of barrel bombs. Syrian government forces have dropped barrel bombs on civilian areas, including hospitals and schools, with devastating results.

Some believe that barrel bomb attacks have contained the chemical agent chlorine in eight incidents in April 2014. There has been the targeting of civilians by snipers, including children and pregnant women. There has been the targeting of doctors, nurses, paramedics, hospitals, ambulances and pharmacies for attacks. There has been the systematic torture and deaths of detainees. As many as 11,000 people in jails have been killed between March 2011 and August 2013.

Assad's forces systematically arrest wounded patients in state hospitals to interrogate them, often using torture, about their supposed participation in opposition demonstrations or armed activities. There have been

summary executions and extrajudicial killings, including the massacre at Houla, where over 100 civilians were killed, half of them children, and entire families were shot dead in their homes. There has been sexual violence against women, men and children in detention to degrade and humiliate detainees. Women and children have been sexually assaulted during home raids and ground operations. Starvation has been used as a weapon of war with at least 128 civilians starved to death in a besieged refugee camp near Damascus in 2014.

Of the camp's 18,000 to 20,000 civilians, 60% suffered from malnourishment as of the spring of this year. In his speech in the House on Friday, the Prime Minister of Canada said that if the person responsible for those atrocities makes the request, he, the Prime Minister of Canada, will answer positively. We find that shameful. This is among the many reasons that so many of our allies have expressed concern with so many elements of this mission. This mission has no mandate from the UN and no mandate from NATO.

The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have listed some of our traditional allies that are participating, such as Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Denmark. However, Britain and Denmark refuse to engage in bombing in Syria, even if Bashar al-Assad asks them. Italy and Germany have rejected any involvement in the combat mission altogether. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has tried to cover for the serious questions being raised about this mission. This weekend he claimed: ...the Security Council has been seized with this issue and has passed a resolution unanimously with respect to the operation in Iraq.

That statement is outright and unquestionably false. To quote just one source, and it is worth reading the resolution because it is quite long, The New York Times , on September 27, simply stated that the UN Security Council resolution on Iraq and Syria “does not authorize military action by any country”. That is everyone's analysis because that is what is in the UN Security Council resolution. We cannot make it say something that it does not say. There is overwhelming agreement here at home and abroad about the need to confront the horrors perpetrated by ISIS.

However, there is no agreement that western military force is the answer. Nearly three weeks ago the Israeli newspaper Haaretz was already reporting that ISIS had recruited more than 6,000 new fighters since the United States began its air strikes in August. At least 1,300 of these fighters come from abroad. Alexander Panetta of the Canadian Press reports: ...the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that five civilians were killed in airstrikes on oil refineries; two workers were killed in a Manbej grain mill; and six male civilians were killed in the southern countryside at al-Hasakah.

The group says it’s aware of at least 73 people joining ISIL in the Aleppo area, in the wake of the first U.S.-led airstrikes.

(1300) Peggy Mason, the former UN ambassador for disarmament whom I quoted earlier at length, had this to say: [The Prime Minister] and his allies are underestimating their opponents as a bunch of religious extremists bent on spreading wanton mayhem and terror.... ISIL is playing a strategical game of chess with its every move, while the West is playing military tic-tac-toe.... To date Western military action has been disastrously counterproductive.

Robert Fowler, our longest serving ambassador to the UN, as I said, who has indeed advised three prime ministers, had this to say: [ISIS] know the propaganda value of poking sticks into American eyes, or knives into Western throats.... They know full well that ill-informed and poorly executed Western forays into “Muslim lands” have been disastrous for us—and they are anxious to lure us into further folly.

They are confident that by so doing they will dramatically increase their recruiting base, their authority, and the scope and impact of their movement; and they simply do not give a damn about the numbers they will lose in the process. Truly, in their eyes, such losses are a blessing....

We have, in other words, responded in precisely the way they counted on us to do. (1305) [ Translation ] The German weekly Der Spiegel said, “No one knows exactly what the coalition's strategy is.” This is what Robert Blecher, an international relations analyst, had to say: The strikes so far have had a negative impact politically...On the ground, it is very difficult to understand where, exactly, the missiles are coming from.

And it is very difficult to explain to the dominant rebel groups why Assad is not being bombed...This is creating an extremely difficult situation politically... [ English ] However, military force is not our only option. New Democrats have called on the government to dramatically increase humanitarian aid in Iraq, which at last count stands at just $28 million. I will say, though, that I was very happy to hear an announcement, which we have been calling for, for a specific sum. The sum of $5 million was mentioned for victims of sexual violence. That is a good thing that the government announced today.

We wanted to say clearly and on the record that we congratulate the government for that part of its announcement today. In one of the government's few actions to co-operate with other parties here in the House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs brought his counterparts in the opposition to Iraq. It was humanitarian aid, not air strikes, that leaders on the ground requested. We can also help forces in the region to build the capacity to confront ISIS itself. Canada is already aiding in the shipment of weapons to Kurdish Iraqi forces. We agree with that.

That is the gist of the United Nations Security Council resolution—give the Iraqis the ability to defend themselves. It should be a priority for Canada to determine exactly which groups can be trusted with such aid. Ultimately, the solution to this tragic conflict will come from those in the region and the international community as a whole, not simply the west. There, Canada's phenomenal diplomats can play a key role. Allow me once again to quote Peggy Mason, former UN ambassador for disarmament. She said: We have to remember how we got to this point.

Time and again in the past, we have chosen war over negotiations.... A UN mandate privileging inclusive governance and democratic reforms in concert with robust military support has been central to recent progress in Somalia and Mali. A UN mandate is also possible for effective intervention in Iraq and Syria if all necessary players, including Russia and Iran, are brought fully into the negotiations, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are at the core of the political strategy, not just token participants.

A comprehensive, broadly supported and UN-mandated approach is long overdue in the heretofore disastrously counterproductive war on terror. Let this enlightened approach be the basis for Canadian action in Iraq and Syria.

[ Translation ] Robert Blecher also said that to deal with this threat, we need to offer a “political solution to Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis”. [ English ] ISIS has thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, well-functioning governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders. Canada's first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground and to strengthen political institutions in both those countries.

With the well-deserved credibility Canada earned by rejecting the initial ill-advised invasion of Iraq, we are in a position to take on that task. The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another western-led invasion in that region. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria to build the political institutions and security capabilities they need to oppose these threats themselves. It is for these reasons that I move: Amendment That Government Business No. 13 be amended: (

a) by replacing clause (iii) with the following: (iii) accept that, unless confronted with strong and direct force from capable and enabled local forces, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow,”; and (

b) by replacing all of the words after the word “accordingly” with the following: “(

a) call on the Government to contribute to the fight against ISIL, including military support for the transportation of weapons for a period of up to three months; (

b) call on the Government to boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be immediate, life-saving impact, including contributing to building winterized camps for refugees; and investing in water, sanitation and hygiene, health and education for people displaced by the fighting; (

c) call on the Government to provide assistance to investigation and prosecution of war crimes; (

d) call on the Government to not deploy the Canadian Forces in combat operations; (

e) call on the Government to seek House approval for any extension of the mission, or any involvement of Canadian Forces in Syria; (

f) call on the Government to report back on the costs of the mission on a monthly basis to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; and, (

g) continue to offer its resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us.”.

(1310) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the official opposition for his remarks. However, I find it disappointing that for someone who a few weeks ago suggested that there should be a debate in the House any time the Canadian Forces deployed, it is a little disappointing to see him outsource a good portion of his contribution to this debate to La Presse , the Ottawa Citizen , The Globe and Mail , The New York Times and Der Spiegel .

He mentioned a few genuine, legitimate questions about any military deployment: cost, how to define success, and the complexity of the situation on the ground with ISIL. However, I did not hear in one clear and articulate sentence a reason why the NDP feels that, at the request of our allies, we should not play an active role but should only be transporting weapons and trying to bring humanitarian aid to an area that is in severe conflict. I would ask the leader of the opposition for a simple sentence articulating why he does not feel Canada should serve alongside our allies. Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr.

Speaker, it is quite obvious to anyone who has been following this debate that the Prime Minister is outsourcing to his parliamentary secretary . We would like to hear from the Prime Minister in this important debate. New Democrats have been saying for some time now that a lot of our NATO allies feel exactly as we do. They feel that there is no reason to be involved in these air strikes, because, as the experts that I quoted have clearly said—and we share that view—at this stage, air strikes are not what is required.

When my colleague and friend, the NDP representative who speaks for us on foreign affairs matters, the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre , went to Iraq just a couple of weeks ago, what he heard were requests for humanitarian aid, not for more bombing in an area that has already seen more than enough. The government has its approach. New Democrats are cognizant, as I have mentioned in my speech and has been taken up by the papers, that a slight majority of Canadians are in favour of that, but on this side of the House, we have always stood on principle.

When we realized that everything that is unfolding before our eyes is a direct result of the wrong-headed mission in 2003, we know that more bombing is not the answer. (1315) [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, a little over a month ago, as we prepared for the 30-day mission, the Liberal critics and I were invited to participate in information sessions on this non-combat mission, as were all official opposition members, I am sure. Today, we are talking about a combat mission that will surely last a long time—surely more than the planned six months.

This is a much more serious mission. Could the hon. member for Outremont confirm what he just said, because I cannot believe it. Is it true that, as leader of the official opposition and member of the Queen's Privy Council, the hon. member did not receive any additional briefing from this government to receive information and explanations to justify the proposed combat mission and this government's desire to send Canadians to war in Iraq? Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure what he means by “briefing”, but if my colleague wants to know whether I got any kind of information from the Prime Minister , as I did for the mission in Mali, the answer is no. I did not receive any communication from the Prime Minister regarding this mission.

That is clear, and I repeat what I said in my speech. [ English ] What is also important for Canadians to understand is that the Liberals can try to do whatever they want today to put that toothpaste back in the tube, but they supported the government for the mission in Iraq, and that will be a part of history they will have to live with. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very inspiring speech—as always—and for the detailed measures we are proposing in this amendment.

These measures will affect refugees and displaced persons within the country. They also make me think of the Syrian refugees in Iraq, since the government had promised to take in 1,300 Syrian refugees here, in Canada. The last I heard, fewer than 300 had arrived here. Could the leader of the opposition speak to that? Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, it is often said that the first casualty of war is the truth. In my earlier remarks, I showed how this government has been sincere about one thing after another.

We heard one version one day, another the next and a third the following day, each delivered with as much sincerity as the last. Not all of these things can be true at the same time. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration hung up on the CBC's Carol Off because she dared to ask him for real numbers of people who have come to Canada. The minister's behaviour was absolutely unheard of in Canada. When he came here on the night of the emergency debate, which the Liberals requested but during which the Liberal leader did not see fit to speak, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration evoked George W.

Bush's canard of weapons of mass destruction to justify the war in Iraq. With truths like that, it is not surprising that nobody is willing to give exact numbers. However, it is clear that, unlike other allies, such as Norway, Canada is not pulling its weight. It is not shouldering its share of this important burden with those kinds of refugee numbers. Just ask Turkish representatives, who are begging Canada to help them with the more than one million refugees in that country. We are definitely not doing our

part in this international humanitarian crisis. (1320) [ English ] Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments and a question. The Leader of the Opposition cites some comments made by people about command as being somehow contradictory and misleading, but for his clarification and perhaps for others, the Canadian Forces are always under the national command of the Chief of the Defence Staff, wherever they are.

When they are operating in a theatre, they are under the operational command of whoever is commanding that theatre, just as Americans were under a Canadian command in Afghanistan, so it is not misleading the House at all. We left Afghanistan much better off than how we found it. Will it last? That will ultimately be up to them, but it was a combination of combat, surely, and a lot of rebuilding, much of which was in fact carried out by men and women in uniform. I do not disagree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that a long-term solution requires sorting out the Sunni and Shia situation.

That is true. However, I would like to ask him more about the short term. Can we stop the short-term violence by ISIL without force? Can we negotiate the cessation of ISIL's short-term and obviously violent activity without force and simply by negotiation? What is his solution to stop ISIL from beheading people tomorrow? Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before. These are the exact same arguments that were used about the Taliban in Afghanistan to begin with. For 10 years Canada was there. We sent 40,000 troops and $30 billion, and the result is less than certain, to be charitable.

Today we are hearing a report from the United States that air strikes have not stopped ISIS from moving on to the key Syrian city of Kobani. They have just changed their tactics. The real question is, why would we be involved in that violence? Why would we give credibility? The member has already served proudly in the Canadian Armed Forces. Why would we give credibility to a character like Bashar al-Assad by showing that if he makes a request, we will answer that request? That gives him a credibility he does not deserve.

He is a genocidal maniac, and we should not be giving him any credibility at all. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra . The question we are debating today is the following: should we send our troops to Iraq on a combat mission? As members of Parliament, we must all carefully consider the issues before us before making an informed and extremely serious decision. Our decision will have heavy and lasting consequences. We are talking about going to war.

Needless to say, the 308 members of the House will have to live with the consequences of this decision, which will be voted on shortly. [ English ] There are many points in the government's motion with which the Liberal Party agrees: the evil that is ISIL, the need for a broad coalition to take on ISIL, the need to provide far greater humanitarian assistance to the million-plus victims displaced by the advance of ISIL, and the need for Canada to contribute to the coalition. No party can claim the high ground in condemning ISIL. We all forcefully condemn this abhorrent, barbaric group of terrorists.

None of that is open to question. The question is, what should Canada do in order to contribute in the best possible manner to the collective effort to defeat ISIL? When that question is posed, there is a fundamental and consequential second question that follows: should we contribute to a combat or a non-combat mission? That is what we are debating today. Let me say from the outset that the Prime Minister has failed to make a clear case for a Canadian combat role in Iraq at this time. The Prime Minister is taking us across the Rubicon by deciding on a combat mission.

Once a country makes that decision, there is no turning back the clock. (1325) [ Translation ] When the government announced the first mission to Iraq, namely sending special forces to advise and train Kurdish forces, my party gave its support. We clearly recognize the need to do something to help Iraq. We believe that beyond a combat mission, there are a number of ways a country can contribute to protecting the citizens of another country. In early September, I visited the Kurdish region of Iraq, so I have an idea of the complexity of the military challenge, as well as the extent of the humanitarian catastrophe.

Canada cannot stand idly by. We must not only contribute much more than the $29 million already sent in humanitarian aid, but also help in other ways. I am very pleased to know that the government just added a new contribution of $10 million. That brings us to the contribution that the Prime Minister announced on Friday. [ English ] The Prime Minister has proposed six CF-18 strike aircraft as the centrepiece of our contribution, thereby opting for a Canadian combat role. This leads to the obvious question: has the Canadian mission been clearly and fully defined? The answer is no.

Defining a mission is much more than stating what assets we will contribute and then establishing a deadline. Going to war is an extraordinarily complex undertaking, and it has to be thought through. Let me give the House an example. When George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, he only thought out step one, which was to capture Baghdad. After that, what? We saw what happened because of the failure to understand the overall challenge. At this moment, the United States will lead in this coalition effort, and it is still working out an overall coalition strategy to defeat ISIL. This is the job given to General Allen.

It is an extremely complex undertaking that rests on the assumption that Iraqi forces must eventually dislodge and defeat ISIL in a ground campaign. Should Canada be rushing in with an air combat mission? The answer is no. In the end, when we are talking about a combat role, getting in seems very straightforward, but getting out is much less so. The right approach is certainly not to say that Canada will go into Iraq with strike aircraft but may pull out in six months. The right approach is to give the most careful consideration to our objectives before we send our men and women into harm's way.

That has not been done by the government. However, there is something that we can do at this time. There are significant, substantial non-combat roles that Canada can play, and to suggest that our contribution has no value unless we are contributing to a combat role is offensive to me. There are as many as 60 partners in the coalition, and each has chosen to contribute in their own way to the defeat of ISIL, whether by providing weapons, base facilities, strategic airlift, humanitarian aid, surveillance and other intelligence, or advice in training.

All this is to say there are many different ways to contribute, and they are all important. It has been said that when it comes to sharing the burden of military intervention, the sacrifice that counts lies in the willingness to take casualties, and last Friday the Prime Minister said that “...being a free rider means not being taken seriously.” I really object to that comment.

It implies that we are taking the easy way out if we choose to contribute to the war effort in other ways. (1330) [ Translation ] Did the Prime Minister really say, last Friday, that Canada would not be taken seriously if it contributed to the coalition by any means other than a combat mission with air strikes?

Are the majority of partners of this coalition less engaged or, in the words of the Prime Minister , less noble, because they choose to contribute to defeating ISIL by other means? [ English ] Let me say that I also dispute the Prime Minister 's assertion that air strikes are the hard thing to do, and his implication, by extension, that other roles are easy or require less courage. It is hard work on the ground to train and advise forces, help refugees, provide medical aid, undertake air surveillance, provide strategic airlift, and provide humanitarian aid.

While these tasks are not combat roles, they are still important tasks, many needing to be performed by our military. I would also challenge his assertion that we are somehow abandoning our allies if we opt out of air strikes. Nobody has accused Canada of not pulling its weight in the past 20 years, or indeed, during the entire period that we have been a country. Ultimately, defeating ISIL will only happen on the ground. There are important non-combat contributions Canada can make in this effort. Let me conclude. There is a clear line between non-combat and combat.

If the Prime Minister wants to take us, in Canada, across that line, he must make the case to Canadians as to why. The Prime Minister has not given us reason to believe that once in combat the government will be able to limit our role. Once the line is crossed into combat, as the government is doing, it is no simple matter to cross back over. We all know that this conflict is likely to last a long time. Deciding in six months to pull out of combat could be very problematic for Canada, depending on the situation, and the pressure will be on us to remain.

That is why the Liberal Party of Canada will not support the Prime Minister 's motion to take on a combat role in Iraq. Saying we will review it in six months is not an exit strategy. We have the capabilities to meaningfully assist, in a non-combat role, in a well-defined international mission in Iraq. [ Translation ] There are more than just the two extreme options of, on the one hand, refusing any military role and, on the other, having Canada rush into combat without understanding all the consequences. It is incumbent upon us to make the right decision when we vote on this mission. [ English ] Mr.

Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for his speech and for his previous service in the armed forces. The member mentioned that when we go to war, we need to think it through. Perhaps that lesson was lost on the Liberal Party when it sent troops to Afghanistan in forest green fatigues, black boots, and unarmoured Iltis jeeps. The Liberals obviously did not think that through very far. I have another question.

In the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition , it says that they do not wish to deploy the Canadian Forces in combat operations. We know the position of the NDP is to never deploy the Canadian Armed Forces in combat operations. What would it take to get the Liberal Party of Canada on board for a combat mission, if not to fight ISIS in this situation, with the egregious acts it is committing in that part of the world? Mr. Marc Garneau : Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech, he would recognize very clearly that we are prepared to play a role here.

We are not looking back on Afghanistan and other places, where all governments may have made some mistakes. What we are talking about is the current situation that is in front of us at this particular point in time. We have made it very clear that we are not prepared, because the government has not made the case, to vote in favour of a combat mission. However, we are prepared to play a military role of a non-combat nature. On that subject, we know that the NDP is very much in favour of an increased humanitarian role, and we agree with that.

We know that the NDP does not want to do a combat role, and we agree with that. I have been trying to find out whether the NDP would be prepared to consider a military role of a non-combat nature.

(1335) Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Westmount—Ville-Marie for his intervention in this debate and for his remarks in the last number of weeks at both the foreign affairs committee and on numerous television programs. I just want to ask him this, because I was confused along the way. There was wholehearted support and unquestioning support for the initial mission, despite the lack of answers from the government. There were times when he was supporting a combat mission and air strikes, and other days when he was not. Some days he was supporting both positions.

I think it was as late as last Sunday. Therefore, I am wondering what it is about this particular government proposal that led him and his party to all of a sudden say that they would not support a combat mission for the Canadian Forces in Iraq? Mr. Marc Garneau : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. He and I have spent quite a bit of time on panels in the last week or so on this particular issue. That is why I am little surprised that he has some confusion in his mind about the position we are taking.

In fact, it is something New Democrats have brought up on more than one occasion. They do not seem to realize that when we agreed initially to what the government proposed, which was a 30-day behind-the-wire advisory role for up to 60 special forces, we gave our support to that. The key word there is “non-combat”, but somehow that has been morphed by the NDP into “combat”. We have been in favour of doing this since the beginning. I would urge my colleagues from the NDP to understand that this is a very complex matter.

It is extremely important to fully understand the difference between combat and non-combat, military and non-military. We are talking about something very important. I think it is disingenuous of the NDP to try to throw a fog over all of this, because I think we have been extremely clear. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on the government's decision to take Canada into war in Iraq and possibly Syria. I am proud to note that the Liberal Party leader spoke extensively on the party's position just this past Friday.

Regrettably, a combat decision has already been taken and first troops have already deployed. The Liberal leader and members hold the principle that the case for entering this or any war must be made openly and transparently and must be based on clear and reliable facts. Our men and women in uniform, and all Canadians, deserve no less. If the government's motivations and its actions are to be trusted, that means telling the full truth to Canadians and parliamentarians, but that has simply not happened, and the combat case has simply not been made.

One month ago, the Liberals supported the government's 30-day non-combat advisory mission to help in the fight against the murderous radical group ISIL, because Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian crises and security threats in the world. That too is a Liberal principle. ISIL's brutal advance across Iraq into Kurdish territory, murdering opposition and innocent civilians and flaunting the beheadings of western journalists and aid workers, could not be ignored.

Canada's reputation confronting security and humanitarian threats on the world stage has a long history. [ Translation ] Our reputation on the battlefields of the World Wars and the Korean War, and as courageous peacekeepers, was hard won.

After the Second World War, Canada led the way in building international organizations to reduce violence, promote peace, protect victims of genocide and hold international war criminals to account. (1340) [ English ] These strong international relations were forged by Nobel Peace Prize winner Lester Pearson, advanced by Pierre Trudeau and Progressive Conservatives Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, and solidified by Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

The sacrifices of our armed forces members and trainers in Afghanistan helped achieve a historic first in that country: the recent peaceful and democratic transition of its government. Yes, Canada does have a role to play to confront humanitarian crises and security threats and to help build a better world. The question on Liberals' minds this last month was this: After the 30-day mission, what will come next? Western interventions in the Iraq war of 2003 and the 2011 bombing of Libya and elsewhere failed.

These western interventions created instability that led to the rise of dozens of radical jihadist groups taking over vast swaths of the region today. How will this time be different? How can Canada and the coalition against ISIL contribute without sliding into a long, deadly war and perhaps making things worse? We must ensure that Canadians will not look back on this moment and ask, “How could the government have been so wrong?” The Conservative government did not even try to make a clear and thoughtful case for going to war in Iraq or to bring all parties on board.

Sending women and men into harm's way is something that must never be done lightly, and expressions of outrage are no substitute for considering history's lessons. Consulting with military and diplomatic experts, examining options, and full and frank caucus discussions resulted in the Liberals recommending non-combat contributions. Western combat operations in the region will layer onto deep religious rivalries that date back centuries and ethno-sectarian conflict dating back 98 years to the creation of these countries after World War I.

While Canadians are rightly appalled by the brutal acts of murder by the extremely radical Islamists, rhetoric by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs that this is simply about “bad people up to bad things” obscures the many geopolitical complexities at play. The post-Iraq-war Maliki government governed for one religious sect at the expense of the Sunni and Kurds, using basic services, state institutions, distribution of revenues, and even the justice system to repress and disadvantage Sunni Iraqis, among others.

This disastrous governance and polarization enabled Sunni ISIL to quickly capture vast terrain and assets. Western combat deployment and civilian deaths could further bind moderate Sunni peoples to their radical brethren and power the jihadi surge. The International Crisis Group, until last month led by former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, considers the vital contribution to be addressing the underlying political issues that enabled the insurgents' push. That is why it is critically important to support an inclusive and even-handed approach by the new government in Baghdad.

That means strengthening the new Iraqi government and its armed forces. Let us build humanitarian capacity to protect brutalized populations. Let us strengthen the Peshmerga in defending Kurdish peoples in their homes and homelands. Let us train Iraqi security forces so they can defend their state on the ground. Let us engage moderate Sunni tribes so they reject rather than join the terrorists. Let us block ISIL's access to strategic communications and financial assets.

The Liberals believe that when the government deploys our men and women in uniform into combat, there must be a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada. Until the coalition of 60 diverse nations fighting ISIL has a clear combat role for stopping ISIL, there is no clear combat role for Canada at this time.

Yesterday, General John Allen, head of the global coalition to counter ISIL, said that he would start travelling in the region over the next month for the work of bringing the coalition together, sorting out the kind of effort needed, and start to place each member's unique capabilities within those lines. No, Canada's combat role and goals are not yet clear, so what should Canada's contribution be? Secretary of State John Kerry said at the UN, that there is an important role for every country to play in the fight against ISIL”. That means each according to their unique capabilities. That is a statesman.

Contrast that with the foreign affairs minister's claim that either Canada takes a combat role or "sits back and lets someone else do the heavy lifting”. Go to war or be a free rider; that is small thinking, facile, divisive and unworthy. A key Liberal principle is that Canada's role reflects the broad scope and uniqueness of Canadian capabilities, financial, humanitarian, diplomatic, democratic, military, so let us not rush into combat without thinking carefully about our best contributions. What are the significant, non-combat roles Canada can play, military and non-military alike?

What is the range of humanitarian aid so desperately needed? Let us consider the signals intelligence, military airlift capability, surveillance, medical support, protection of civilians and aid workers, and forces training that Canada might offer. Our dedicated men and women who serve in Canada's armed forces are second to none in the world, and there are many ways they can contribute. Yesterday, General Allen spoke of his intent to use “coalition forces in a very important way to train the existing Iraqi Security Forces”. Canada would be uniquely positioned to do just that.

In 2009, crack Canadian troops began an intensive four-year training mission in Afghanistan. Almost 1,000 troops on the ground, with rotations coming in and going out, trained the Afghan National Army, the air force and the national police. This past spring the last of them came home. These military men and women made a tremendous contribution to Afghanistan's stability. They could also so contribute in Iraq. Canadians are concerned Canada's combat role will escalate.

Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, General Tom Lawson, told the government in November last year: Without at least maintaining current funding level, we will directly affect the readiness of key fleets of aircraft, ships and army vehicles. This in turn has an overall impact upon training and readiness. However, the budget cuts and clawbacks have continued. Therefore, how will this new mission be funded?

Finally, to respect the Canadian people's stake in this war and in the interest of trust and accountability, I call on the government to: one, adopt the Manley panel recommendation on Afghanistan requiring the government to provide quarterly mission updates to Parliament; two, adopt the U.S. practice of regular, public military briefings by senior military officials; three, make clear its air strike rules of engagement and whether the U.S. will be in command of targets; four, agree to a parliamentary committee study of the strategic aims of the anti-ISIL campaign; and, five, require the national security adviser to brief the defence committee on the overall use of Canadian intelligence capabilities in the campaign against ISIL.

Transparency and honesty have been lacking. I ask the government to provide it over the critical weeks and months ahead as our brave men and women go forth on this difficult mission.

(1345) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there were more than a few disappointing passages in that speech. First, there was the implication that humanitarian and refugee work could not proceed alongside a combat contribution. Second, there was the declaration of the Libyan mission as a failure, a mission that the hon. member's party, albeit under a different leader, had been prepared to support at several points. There is a mark in that speech of just how far the Liberal Party has fallen away from its own traditions of supporting combat when necessary.

My question for the hon. member is about the rationale for combat. There is an obvious rationale in the fact that ISIL has declared its intention to attack Canada. It has declared its intention to train people to bring terrorism within our borders. It has declared its intention to establish training camps should it consolidate support over parts of Iraq and ultimately Syria well beyond the Middle East, in Europe and North America.

ISIL has taken pride in the fact that its agenda, in pursuing it, is more radical than that of al Qaeda, the group that brought 9/11 the most dramatic and devastating terrorist attack in history. When a group has declared its intention to enter into combat with us to bring terrorism to our shores to compromise our security, why should our response not include a willingness to engage in combat? Ms. Joyce Murray : Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the member using the same tactic of rhetoric over reasoning in this very important situation.

I point out that it is important to learn from past lessons, and apparently the government wants to ignore lessons learned. In terms of the kind of undermining of the opposition parties for choosing to support a non-combat role, I would like to point out that the member's colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs , slammed the opposition parties for a non-combat role stand, saying that the socialist democratic government in Italy was supportive and the socialist democratic coalition in Germany was supportive. In fact, yes they are supportive of making a contribution, as are the Liberals.

However, the minister neglected to mention that neither Germany nor Italy is sending strike fighter planes or taking on a combat role. This is further example of the kinds of dishonesty that undermine the trust of Canadians in this very mission.

(1350) Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is a critical question that needs to be answered. It goes back to September when we laid out what we wanted to see, and that was to have a debate and a vote at the t