OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 124 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, October 7, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 7, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 124 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 124 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 124 (Version officielle) 147 124 07 10 2014 2014/10/07 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Official Languages The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 66 of the Official Languages Act, to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, covering the period from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( f ), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[ English ] Environment and Sustainable Development The Speaker : I also have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, the fall 2014 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons with an addendum on environmental petitions from January 1 to June 30, 2014. [ Translation ] This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act Hon. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC) Bill C-42. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42,

An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the second part of the 2014 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and its parliamentary mission to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, to the Holy See and Italy, the next country to hold the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, held in Strasbourg and Paris, France, and the Vatican and Rome, Italy, from April 7 to April 16.

Protecting Burnaby Lakes and Rivers Act Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) Bill C-631. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-631,

an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake and Brunette River) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to introduce a private member's bill to restore key environmental protections to local lakes and rivers in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. The protecting Burnaby lakes and rivers act aims to re-add Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake, and the Brunette River to the official

schedule of waterways protected in Canada. At the demand of oil and gas lobbyists, the Conservatives recently removed the protection of 98% of Canada's water bodies. As a result of these changes, proposed development projects would no longer need environmental assessments or public consultation before proceeding across our lakes and rivers. We need to reverse this gutting of our environmental laws. That is why I am putting forward this legislation to re-protect Burnaby's waterways for my constituents.

I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster , our excellent House leader, for his support on this issue and for stepping forward today to second this legislation. In my riding, the stewardship of the Brunette River in particular has been a stellar example of our community coming together to preserve our cherished waterways. We need to make sure that our lakes and rivers are protected so that future generations can enjoy them as well. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Petitions Dementia Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present a petition signed by people in a number of communities in the riding of Nickel Belt, including Alban, Crystal Falls, Field, Verner, and Sturgeon Falls. These people would like to draw the Minister of Health 's attention to the fact that the government needs a national strategy for dementia and health care for people with Alzheimer's disease. [ English ] Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of members of my great riding of Sudbury. They too are calling upon the federal government to create a national dementia strategy. These citizens would very much like this House to pass Bill C-356,

an act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia , moved by my colleague from Nickel Belt. Therefore, I am happy to present this petition.

Impaired Driving Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from citizens of Canada who want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Workers' Rights Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on World Day for Decent Work to present a petition arising out of the tragic deaths of 1,100 workers and injuries to 2,500 more in the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh. The signatories to the petition remind this House that it is the fundamental right of all people, wherever they live in the world, to be able to go to work without fear for their safety or their lives, and they call upon the Government of Canada to endorse the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh and to encourage Canadian companies that manufacture in Bangladesh to become signatories to the accord.

(1010) Animal Welfare Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition is on the subject of animal cruelty. The petitioners are from Edmonton, and they call on the House of Commons to recognize animals as being capable of feeling pain and needing to have better protection under the Criminal Code.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from hundreds of people from Sherbrooke, Quebec, London, Ontario, the Sunshine Coast of British Columbia, and Calgary calling on the Government of Canada to create and maintain stable, predictable, long-term funding for the national public broadcaster, the CBC.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House signed by Canadians from across the country. The petition is about the devastating cuts to postal services. These people are against these measures, and so am I.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS S. O. 57 [ English ] Military Contribution Against ISIL Motion that debate be not further adjourned Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 13, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned. The Speaker : Pursuant to Standing 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period, and I will ask members to keep their questions or comments to about a minute and government responses to a similar length of time. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this is a very perplexing move on the part of the government. It is a sad move. It is now the 79th time that time allocation, or closure, has been used in this Parliament, and 79 times is a sad record that has never been equalled before by a government. There has never been a government that has been so inclined to impose closure and time allocation on this House.

It is perplexing, because we already had agreement for a vote this evening, so for the government to then move to try to shut down debate, when there has already been agreement, is perhaps a way of keeping their own members of Parliament from speaking, as the member for St. John's East suggested. I do not know, but it is a perplexing imposition of closure, the 79th time in Parliament. In this case, it is completely unnecessary, because there was already broad agreement in this House to have a vote tonight. My question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very simple.

Since there was already agreement for a vote tonight, why is the government now imposing closure, time allocation, for the 79th time? Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if there is agreement, perhaps we could seek it, and we could have the vote at eight o'clock, and this would not be necessary. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is fairly well noted that the need for debate on the whole issue of what is taking place in Iraq has been highlighted. The Liberal foreign affairs critic was successful in bringing forward an emergency debate.

Canadians are very much concerned about what is happening in Iraq and the role Canada needs to play. The question I have is for the government House leader. Can the government House leader give a clear indication as to why it is the government has chosen to limit debate? I know first hand that there are a number of my colleagues who would love the opportunity to address this very important issue that is on the minds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Why is there a need to have time allocation? Why not allow for more debate on this very important issue? Hon. John Baird : Mr.

Speaker, quite simply, it is because the opposition asked for two things. First, it wanted a debate. Second, it wanted a vote. We are proposing to do both. The government brought the official opposition critics and the critic for the Liberal Party to Iraq so that they could meet with officials, as I did, in Baghdad and Erbil and see the front lines. The government voluntarily called the committee back early and presented its position at the time. It supported the call for an emergency debate when Parliament returned. We will have the occasion to debate this issue for two full days here in Parliament.

However, part of the political process is to not just debate; it is to take a vote on where members stand. That is exactly what we are proposing.

(1015) Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting debate yesterday. I do not know why, in the midst of that, the government House leader decided that they had to have a closure motion to bring it to an end. On the government side mostly we have heard from ministers or parliamentary secretaries. I am sure there are a lot of backbenchers on the government side who would like to participate in this debate, and maybe a lot of other people over here. Why insist on bringing the debate to a speedy close, when it is an important mission?

Some of the speeches have been full of rhetoric, but this is an important debate. Questions need to be asked and answered. I do not know why we are going through this process. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that my friend from Newfoundland is raising this point, when his own House leader, just a few moments ago, in this very place, said that his party was prepared to have a vote at eight o'clock and that it found the amount of time that had been allocated to be sufficient. I, for one, agree with his House leader that the amount of time the government proposed is sufficient.

It certainly had the agreement of the official opposition. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I share the view of my colleague from Winnipeg North that there are many of our colleagues would like to speak on this important debate who did not have the chance to go on the trip to Iraq. They have important views to share. I would ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to reverse this closure. I would also like to point out that this really fits into the way he has been positioning this whole issue, which is either that we are for a combat air strike air bombing role or we are free riders.

I find it very counterproductive for respected parliamentarians to be making this a divisive issue. In fact, most of our allies have not done that. They have brought their colleagues from all parties in. They have sought to get a consensus on the matter. Very few have gone forward with a combat role. Other countries, like Germany and Italy, which the minister incorrectly claimed were supporting the combat role in the media a few days ago, are not part of a combat role.

In the debate, the minister's very respected colleague from Edmonton Centre said that there are all kinds of important roles for coalition countries to play. Some are combat roles. Some are not. Each of them is an important contribution— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs . Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite had an opportunity to participate in the debate today. If there are other members of her party who wish to join the debate, we will all be here until 8 o'clock this evening debating this matter.

It is also debated every day in the House of Commons in question period. We had an emergency debate when Parliament returned. The committee was seized with this issue. We called it back early. We will continue to debate the issues of the day. Both of the opposition parties have opposition days when this can be further debated and discussed in this place. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing. It seems that I mistakenly misled the House yesterday.

In a question I asked, I said that three Iraqi divisions of 50,000 men were defeated in two days by 15,000 jihadists near the city of Mosul. I later consulted The Guardian to verify the information and cross-referenced it with information from the Iraqi government, and apparently 30,000 Iraqi soldiers and 30,000 Iraqi police officers and constables who were defending the city of Mosul were routed in two days by 800 jihadists. They were outnumbered 75 to 1, but they won. Imagine. We are going to be supporting the people who lost even though they outnumbered their opponents 75 to 1.

Second, my question about the relevance of this debate is this: does this desire to put an end to the debate arise from information obtained today about the fighting, which is that air strikes have been ineffective and the Turkish government has officially called for our soldiers to intervene on the ground? (1020) [ English ] Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, I think when Mosul fell, there was no outside aerial support for those trying to protect religious minorities.

I suppose if we had adopted the definition of success and the criteria that the New Democratic Party sets out on this, we would not have been able to justify previous missions, whether World War I, World War II, Korea, or elsewhere. I do think it is important that we have a good debate in this place. The member opposite's party was supportive of the timeframe that the government laid out and, frankly, we agree. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for the debate, but I do object to the closure for the following reasons.

Side conversations with the minister just before the House resumed have given me more information than I have had through this debate. I will not be able to speak on the current speaking order with closure, but I appreciate greatly that all members allowed me to have an opportunity on Friday, through unanimous consent. However, being aware of the time, I was hoping that I would have an opportunity for a full presentation of at least 10 minutes. There are options that the Green Party would prefer we pursued rather than aerial bombardment, which we still believe could be counterproductive.

A fuller debate would make a big difference. I ask the hon. minister if he would not reconsider or at least provide a speaking slot to the Green Party out of one of the many repetitious Conservative presentations. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the non-partisan nature of the member opposite's comments. Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this closure motion is particularly disturbing. As my hon. colleague said, there was an agreement in terms of the debate continuing and then voting tonight.

Now we are in a situation where we are basically wasting an hour on this debate and vote on closure, rather than spending it on the important work of trying to figure out how to come to consensus on this military action. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said there was agreement. I seek agreement. If we can adopt this motion on division, we can resume the debate right away on this important question before the House. If the member would like to seek agreement to call the question, and that it be approved on division, we can return back to the debate as the member opposite would like.

I hope he will support my suggestion. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to questions and comments, the chair is presuming the minister is speaking rhetorically. If in fact he wishes to move a motion, he is familiar with that procedure. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We have not been in agreement with the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation. They have used it not once, or 12 times, or 70 times, but 79 times. This has been the reality of the current government. The Conservatives invoke closure and time allocation at a snap of the finger.

The point we have been making, and the point the members for St. John's East and Jeanne-Le Ber just made, is that the government has changed the focus of the debate that we were to have yesterday and today, and instead we are now having a debate around the 79th use of closure by the government. It is absolutely unacceptable. No, we do not support the use of closure. We think the government was wrong-headed in bringing this in.

It just shows how the Conservative government likes to impose its view rather than have the kind of debate that should be part and parcel of what we do as parliamentarians here in the House. We will not agree to closure. We will not agree to time allocation. We will not agree with the 79 times the current government has snapped its fingers and tried to impose its will on the opposition. It is simply wrong to do this. The government should be allowing the discussions to continue.

Rather than having a debate on closure, we should be debating the mission and our disagreement with the government's approach right now in the House of Commons. However, we cannot do that because of the government's closure motion. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the member should check the record. The House leader of the official opposition was very clear when he said there was agreement to vote on this at eight o'clock. That is exactly what this government is proposing we do. I do share the view with my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition.

We have in this Parliament the most unreasonable official opposition that we have ever had in this country, and that is indeed regrettable.

(1025) Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fact that the government agreed to bring the motion to the House for debate. It is a motion of immense proportion and it would have a tremendous impact on Canadians. Regrettably, the government is going to stifle debate. This is not unlike the tactics it often performs in controlling and asserting itself in the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that it has chosen to do this. The irony in all of this is that we are debating this important motion during Mental Health Week.

Many Canadians have asked me what the government is doing for our soldiers and our veterans who have already come home from combat and are receiving no services. As the government revs up the CF-18s, I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing for all of the soldiers and veterans in our country who are suffering immensely today because of combat efforts. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the hon. minister, I would like to remind all hon. members that they ought to keep both their questions and their comments relevant to the matter that is before the House, which is the closure motion and the motion itself. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence would welcome the opportunity to discuss the range of mental health supports. Canadian society over the last 25 years under successive governments is coming to grips with mental health issues.

These issues were never discussed for far too long, and the government has taken a number of leadership roles with respect to that. We are having a debate in this place. We did not have a debate when our troops went to Afghanistan the first time. There is no legal or constitutional requirement to have one. We are having a debate because the Prime Minister respects Parliament. The Prime Minister made commitments when we were both a minority and a majority government about having a debate before our men and women are sent into combat missions.

He is living up to that commitment of accountability. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to see that this government is using time allocation yet again. This time, it will cut short a debate that is crucially important to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians. How can the minister justify his behaviour in the House to Canadians? How can he justify muzzling debate and, by extension, our constituents? [ English ] Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, this government is simply adopting the time for debate that the party opposite supported.

The member's own House leader stood in this place at the outset of this debate and said that his party would be happy to have a vote at 8 o'clock and that is exactly what we are proposing. Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have heard the opposition talk erroneously many times about limiting debate. I wonder if the minister might be able to share with the House how often Parliament was previously consulted when military action was taken prior to the Conservative Party taking leadership. Hon. John Baird : Parliament was not consulted, Mr. Speaker.

The only sin of the member opposite is that she was once a Liberal member of Parliament; otherwise she is a great parliamentarian and wonderful person. The Liberal Party, of which she was a member, never had a parliamentary debate when our forces left for Afghanistan. This is something that the Prime Minister campaigned on, and we have honoured that, whether we had a minority or majority government. A key part of the parliamentary process is a vote. All members of the House wanted a debate and a vote, and that is exactly what this government is providing. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, given that the Conservative government has decided to limit debate on the current motion, does the government have plans to provide briefings to opposition members of Parliament, which may include non-public information that may be required for opposition members to carry out their duties of holding the government to account? Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, I have taken opposition members to meet with Iraqi and Kurdish officials. I gave them full access to all of the meetings I had. They could participate, ask questions, and make comments.

As the hon. member's leader mentioned yesterday, I have had occasion to reach out to him on occasion when Parliament was not in session. The government is certainly prepared to work with parliamentarians and answer all reasonable questions. (1030) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thank goodness I have seen the light. That is what I am tempted to say to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs . That said, I know that this issue is extremely important to the people of my riding of Gatineau.

I receive emails and telephone calls every day from people who do not necessarily agree with the government's position. This is an extremely important debate. This is probably one of the most important decisions a country has to make. In light of that, I understand the argument put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to the effect that we already agreed to a vote at 8 p.m. I want to repeat his question, since I did not hear the response. Why take away an hour of debate on something this important?

At the very least, we could have heard from four or five more members of the House and tried to foster the broadest possible consensus or heard as many opinions as possible. Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, if my dear colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau , and all the members of her party unanimously agree to a vote at 8 p.m., as she said, and if no one else rises to speak to this motion, we can immediately return to the focus of today's debate. We are prepared to do that if the House agrees. [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, it is a rare opportunity to follow up with the minister.

I do apologize to the minister if he interpreted anything I said as partisan, as that was his response. However, I do want to ask him once again if he does not think it would be fairer, in the interest of a full debate, if there were not closure, so that those of us who actually have original points can put them forward. I asked him before the mace came in this morning, when we were able to consult informally, if there would not be an opportunity to explore other ideas that could actually make a difference on the ground.

We have heard from very knowledgeable foreign affairs experts—such as former ambassador Peggy Mason and foreign affairs expert Robert Fowler, who himself has had tragic and terrifying exposure to a terrorist organization, being held hostage in Mali—that the mission as proposed could do more harm than good. Therefore, without trying to adequately explore what could do more good than harm and what other opportunities are out there, this debate becomes foreshortened into a false choice between doing something that could be stupid and doing something else. I think we need more time. Hon. John Baird : Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite, my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands, to whom I made complimentary remarks yesterday, while I do not agree with her, while I think she is wrong, I think she is principled in her position on this issue. She did say that members on one side of the House just make repetitive speeches, but only apparently she is able to give good speeches. I think there are rules that allow parliamentarians to speak. Not every parliamentarian can speak to every issue. That is a reality we all have to come to understand in a Parliament of 308 members.

As do many Canadians, the government sees evil people doing very bad things and we want to help stop it. We can look at additional measures, as we have, whether humanitarian support or something I am very passionate about, tackling rape as a weapon of war and sexual violence in conflict. Whether we do this through diplomatic efforts to ensure there is an inclusive program with the new government in Iraq, whether it is ongoing efforts at deradicalization, stopping foreign fighters, there are many other things we could do beyond this resolution, on which the government will continue to work. [ Translation ] Ms.

Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I just heard the minister say that there are rules in this House to ensure that members have the right to speak. He said that not every member can speak to every issue, and I understand completely. However, if the government would stop limiting debate, more members would have a chance to speak, express themselves and share their constituents' concerns with the government. The Conservatives have very few representatives in certain regions, so they have very little opportunity to find out what people in those regions are thinking.

They should welcome the opportunity to hear about it in the House. I would therefore like to know why, for the 79th time, the government is playing fast and loose with the rules of the House, rules that are there to ensure that all parliamentarians can represent their constituents properly?

(1035) Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, we obey the standing orders of the House of Commons. That is not simply a goal; it is mandatory. You are here, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that everyone follows the rules. We agree to have a vote at 8 p.m., the time proposed by the official opposition. The motion currently before us confirms that. [ English ] Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it seems that as we debate the 79th motion for closure, the government does not take seriously the need to debate critical issues.

What more important issue is there than sending our country to war and members of our military personnel into harm's way? All we are asking for is to speak on behalf of our constituents, the Canadians who sent us here. If the minister and his government are so passionate about this issue, why will they not allow an open debate on an issue as important as sending our country to war? Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, what this government is doing is having a vote at eight o'clock tonight. That is the exact time the New Democratic Party wanted to have a vote— Mr. Peter Julian : You said tonight. Hon.

John Baird : —8 p.m. tonight. We will debate this today. We debated it yesterday. We had an emergency debate on it two weeks ago. We brought the committee back early and debated it every day between 2:15 p.m. and 3 p.m. The opposition, if it would like additional days, has a certain amount of opposition days. If this is so important, as the member opposite says, there are many opposition days and her party has yet to use one on this issue. If it is the most crucial and important issue, as she suggests, I know it will. Ms. Yvonne Jones : Mr.

Speaker, I have a very quick question for the minister before we conclude all of this debate, unfortunately. Can he tell me which countries are engaging in a combat role and which ones are in a non-combat role? Also if Canada is to go in a combat role, how will that affect the work that we would be doing in terms of humanitarian aid and other supports in a non-combat role? Hon. John Baird : Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite that I guess it depends on how one defines “combat”. The German government is not sending fighter planes. It is providing arms and munitions to troops on the ground there.

In the United Kingdom, all three party leaders supported this initiative. They are conducting the combat mission that Canada's is contemplating with the motion before the House, as well as France and the United States. If we look at our friends in the Arab world, Jordan is participating in a measure similar to Canada. The United Arab Emirates is participating. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is participating as we are. Bahrain is participating as we are. Denmark is participating as we are. Belgium is participating as we are. It is a long list and we are in good company. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, we are seeing from the Minister of Foreign Affairs the same kind of imagination that he used in inventing the idea that the UN resolution in some way justified the government's intervention in his trying to pretend that the NDP had agreed to a certain time tonight for debate and a vote. The point I was making earlier and the point that I stress again is that there had been broad consensus in terms of a vote tonight, though not in terms of the exact time.

However, the issue here is the use of closure, which will take well over an hour out of the debate today that members of Parliament wanted to be engaged in. Certainly the government has shown a profound disrespect yet again, 79 times, to Parliament by invoking closure at the drop of a hat rather than discussing with opposition parties or establishing the kind of consensus that is needed. My point back to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the question is very simple. Why does the government never seek consensus or discussion and always seek to impose its view? Hon. John Baird : Mr.

Speaker, it might surprise the member opposite, but I share his concern. I wish there could be better collaboration between the government and the opposition, and the opposition and the government. When I say “opposition”, I mean all members whether independent, Green, Liberal or New Democratic. It is unfortunate that these things cannot be dealt with. The fact that it has risen to such a level speaks just as much about the official opposition as it does about the government. When I was in opposition in the province of Ontario, opposition members did something remarkable.

We actually worked with the government on a programming motion where, instead of debating day after day the most inconsequential bill, with the most consequential bills getting the same amount of time, we could come up with a motion, get a certain amount of work done in a prescribed amount of time, and all members could structure the debate and allocate how much would be on important issues and how much would be on less important issues. Unfortunately, we have a situation now where the opposition wants to debate everything without ever having a vote on anything.

We also have important responsibilities to move forward the people's business. I wish there could be a greater meeting of the minds and perhaps this debate will inspire everyone to do better. (1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's comments. By muzzling the debate, the government is saying that we should work with it because it has a majority and we should reach a consensus. To reach a consensus, however, it is important to listen to the minority, those who are not part of the government, namely, the opposition.

In a democracy, the government does not have absolute power. That is undemocratic. Let us be clear: we have a majority government in a parliamentary system that is supposed to be based on dialogue and agreements. How is it a dialogue when a majority government makes all the decisions regarding votes? That is not a dialogue at all. It actually puts our democracy in danger. Since the minister was talking about working together, why is the government not more open to dialogue and more accepting of the opinions of others? [ English ] Hon. John Baird : Mr.

Speaker, I think at some point in our history there might have been an opportunity where people came into this place and made impassioned speeches and spoke to the current issues of the day. I have been here in this Parliament for more than three years. I have yet to see one single member of the official opposition, ever, not once, not one MP on one vote, vote against his or her party. I, as a minister, a senior minister, have stood and voted against my own government on one or two issues, and I do not have a problem with that. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The time for questions has expired.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Call in the members.

(1120) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 250) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Baird Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 154 NAYS Members Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bellavance Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Boivin Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Chan Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dionne Labelle Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeland Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Giguère Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) Leslie Liu Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Perreault Plamondon Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 122 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Government Business No. 13 Government Orders The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment. Motion The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : When this matter was last before the House, the hon. Minister of State for Western Diversification had the floor. The hon. Minister of State for Western Diversification has seven minutes remaining. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke of the clear danger that is presented by ISIL's advance in the region.

I would like to speak today about the threat to our country and to other western nations. If colleagues here do not recognize this direct threat to our country, all they have to do is search any social networking tool to find repeated references to the desire to spread ISIL's vile ideology to Canada. I am deeply concerned that the expansion of ISIL is attracting individuals from the west, including Canadian citizens, to radicalize to the point of violence.

Canadians are known to have travelled to conflict zones to participate in terrorism-related activities, including front-line combat, fundraising, operational planning, and disseminating online propaganda. ISIL has been able to bolster its strength by recruiting thousands of foreign fighters, including many from central Europe and central Asia. Recent media reporting highlighted the deaths of Calgarian Farah Mohamed Shirdon and of Mohamud Mohamed Mohamud, who both died fighting for ISIL.

As a nation, we have recognized that this expansion of ISIL via the recruitment of foreign workers is a serious issue and have already begun to address it, which is why we co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 2178. We have also implemented several key legislative tools, such as the Combating Terrorism Act, which created new offences for leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit certain terrorism offences. The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, now law, allows for the revocation of Canadian citizenship from dual Canadian citizens if they are convicted of terrorist offences.

However, as the democratically elected government of Iraq has recognized by its request for assistance in containing the expansion of ISIL, if ISIL is allowed to operate in the open with its expansion of territory left unchecked, we and our allies have ignored the true source of aggression to our collective borders. This is why, after careful consideration, our government has put forward the motion in front of us today. I would be remiss if I did not discuss the treatment of women under the ideology of ISIL as part of the case to support this motion.

A report listed by the United Nations outlines the alarming atrocities committed by ISIL. Through their actions, they have embedded the view of women as subhuman into their ideology. Hundreds of women and girls have been sold as sex slaves by ISIL in a bid to tempt buyers to join their ranks. They have been given to ISIL or trafficked for sale at markets. Women with professional careers have also been targeted and executed. In one example, ISIL publicly killed a female human rights lawyer in Mosul after their self-styled Islamic court ruled that she had abandoned Islam.

Samira Salih al-Nuaimi was seized from her home on September 17 after allegedly posting messages on Facebook that were critical of the militants' destruction of religious sites in Mosul. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, al-Nuaimi was tried in a so-called Sharia court for apostasy, after which she was tortured for five days before militants sentenced her to public execution. There have also been reports that ISIL planned to make four million women and girls undergo female genital mutilation in the Mosul area.

This is, of course, on top of the thousands of cases of rape, innumerable instances of forced marriage, and the complete removal of equal rights of women to receive education and to participate in the economy and in politics. ISIL's treatment of women goes well beyond any concept of misogyny we are accustomed to fighting against in western culture. Given that this group has been able to attract fighters from western nations and clearly has sympathizers residing therein, it poses a threat to the ability of women to have equality in free society around the world.

That said, I am not afraid of these cowards, who see women as subspecies with little value over being a necessary nuisance in procreation or as chattel to be raped and traded to the ignorants that fight for their cause. This is because our nation's anthem has never rung hollow. Our brave men and women have always “stood on guard for thee” against threats to our country and to its people. This motion presents a clear and defined response from Canada to the threat ISIL presents to the global community.

We will continue the deployment of up to 26 CAF personnel to advise Iraq's security forces, with no ground combat mission. We will coordinate with our allies to participate in air strikes against ISIL, with the goal of limiting ISIL's ability to operate in the open and of preventing its continued expansion of territory. In doing so, we will contribute one air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two Aurora surveillance aircraft, and the necessary crews and support personnel. The above will be for a period of six months. We are ready and capable to take on this challenge.

Our investments, as articulated in the Canada First defence strategy, are building a modern, first-class military ready to face the challenges of our generation. The government has steadily been delivering upon this plan, providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment that has made a positive difference in the way that they operate.

(1125) We will seek to prevent the flow of funding and financing to ISIL, work to halt the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria, and provide diplomatic support to help Iraq toward a religiously and ethically inclusive government. Supporting the government's motion shows Canadians that we as a Parliament accept that unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat that ISIL poses to international peace and security will continue to grow. By supporting this motion today, we show Canadians that we understand the depth of the atrocities committed by this terrorist organization.

We show Canadians that we support Iraqi leaders in undertaking a concerted effort to confront ISIL's barbaric advance and to mend sectarian divisions that threaten Iraq's long-term security. We show Canadians that as representatives of their voices, we are prepared to stand with our allies who have committed to containing this threat. We show Canadians that we support a clearly defined combat mission, which we are capable of delivering, coupled with humanitarian assistance for the region. By supporting this motion, we show Canadians that we are willing to act, not obfuscate, while ISIL flourishes. Mr.

Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I have some real concerns about how well defined things are and what the goals and objectives are. After we heard from the government, one of the concerns that we have is that we are talking about three weeks, maybe, before we actually have planes situated somewhere. We are still not sure. That definition has not been provided by the government. If the government is putting all of its focus on the air strikes, what happens in three weeks if there are no targets or if things have changed on the ground?

Is there any other strategy that the government has come up with to deal with that scenario?

(1130) Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, in the take note debate on Mali on February 5, 2013, my colleague opposite said: The government's alternation between disengagement and divisiveness has weakened Canada's voice on the world stage.... I would argue that in this motion here today, we are being decisive. I would encourage him to support it. Canadians around the world understand the urgency of this situation. To his direct question, I read an

article in the Calgary Herald this morning by a columnist who is on the ground there. One of his comments was: Those packed into the grounds at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church were astonished when they were told that two of Canada’s three main political parties have opposed the Harper government’s plan to send half a dozen warplanes to the Middle East.... Somebody from his

article basically said that if these air strikes do not happen now, there will be further advance upon this territory. We need to act now. We need to send these planes there and we need to join our allies in this combat. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I remind all hon. members that they cannot refer to their colleagues by name in the House, including when they are reading something from a newspaper. Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister.

In the debate, she raised an issue respecting domestic threats, particularly with respect to the capacity for ISIL to recruit Canadians to fight for its cause. I would like to acknowledge that the minister took a particularly brave stand some weeks ago in standing up against those local threats. Considering this potential risk, could the minister elaborate on what outreach methods have been taken by the government to bring in, for example, the Canadian Muslim population to halt or degrade the capacity for the recruitment of these potential terrorists? Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr.

Speaker, certainly working with different groups in Canada is important in combatting any sort of extremism. I know efforts are under way right now. As I mentioned in my speech, we do have legislative mechanisms that we have put in place to create disincentives for that type of behaviour. To my colleague, who is new and who is a member of the Liberal Party, I cannot help but wonder how he feels when his leader stands up in front of a group of people and looks for validation with a vapid comment about our air force at a time when we absolutely need to act. This is not about holding conferences or obfuscating.

We need to have forces on the ground. We need these air strikes to ensure that we achieve the objectives of reducing this organization's ability to operate and expand its territory. Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the House wants to put our own in harm's way. I firmly believe that none of us want to do that, any more than any of us want terminal cancer. However, these are not just kidnappers or murderers. They are beheading children and forcing parents to bury their children alive.

If the folks who are now offering to do this to Canadians are not our enemies, then who is? Whoever was an enemy of Canada? The Taliban? Hitler? These are difficult decisions. The Liberals sent our troops to fight the Taliban. This is the time to do the same. The NDP are obfuscating and want more time. Time is of the essence. People are dying right now. I know the leader of the Liberal opposition has an obsession with phallic symbols. That is immature and inappropriate. Could the minister tell us what would happen if we were to wait longer, since people are dying today?

(1135) Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, what we have presented today, and make no mistake, is a clear request from a democratically-elected government to assist in combatting a terrorist organization operating within its borders that is treating people as sub-human. It is treating women, religious minorities as non-human beings. With every day and every hour that this group advances within that territory, with every new base it sets up, with every oil well it takes over, it is getting more financing, attracting more fighters to its cause, and its ideology seeps into our communities.

It must be addressed with force, and it must be addressed with force now. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North . I am pleased to speak to this motion today. It lays out the position of the Prime Minister and the government on our part as Canadians in the fight against ISIL and the atrocities it is inflicting on others, especially those in Syria and Iraq, and its desire to inflict such atrocities on many in the western world, including Canada. I listened to a considerable amount of the debate yesterday.

I do not think it is not very often any of us do this, but I read Hansard and the speeches I missed last evening. Just as an initial point, because it does not happen often in this place, I congratulate everyone for what I think has been a very serious debate. There has been the odd shot thrown across the room. I heard the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca suggest that the Liberals did not understand the quality of our military. We certainly do, and we support it.

There are also implications from the government, which the minister reiterated, that we cannot sit on the sidelines, implying that both opposition parties want the government to sit on the sidelines. That is not true either. In general, the debate has been very good and a lot of good points have been raised. My colleagues, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and the member for Vancouver Quadra , made good arguments on the many ways that we could contribute other than CF-18s, such as strategic airlift, medical supplies, work with refugees, military advisers who are already there, and the list goes on.

They were making the point that CF-18s were not the only option. It bothers me somewhat, as I mentioned a moment ago, that the theme the government is trying to express is that those who do not support the motion, and I certainly do not at this time support the CF-18s being sent into the fight, do not want the necessary action. Absolutely no one on this side argues that ISIL is not a threat to peace and stability in the world. It is indeed a threat.

I will even give the Minister of National Defence credit for some of the points he raised yesterday in his remarks of how ISIL was such a threat, outlining that it wanted instability and potential instability elsewhere in the world. I will not reiterate those points, but they have been made and anyone who wants to see them can read Hansard . Let me also be clear that inaction is not an option. Our party is not talking about inaction. We are saying that there has to be action, but not being supportive of sending the CF-18s is not inaction. Doing other things in the Iraqi theatre could, in fact, be more strategic.

Let me explain. In other areas of the world, for example, Britain, the prime minister of the country called the opposition leaders in and gave them a proper briefing. That has not happened in our country. Why? We are part of a coalition. There are already CF-18s. Military force through air strikes are already taking place. Action is already happening. What is the state of our equipment? We do not know. What is the state of our troops? We have done more than our fair share in Afghanistan. We have asked our men and women in uniform to rotate in, and some of them four times in a rotation.

(1140) Are we right to ask them to do that at this time or are there other strategies that we should employ, in conjunction with the coalition, that would add more strategic action to the effort and in other roles, such as humanitarian aid, dealing with refugees, medical supplies, increasing the advisers on the ground and so on? We do not know, because the leaders in the opposition parties do not have the detailed information to give us the confidence that the decision the government is making is the right one. We need to look at the whole picture.

Has the coalition or the President of the United States requested that we send in six CF-18s versus taking other positions? Yes, it is true that the government is also doing some other things, and it made a good announcement yesterday in terms of the $10 million and support in that area, but was the request made to us specifically for those CF-18s? We do not know. Nobody from the government has expressly said so. The fact is, in terms of our commitment financially, with equipment and human resources, that if we commit in one area, it is conceivable that there would be less we could commit in other areas.

Therefore, strategically, we do not know the whole picture, and the Prime Minister has failed to outline it, as he should have, for the opposition leaders. Some have tried to make the point that my party does not have confidence in our military. In fact, we do. We have the highest regard for the Canadian military and its capabilities, and its members have shown that time and again in various war theatres around the world. Also, I would point to what Hillary Clinton said yesterday, and she has had considerable experience around the world on foreign issues.

She came down on both sides of this issue as well, and she said: I think military action is critical, in fact I would say essential, to try to prevent [the Islamic State’s] further advance and their holding of more territory. She is right. We agree that military action is in fact taking place, but do our CF-18s have to be a part of it or are we better doing other things in conjunction with that? She also said, “Military action alone is not sufficient” and maintained in describing the fight against Islamic jihadists as “a long-term commitment”. She is absolutely right in that area. We are in this fight.

We knew when the 30 days was announced, that it would not be over in 30 days or in six months. We have been through some of these issues before by not engaging in Iraq and our fight in Afghanistan. We know this is a long-term commitment. I cannot say all are willing, but we are certainly willing to commit Canada's efforts to take on this scourge on the world. Yesterday I talked to a person who was 30 years in the military. For security reasons, I will not go through his comments, but his bottom line is this. He said, “In any case, we should be in a support role and not in a combat role in this one”.

That is basically what we are suggesting. I want to make one other point, which is that this fight is not only in Syria and Iraq. There are radicalized individuals leaving Canada, the United States and Britain, and coming back to these countries carrying passports. They are a risk domestically and they have to be taken on. The government also has to figure out a strategy on how we deal with that radicalization in Canada, which is a serious threat to our country.

(1145) Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat shocked by the member saying military action is needed but Canada should not be part of that. It is letting someone else do the dirty work. That really does bother me. I heard throughout these presentations members of the opposition parties saying what we really should be doing is providing humanitarian aid to people in the refugee camps, in Iraq and that type of thing. I agree with that, but that is not the most important thing.

The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale , the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I went to Iraq about a month ago. We visited three of the camps near Erbil and Mosul. What we were told was very clear. They want to take their children and go home. The only way they can take their children and go home is if there is military action to stabilize their home territory so that they can do that. Therefore, if we care about the children and care about doing what is best for the people in these camps, what we need to do is to get involved in military action so they can go home. Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr.

Speaker, I have to laugh at that comment because we are part of the military action. Do our CF-18s have to be in that squadron? They absolutely do not. We are part of the military action now. We have advisers in Iraq. There are other things we could do in terms of strategic air support. For the member opposite to leave this fluffy impression that air strikes are going to do it alone, they are not. We need to get real here. Every expert in the world says that if we are going to deal with this, at the end of the day, it is going to require ground forces. That is where this leads.

We should look at the longer picture, and we are not there. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my relatively simple question is for my distinguished Liberal colleague, who seems to be implying that there could still be military action. The problem—and that is what I would like my colleague to address—is that the Americans bombed Iraq for 12 years. Nevertheless, the jihadists are still there, receiving financial support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which, I should point out, are part of the coalition. That is rather bizarre.

Furthermore, they are indirectly supported by Turkey, which allows the trafficking of oil and arms and lets jihadists pass through Turkey on their way to Syria and Iraq. Now we are being told outright that we have to go and fight because the Iraqi soldiers refuse to die for a corrupt government. How will the bombings allow Iraqis to assume responsibility for defending themselves, which they have not done so far? [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr.

Speaker, just because previous engagements with military aircraft, and even in some cases forces on the ground, have not worked in their entirety does not mean we should not do what we have to do. The government's position is that it believes sending in CF-18s is the best option. I disagree with that and my party disagrees with that. Strategically, we have to look at what is the best role for Canada to play, in discussion with the coalition, and how can we do the most good in terms of taking on the threat of ISIL and giving people their lives, their homes and their futures back. Canada has to play a role.

There is no question about that. We do have a difference of opinion on how we get to the end result.

(1150) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt that from the Liberal Party's perspective Canada does have a role to play with respect to what is taking place in Iraq today. Canadians from all over our vast country are concerned about what is being portrayed, whether it is through the Internet or through different media outlets. We need to recognize that as a whole, Canadians are a caring, compassionate society that believes in democracy, freedom and the rule of law. There is absolutely no doubt about that. They also want the government to make good, sound, solid decisions.

This is where the Prime Minister of Canada is lacking. He has not been able to put the cards on the table. He has not been able to justify his actions. The Liberal Party is open to listening to what the government wants to do, but we have not been able to get answers to numerous questions that we have put forward to the government. I will go through a number of those questions.

Right from day one we in the Liberal Party have been arguing for the need for more debate on this issue inside the House of Commons, where members are offered the opportunity to get engaged on what is an important world issue and one in which our military would be engaged. I am speaking somewhat from experience. I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. I would like to think that all members of this chamber support our military personnel. The Liberal Party certainly does.

Canada has some of the very best military personnel in the world as a result of the training that we provide and as a result of their abilities. Let there be no doubt about that. All of us are proud of each and every member of the Canadian Forces. The government has to support our military personnel in a real and tangible way. From the beginning of this session we have been arguing for debate. We need to talk about what is taking place in Iraq. The government seems to have its mind set on one thing and one thing only and that is the air strike.

That seems to be the only option that the government has considered, and the government is wrong on that part. It would appear that members of the Conservative Party closed their minds right from the beginning, and at a great cost. Canadians want us to play a role in Iraq but the Prime Minister's decision is wrong. He has not been able to justify his actions. Members of the Liberal Party supported taking on an advisory role for 30 days. That is what makes us different from the New Democratic Party. The Liberal Party is not shy about dealing with the issue and keeping an open mind.

Our party understands the complex issues that are taking place in Iraq and the Middle East. They are having a profound impact on the world. I have listened to many Conservatives talking about the savage behaviour, the terrible things that are taking place in Iraq today, what ISIL is bringing upon people. It is criminal. It is completely unheard of in many minds. They talk about people being butchered, about women being sold as sex slaves, the things that ISIL is doing to children, to babies. There are all of these compelling arguments as to why Canada needs to play some role.

We in the Liberal Party acknowledge that Canada does need to play some role, but we do not believe that the government has made the case to justify Canada's role being that of air strikes.

(1155) We can still be as upset as the government in terms of the horrendous behaviour of ISIL and individuals involved in that organization. We can still condemn their actions, but there are different ways of fighting it. There are different ways of being engaged that we could be looking at for our military forces, but the mentality of the government seems to be that if people do not favour air strikes, then they do not favour fighting ISIL, which is just not the case, at least not within the Liberal Party.

I believe the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe, as the Liberal Party believes, that we have to do something. We need the government to provide answers to questions. There is a litany of questions. I will pose but a few. What is the Canadian objective in this particular mission in terms of air strikes? What is the plan to meet the objective? What is the total cost of the proposed CF-18 deployment, which is important to have at least a sense of? Who will be commanding the mission?

With the time limit on the deployment, will the government seek additional parliamentary support if the mission is to be extended, as Liberals anticipate it will be? What other options for the Canadian military contribution did the Prime Minister consider? Did he even consider any of them? Why were they ruled out? When we talk about humanitarian aid, what options for a humanitarian contribution rather than a military contribution did the Prime Minister consider, or did he even consider them? Why were they ruled out?

Will the incremental costs of the combat mission reduce the amount of humanitarian aid that the government would provide? I believe that is an incredibly important question that needs to be answered. How much humanitarian aid and technical assistance is Canada planning to give to each of Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan over the next six months? How much humanitarian aid and technical assistance is Canada planning to give to the international agencies and NGOs operating in the area in the next six months? These are good, sound questions.

Last Thursday night we heard that the Prime Minister was going to making a statement on Friday morning last week. Friday came, the Prime Minister gives an indication of what the Government of Canada's intent was, and the leader of the Liberal Party had the opportunity at that time to address this issue and raise many of the questions that I put forward.

The leader of the Liberal Party made clear where Liberals stand, how important it is that Canada plays a role in what is happening in Iraq, and articulated why it is that the Prime Minister has failed Canadians by not being more transparent and honest about what is taking place and what the government's actions are going to be. There has been a general unwillingness to even work with the opposition and the Liberals. Yes, the critic on foreign affairs was able to go to Iraq. There has been some goodwill, but it has been very limited. Is it because government members are scared to answer many of the questions?

Maybe there is something more that Canada could be doing that would include the Canadian Forces. These types of things are important. ISIL is a threat both to the region and global security. ISIL murders ethnic and religious minorities across Iraq and Syria. They murder innocent civilians, humanitarian workers, and journalists. These are awful acts that have been fully documented. Canada does have a role to play to confront the humanitarian crisis and the security threats to the world.

(1200) When the government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, it must make it a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada within that mission. I will finish my comments through questions and answers. Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague opposite that there are concerns about a military mission. However, on balance, this mission should be supported. There are three reasons for that. There is a clear, moral reason to support this mission.

As people like Lloyd Axworthy and Romeo Dallaire have pointed out, there is a responsibility to protect innocent civilians so that we do not see a repeat of the genocides we have so often witnessed in the 20th century. There is a moral reason in terms of the safety and security of Canadians. There is a legal reason. The Government of Iraq has formally requested our military intervention in its state in order to protect its sovereignty in that state. Then there is the real political issue here, the realpolitik of it all, which is that our allies have joined in assisting the Government of Iraq in this area.

I noticed that the British resolution, adopted in the British House of Commons, is worded almost identically to the resolution in front of us right now. It was adopted by a vote of 524 to 43. Most Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs voted for that motion. Countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and social democracies run by socialist governments are supporting this mission. I am wondering why the opposition parties here are not on board with it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr.

Speaker, when the member makes reference to moral reasons to get engaged in air strikes, surely he should also recognize that there are countries that are not getting involved in the air strikes. They understand and appreciate, as does the Liberal Party, that we all have a moral responsibility and understanding that Canada needs to play a role. Where we differ is like Germany, which is not participating in the air strikes. We are not convinced that the Prime Minister has made his case that air strikes are the best way in which Canada can participate in dealing with the horror that is taking place because of ISIL.

There are alternatives. To what degree are we using the C-130s or other opportunities with our Canadian Forces or non-profit agencies? There are other alternatives that it appears the Prime Minister has ruled out. We do not know if he even considered those, because he did not allow for the type of discussion that was necessary for a good, sound decision to be made. The member made reference to the EU. The EU worked with the opposition parties and was far more transparent and accountable in terms of the decision ultimately being made. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please.

I see we are under questions and comments. I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North was continuing his comments there and part of his speech. We need to make time for some other questions and comments. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Winnipeg North and his predecessor, the member for Malpeque . Forgive me if I am confused about the position of the Liberal Party. I had understood that it gave unquestioned support for the initial mission of 30 days, even though questions were not answered.

We did not support it because we did not really know what we were being asked to support. However, that is a different question altogether. The Liberals, in both previous speeches, said that they are opposed to the air strikes but they want to find a military mission that they can get behind. I am wondering what that might be, because people are saying that the air strikes alone are not enough. The answer from the military perspective seems to be ground forces. Is that what the Liberal Party is now suggesting?

Is it trying to show that it does want a military response but it has not figured out what that is, or is it just that it is not sure what it wants to propose?

(1205) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, in fairness, we need to recognize that the New Democrats have done a bit of flip-flopping on this particular issue. All we have to do is read the amendment that was brought forward. That amendment says: ....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. It sounds as if the New Democratic Party is starting to come on side with what the Liberal Party has actually been saying.

If the member would just reach over and talk to his colleague from Toronto—Danforth , and read the comments in Hansard , he will find that there are some ideas that his own colleague has actually suggested. There are opportunities. I would like to think that the New Democrats will continue to follow the lead of the Liberal Party, as they have done in the amendment, and will recognize it is important that Canada does play a role.

The New Democrats have always approached that in a very cautious fashion, and I cannot blame them for being cautious, but there is a point in time when Canadian Forces personnel can be used, even in non-combat roles. Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence , the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I rise with others to take

part in what is obviously a very sombre and serious debate. Most would agree that there is never a good time to go to war, but there comes a time in every country's history when the necessity outweighs the risk, and the urgency to defend our way of life, threatened as it is, must be defended. ISIL constitutes a clear and present danger to Canada and our allies. Before us is a debate that has been put before this House with clarity and with intent, which is proposing meaningful and measured responses to a very serious situation. ISIL is pure evil.

There is insufficient hyperbole to do justice to the depth of its depravity, no rhyme or reason to the inhumanity that it brings to this world. Some seem willing to accept this new reality. We live in a global society where terrorism does certainly not respect borders, and to offer platitudes or to attempt to placate fear with the promise of acceptance or tolerance toward this type of action reflects a fundamental disconnect. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately as the case may be, we as a government do not have the luxury of indecision or inaction or denial.

Beyond the rhetoric and the partisan lines, when it comes to terrorism we have a responsibility to take up arms against the sea of tyranny and to proactively help to end it. Canadians otherwise predominantly enjoy a life free from fear and far from terror because we have men and women in uniform who are prepared to stand at the ready to defend our way of life at home and abroad. We cannot and we should not stand idly by, hoping that other nations will rise to the challenge on our behalf.

What we are doing, we are doing because we have always risen to the occasion, when threatened, and addressed the threat head on. Also in the news is the scourge of Ebola. Make no mistake about it: ISIL is a human plague; an agent of indiscriminate death and clear threats to humanity. This way of life is not be taken for granted in Canada. Where we find ourselves today as a nation has come at great cost. It has been defended on the field of battle with the blood of our illustrious ancestors. Our country was literally born on a battlefield, Vimy, according to many historians.

Our greatest citizens then, as now, passed through a crucible defending our way of life. All that we hold dear rests on those sacrifices. We need to recognize that there is a danger in complacency, and explicit in that is the notion that, when called upon, we answer, we do our part. From the privileged platform of minister of defence, I saw first hand the sacrifices made in Canada's name. There is no argument against war as compelling as witnessing first hand a ramp ceremony or a repatriation service, seeing the suffering of loved ones when their loved ones return home.

That epitomizes “true patriot love”, as do the sacrifices of those who suffered bodily harm in Canada's name. Much is at stake. Every breath we take is precious, and the bonds formed in the relationships overseas in conflict have withstood the test of time. We have all heard those stories. We have heard those who have served recount the incredible sacrifices made. However, we do not enjoy the luxury of this bond because they have sacrificed. If there is any comfort that can be passed on to families of the fallen, it lies in the true belief that their loved ones did not die in vain. What more worthy cause?

We saw in Afghanistan, as a result of efforts, little girls now able to go to school, women able to participate in the democratic process and the economy; and our efforts as a free and democratic nation have contributed to an unprecedented change of culture, albeit still fragile. It is the result of much effort on the part of many. Those are the goals to achieve for a new place in the Middle East.

Some members have invoked other images from places like Darfur, places where there have been catalogued the numbers of the dead, and yet it is these factions, those who are at the cause of this destruction and the very threat to humanity, who have come out in the past and in present to pose a direct or indirect threat to Canada, which we cannot leave unchecked.

(1210) Some have called for further debate or examination, while our traditional allies are already in the fray. As tragic as all conflicts are, the faction involved here as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, has called for the very destruction of our way of life in the western world. Make no mistake. These are current threats. These are real threats. This is not a war against Muslims. This is not a fight between Christianity and Islam.

This is an intervention to aid in the restoration of some semblance of security against a perversion of a twisted version of a faith distorted and violence perpetrated against true innocents in that region. Yet it is perpetrated outward. It has been carried via the Internet into the homes of Canadians. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has proven its distortion of faith through extreme acts of terror so callous in nature that even al Qaeda has worked to distance itself from them. Let us be crystal clear. The evidence to act in defence of Canada is there.

ISIL has targeted humanitarian workers, journalists, and citizens. Millions are displaced, and the suffering is enormous. Acts of genocide, rape as a weapon of war, kidnapping, and slavery as a stated intent are threats against our country and theirs. We have been asked by a democratic state to assist. This brings further justification to our actions. ISIL, on the other hand, has shown no tolerance and no conscience and has no regard for beliefs or democratic principles other than its own twisted and distorted view of the world.

Now it has descended in that region into a type of maniacal barbarism and brutality rarely seen in human history. Comparisons to other conflicts are limited to the worst in world history. ISIL has waged a brutal, inhumane war, showing equal disregard for women and children, Muslims and Christians alike.

Its claim to religious authority over all Muslims worldwide and its goal to bring Muslim-inhabited regions under its own diabolic control and to spread throughout the civilized world cannot go unchecked. [ Translation ] Religious freedom is a fundamental Canadian value that we protect and promote throughout the world. (1215) [ English ] In addition to military collaboration, we have also sent humanitarian aid in the tens of millions to those affected. It has not been one or the other, but both. We are one of the top donors, in fact, as a country, which again is a source of pride.

We have also helped through immigration. Thousands have been liberated, because they were displaced and left vulnerable as a result of this conflict. If we must once again put our faith in those who wear the Canadian Forces uniform, we want Canadians to know that it was a decision not taken lightly but is one we have confidence in. We cannot thank those brave men and women in uniform enough. Putting soldiers in harm's way is, as others have said, an undertaking that we must do with extreme caution and deliberation.

Asking these brave souls of the Canadian Forces to defend our nation, our way of life, our beliefs, and the rights and freedoms of Canadians at home and abroad weighs heavily on all minds. However, as a government, we take this responsibility seriously. We believe that parliamentarians should and do have an opportunity in this debate to help to carefully calibrate force and action, which is why we have added another day to this debate and why we have made this a confidence motion.

For a period of up to six months, our forces will launch air strikes against ISIL, along with our allies and partners, including Arab states, utilizing up to nine aircraft and support elements. Humanitarian relief will continue. This is a meaningful, impactful contribution. As always, we will do our part with pride and purpose. Incremental costs will of course be reported to the Parliament of Canada, as they always are. The current deployment of 69 members who will be participating in a non-combat advisory role will continue. As the Prime Minister has said, we are not participating in any ground combat mission.

We do so in coordination with our closest allies and with the greatest intent in mind to bring about a sense of security in the region. The dedication and determination of the men and women in uniform that we have witnessed first-hand thus far is inspirational as always. We have a long and storied history when it comes to protecting our system of beliefs and those we count among our closest friends and allies. There are easier paths we could go down, but we will not shy away from our duty. We will do what is right, honouring our glorious history and preserving our precious future. Mr. Ryan Cleary (St.

John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to some of the minister's adjectives pertaining to ISIL: pure evil, human plague, maniacal barbarism. I attended an awards banquet on Friday night in my riding, and I was approached by a young man whose name is Sean Vinnicombe. He is 15 years old and is a grade 11 student at Holy Heart of Mary High School in St. John's. I will pose the question he asked me: Why are we going to war in Iraq? I have my own question that follows up on that. The United States was in Iraq for 10 years.

The Americans fought there for 10 years and not much changed after those 10 years were up. There are many hot spots around the world, including the Congo, where 5.4 million people have died since 1998. The Congo has asked three times since 2010 for Canada to support peacekeeping, but we said no. I have two questions. One, for the young man in my riding, is this: Why Iraq? The second is why Iraq and not the Congo-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. Minister of Justice. Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I thank the young man in St. John's for perhaps bringing us to a very poignant question. Why Iraq?

Simply put, it is to help defend this young boy's future in Canada; to help preserve his right to get an education in St. John's; to expect his younger sister, if he has one, to be treated equally in Canada; to defend his very way of life; and to hope to defray the real threat he might face when he goes back to his computer and has material presented to him that would somehow distort his young mind and his understanding of what is important in his life and in his obligations to his fellow citizens. There are many and diverse responses I could give to that young man, and I would relish the opportunity to do so.

I hope the member opposite will take the time to pass that on. As to why Iraq versus Congo, we can do our part. We continue to do so in many places around the world. It is something Canadians can certainly be extremely proud of.

(1220) Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was sad, but not surprised, to hear the Minister of Justice continue to promote the false dichotomy that Canada either assumes a combat role of aerial bombing or it is characterized as accepting and tolerating ISIL, standing idly by, complacency, and all of these words that are being used to divide Canadians on this issue. In fact, Liberals are very clear that we believe Canada can best contribute to other kinds of military roles, non-combat military roles, as well as humanitarian roles. I proposed a training role.

My question is this: Does the minister believe that in the four years when 1,000 Canadian trainers had a non-combat role in Afghanistan, the government was standing idly by and was in a place of complacency and acceptance and tolerance of the Taliban? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very selective memory, because number one, it was a Liberal government that sent our forces, ill-equipped as they were, without a vote, to Afghanistan.

Twelve years of a severe combat mission followed, which allowed us to at least prepare the ground for some semblance of a training mission, so I think we have to have some context. The member suggests somehow that it is Conservatives who are creating this false dichotomy by characterizing this threat in the extreme. Let us look at what some members of her party, members of this House, had to say fairly recently. Mr. Bob Rae: “We can do more. Assist people under...siege fight back”. That does not sound like a humanitarian response. Mr.

Lloyd Axworthy, who I do not quote very often, stated that ISIL has “to be whacked and whacked good”. That is pretty explicit. Ujjal Dosanjh, a former minister of this House said, “ISIL must be stopped and destroyed”. These are words that I think are in keeping with this effort, this motion, to respond in a way that would bring about real results, not stand on the sidelines and hope that others will do it in our name. Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House regarding Canada's engagement in the combat mission against ISIL. I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in the opposition parties. They took positions before this debate even started. They were opposed to this mission and are not interested in listening to logical debate before making a decision on the motion. As has already been made clear, the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, constitutes a threat to local, regional, and international security.

The serious security and humanitarian crisis in Iraq and in its neighbouring countries has been created by the vicious advance of the ISIL terrorists. Their capture of territory has resulted in mass displacement and has forced over one million Iraqis from their homes and communities, and we know well of their despicable and unspeakable crimes. ISIL stands accused by the United Nations of the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and of the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Of course, they have also bragged about their decapitations of journalists and aid workers.

If allowed to continue, the threat posed by ISIL will develop into an even greater threat, further destabilizing the Middle East and creating and encouraging greater enmity among its people. We know that these terrorists seek to hurt Canada and our allies. The leadership of ISIL has called for Canada and Canadians to be attacked. How much longer should Canada wait to act? If it were up to the leaders of the Liberals and the NDP, Canadians would never act. Our government will not sit on the sidelines. We are taking action.

Since the end of August, the Canadian Armed Forces have airlifted critical military supplies for the Iraqi forces battling ISIL on the ground. Twenty-five flights have delivered more than 1.6 million pounds of military supplies donated by Albania and the Czech Republic. We have also deployed special operations forces to advise and assist the Iraqi forces and in particular the Kurdish Peshmerga. We announced yesterday that their initial 30-day deployment is being extended for up to six months. On Friday, the Prime Minister announced that this government will take the following additional steps.

A strike force of up to six CF-18 Hornet fighter aircraft, with associated aircrew and logistical support elements, will deploy to conduct air strikes against ISIL targets in Iraq in co-operation with our coalition partners. In addition, a CC-150 Polaris refueling aircraft and up to two CP-140 Aurora aerial surveillance aircraft will deploy for their reconnaissance and support capabilities. This force will also include an airlift capability and several hundred support personnel who will be contributing to command and control and logistics and will be providing assistance to the coalition's air combat operations.

These deployments mean that Canada is shouldering its share of the international burden to combat the threat of ISIL. We know that it is possible that there may be risks to our deployed members, but I can attest to the fact that they are ready, willing, and up to this task. They are exceptionally well trained and equipped to the highest standards. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are the very best of our citizenry, and I know that they will make us proud of their heroism and bravery yet again. As I explained yesterday in the House, this operation is still at a preliminary stage.

We will continue to work closely with our allies to evaluate the operations and events as they continue to unfold. Let me say something about our allies in this operation. Over the last few months, a wide coalition of more than 40 countries has come together. They all understand the vital need to confront ISIL. Our closest ally and defence partner, the United States, is leading the coalition. The U.S. has been conducting air strikes against ISIL for two months now, and it has expanded its air campaign in the last two weeks. However, the U.S. is no longer alone, as other countries are joining the fight every day.

France and the United Kingdom have already conducted air strikes, destroying ISIL facilities and weaponry. Ten Arab countries have also pledged their support, with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain already participating in air strikes. Australia has committed direct military support, including 600 personnel and eight F-18 Super Hornet fighters.

(1225) Many of our allies within NATO are also getting involved in combat operations. The Netherlands is sending 6 F-16 fighter jets plus 2 reserve jets, 250 support staff and pilots. Belgium is sending 6 F-16s, with 8 pilots and 120 support staff. Denmark is providing 7 F-16 fighter jets, along with 250 pilots and support staff. Germany is sending paratroopers to provide weapons and training to Kurdish fighters. Weapons and ammunition are being sent by countries such as Italy, Estonia and Hungary. The international community is stepping up, and so must Canada. Let me end on this note.

The violence we see from ISIL simply has no place in the modern world. Who would have even dreamt two years ago that this would happen? ISIL's utter contempt for human life is beneath humanity and it rightly shocks Canadians. We do not make decisions through a red mist or through a desire for revenge. We know that down that path lays disaster. Our measured response, very carefully considered by our government, is in line with Canada's intent to contribute to international peace and security. We are citizens of the world and this government is acting as such. ISIL knows no boundaries and no borders.

It threatens to gain more ground and it directly threatens the safety of our country. It is time for something to be done, and for the international community to act. If we do not, as the opposition has suggested, we will eventually face the serious consequences. We simply cannot afford to let the Middle East wallow in the repression, bloodshed and atrocities that would result. We simply cannot ignore the direct threat posed by ISIL to Canada and our western allies, or to our values. This government is prepared to address this threat at its source.

Canadians agree that this military action is in our national interest. We must take action and we will take action. We seek the support of all Canadians for the government motion. (1230) [ Translation ] Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions I would like to ask my hon. colleague opposite. Basically, what I heard on the news yesterday is rather important. In fact, ISIS captured a large city near Turkey's border. The bombing started two weeks ago, if not more, and yet the fighters captured the city quite easily. What effect are the bombings having?

Second, I also learned that ISIS has changed tactics. Its members are now hiding. Where will they hide? They will hide among the civilian population. Are my colleagues opposite really going to agree to bomb civilians, children and pregnant women because ISIS is hiding among them? I find that deplorable. [ English ] Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the NDP members for the last day and a half on this and I have been engaged with them in multiple panel debates. I am so disappointed in their position. They are prepared to sacrifice innocent civilians who are under the threat of ISIL.

We are talking about a genocide taking place, and the NDP would do nothing to protect those people. All the NDP ever talks about is humanitarian aid. We are providing humanitarian aid. There is a huge coalition of over 60 countries providing humanitarian assistance and dealing now with the war crimes that are being committed. We made that clear yesterday. The NDP does not care and will not act to protect the children who are being beheaded or the women who are being sexually assaulted and sold into slavery. The NDP will not stop ISIL at its source. Our government will. Mr.

Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my objection to the suggestion that somehow on this side of the House, the members of the opposition are less patriotic than the members of the government. The member suggested that there is disappointment that the opposition does not support the government motion. Is it not ultimately the responsibility of the government to reach out to the opposition, step forward, provide the compelling reasons and give the necessary information for the opposition to make an appropriate decision?

Would the parliamentary secretary do the right thing and offer the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party the opportunity to be sworn into the Privy Council and give them a private, confidential briefing on the operational capacity of our ability to execute the mission? Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, I know the member is relatively new to the House. We lived through a Liberal government that sent our men and women into battle, for the right reasons, in Afghanistan to take on the Taliban. This is the same situation we face today in Iraq with ISIL. An hon. member: This is worse. Mr.

James Bezan: This is definitely worse, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation where we have an all-out genocide going on. The Liberals made that decision without consulting opposition parties, without having a debate in the House or a vote. They just went and did it. It is the practice in our party that when we deploy troops in combat roles to bring it to the House for that discussion. It is just unbelievable. The Minister of Justice just quoted some members who served when I first got here. They were ministers of the Liberal government and support this mission.

I know the Liberals love Hillary Clinton, and even she is saying, “I think military action is critical. In fact, I would say essential”. If leading Liberals in Canada and around the world support this mission, what is wrong with the Liberal Party of Canada today?

(1235) Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for staying high level on this debate. There are some unspeakable things that ISIL is doing, such as beheading children and forcing parents to bury their children alive. While my colleagues will not mention that because it is unspeakable, I want the opposition members to understand what they are voting against. No god, including Allah, condones this behaviour. No religion, including Islam, supports this behaviour. This is an affront to humanity.

Could the member comment on what the government proposes in terms of the limited military action against this evil? Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, we all realize that ISIL is still recruiting. We know there is at least 130 Canadians who have deployed and moved to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIL. We want to take away those passports, which is not supported by the opposition. We want to take away their citizenship when they are dual nationals, which is not supported by the opposition. We have to target ISIL at its source. We have to target its ability to generate revenue and finance its campaign of terror.

We are going to continue to target ISIL, whether it is them capturing refineries, oil wells, financial institutions. We are going to go after them to ensure that ISIL does not have money, the resources and ability to continue to behead children, to bury them alive or sexually assault women and children, and sell them into slavery. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion.

As members of Parliament, the single most important duty we have is to give consideration to actions by the government, as those actions would lead our military men and women into harm's way. One thing I want to be clear on is that at this point in time there is already an action under way to go after ISIL, the people committing the atrocities about which the members on the other side just spoke. Nobody on this side of the House is any less offended or troubled by those actions.

Right now militarily, about 60 countries are involved in a coalition and not all of them have made the decision to put their military into action. The United States, France and Australia are leading the way with a massive force. In point of fact, if we consider the six aircraft being proposed by the government and the 600 people who will accompany them, that is a very small portion of what will be utilized in the bombings.

Based on some testimony that the Subcommittee on International Human Rights heard this week from Reverend Majed El Shafie of One Free World International, which is a group that took Conservatives and other members of Parliament to Iraq, right to the edge of where the combat is taking place, the president of Iraq and Kurdish leaders begged for humanitarian aid for the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in that country, not bombs. I want to take members back for a moment and ask if they remember the use of the words “collateral damage”.

In and around Parliament and places of government, there are often what are called buzzwords. An example of buzzwords that I am very familiar with were “free trade”. In the 1980s, there was a great debate on free trade and it sounded good. In both Gulf Wars, when the American missiles and bombs were dropping, collateral damage was referred to. The collateral damage consisted of men, women and children. Nobody can direct a surgical strike that does not put at risk having collateral damage. One of the offshoots of the Gulf War was the instability when the Americans left.

Prior to that time, Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, whose tribe was about one-quarter the size of the Shia in that area of the world, installed his Sunni supporters into the army. When the Americans and their allies removed Saddam Hussein and destabilized that area, he was ultimately replaced by a prime minister who was Shia, who sought revenge for the many atrocities committed by the troops of Saddam Hussein. It is said that he did not pay the army on time and humiliated it. When a couple of thousand ISIL fighters came across the border, five divisions of Iraqi soldiers laid down their arms.

Many of them joined ISIL because of the instability. Not understanding the horrific consequences, they believed that by joining ISIL, they would get a fairer deal from the government. Since that time, that prime minister has been removed. I would like to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that I am splitting my time with the member for Louis-Hébert . The instability that was created by that vacuum and the years and years of Shia and Sunni tribal warfare is being taken advantage of by the ISIL group.

(1240) We have heard testimony from people here today and on other days that ISIL is far more sophisticated than any terrorist group that we have come across. It is an offshoot of al Qaeda. Our leader was indicating in the House the other day that North Americans have been fighting ISIL in one form or another for well over 10 years. It took advantage of that vacuum and has also taken advantage of some people who, had they really considered their actions, would not have joined it. It is horrific. We have heard very little like it.

The only place I can think of that might be comparable is the Democratic Republic of Congo where there have been atrocities. Reverend El Shafie spoke to us in committee and raised the fact that they are four to five weeks away from winter and there is not even shelter for people. The few hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, that are going to be spent by Canada on these bombing missions would be better used serving the people on the ground in that country who are suffering.

If we were to go there and build shelters and bring medicines, winter clothes and the things they need, they would be better served. They were forced out of their homes. They were given a choice but they were not believers in this particular brand, this abhorrent brand of Islam. I am pleased to hear the government say that it is not Islam as the world knows it. This is a group of people, much like Osama bin Laden, who use the word “jihad” to justify horrific things. Those who know a little about Islam know that “jihad” simply means to defend one's religion when it comes under attack.

It is not to go out and do the things that are happening here. It is very important to remind Canadians who may be watching that in Canada there are 1.2 million Muslims. Every once in a while I will find someone who is ill informed, who says Muslims are trying to take over, or this and that. I remind him that there are 32 million of the rest of us. When do we see a newspaper story of a Muslim attacking someone in Canada, or stealing, robbing a bank, or committing murder? It is extremely rare because these are good people who believe very fundamentally and are committed to Islam. Again, this is not Islam.

This is a terrible group. I cannot think of ISIL members in any other terms than monsters because the things they have been doing are monstrous. I can understand that members on the other side who have the lever of power and the ability to say we should put our aircraft in the air, or put troops on the ground—in fairness, they have not said that as yet, but we are worried it might happen—would want to do something when we are facing those kinds of horrific crimes. However, we have a coalition of 60 nations.

We have among them the top three or four militaries on the face of the earth prepared to undertake this mission. They do not need Canada to go there bombing, but they do need Canada's help in this effort. I agree with Canada taking

part in this effort. I agree that Canada must do something on a huge humanitarian scale because this is going to be proven to be one of the most horrific times in our history with what is going to happen to the displaced people. They have already been terrorized to the point of having to leave their homes. Many have had brothers, fathers, uncles and cousins murdered and there are other atrocities we have heard about. No one is arguing those have not happened.

What we are arguing is that perhaps Canada can take that step back from going into military action and say Canada is prepared to stand up with our allies, supply the humanitarian aid, offer support and the delivery of arms. We are already delivering arms to those fighters trying to protect their homeland, which we are in agreement with. However, it is most important to take that pause before we choose to send our men and women into a war zone that is going to become a quagmire. We saw it happen in the last war in Iraq. We saw it happen in Afghanistan where 40,000 Canadians went through that war zone.

We are still paying the price for that today with PTSD and the loss of over 150 Canadian soldiers and a person from our diplomatic service.

(1245) I will close by appealing to the government side. Take a moment, step back and give some thought to the fact that this is a broader concern than just war and bombing. It is a place where we can do some real humanitarian work. Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my hon. colleague that we do not have a moment. We do not have all the time in the world. I wish we did and I wish we did not have to go.

I wonder why it is that among the NDP members, who made their decision to vote against the motion long before the motion was even put up, we have not seen a change in that position despite everything that we have said. We do not see democracy here or rational debate. We see obstinance and obstruction. The member knows full well that we have humanitarian aid over there and we can do more, and we will. The opposition is concerned about refugees. We are doing a lot in that regard and we will do more. However, what do we do, as a nation that can, about those people who cannot escape the evil?

Do we just focus on those who can escape the evil and become refugees and leave those who cannot escape this evil only to die, to be tortured, to be buried alive? I say that we do not do that, and with a heavy heart, I will vote for the motion. I am asking that reasonable member to break rank, break the domination of his leader and vote for the motion. Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, I was proud to stand in the House and vote against the Afghanistan mission because I thought it was ill conceived and ill prepared for.

Looking upon the circumstances we have today, the member says that if we do not go to war those people will die. However, there happens to be a huge military force from France, the United States and Australia with the weapons that can do exactly the job that the Conservatives are asking the Canadian military to do. We are saying that it is not necessary for us to take

part in that level of that conflict, but for Canada to have a role supplying humanitarian aid, supplying the workers that will build shelters. That is where Canada and a huge number of Canadians believe we should be in this particular event. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, frankly, I share the hesitancy of the hon. member, and I congratulate him on his speech. I wish we could ramp down the politics of this matter, because not one of us on either side wishes to send the men and women of our military into harm's way, particularly in a situation such as this.

I wonder if the hon. member has given thought to the people who are going to be joining us in the coalition, and not so much the obvious ones, but rather Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Up until now, Iran has been the greatest exporter of state-sponsored terrorism, according to our own Minister of Foreign Affairs . Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah, yet in this particular fight, it is our ally. That puts everyone in a very awkward position. I would be interested in the member's thoughts on that.

(1250) Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, the member will probably be surprised to know that, prior to speaking, I came here in a rush because I had just left a press conference where we were talking about dissidents in Iranian prisons who were about to be executed, so I share his concern. We have heard the comments about Syria, that if Assad asks, we will bomb. This is a man who just a year and a half or so ago the United States drew a red line and said that if he crossed it they would stop him, but they failed to do that. However, all of a sudden, this man is a potential ally.

We certainly all should feel conflicted in this place, and I do not care from what party. The good souls who sit here who are going to make the best judgment they can with the information they have at hand. We have lost an opportunity in the House. I do not often agree with some of my friends, but the fact is that we could have had our leader and the leader of the third party sworn into the Privy Council and taken into the discussions. Maybe, it is possible that it might have looked different. However, we can only make our decisions based on the information placed before us and placed before our leaders.

The Conservatives have failed on that count. [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some context for my comments by saying that neither the UN nor NATO approved this military contribution. Iraq has the fifth-largest proven oil reserve in the world, which may explain a lot things about this conflict. Moreover, oil production has almost doubled since Saddam Hussein left power. Lastly, as for the barbaric group we are talking about today, I will not use the word “state”. I will do as the French and use the Arabic acronym Daesh.

The Prime Minister has a very limited point of view and sees the problems only from an economic standpoint. The government is only seeking revenge for actions that are, obviously, extremely reprehensible. Let us be clear: we do not like the murders and the way this organization treats dead bodies any more than the members opposite. It is unacceptable. However, I was truly surprised by one thing in the Prime Minister 's speech. He admitted that the motion he moved will not solve anything. In other words, we are doing something for the sake of doing something because we feel obliged.

However, in the same breath, he admitted that this will not solve anything. We therefore need to ask ourselves whether we should be doing something that will not solve anything. This kind of magical thinking is unacceptable. We cannot hope to solve things this time by repeating past mistakes. I doubt that this will work because the situation has not been deteriorating for two years, but rather for decades. We are going to take the same approach and hope that things will go a little better this time, but that does not reflect the reality on the ground.

Some members went so far as to say that providing support for humanitarian aid was the same as doing nothing and that it was not very honourable. How many people depend on that humanitarian aid? Do those members think that it is easy to provide humanitarian aid in a conflict situation? The most important thing is to have a long-term vision for this assistance. We are not just talking about meeting the needs of today, tomorrow or next week. The humanitarian aid provided must be seen as the first step toward a sustainable solution in this geopolitical space. This problem has existed for years.

All sorts of solutions, particularly military ones, have been tried, and now they are being tried again. If this was the first time this had happened, we could plead ignorance. However, that is not the case, and the situation gets worse every time. The only thing that has changed is the opponent's acronym. On this side of the House, we are not advocating sitting back and watching the train go by. However, we need to take the right train, not one that will lead us into another similar debate five or 10 years from now, when other people will do the same things we did and will certainly fail to resolve the problem.

At no other time in the history of humanity have we had so much knowledge. Unfortunately, we are not using it. We need to understand what is happening, not just react to it.

(1255) We know that military action alone cannot resolve the problem. Nevertheless that is the approach the House is adopting. We know that long-term social, economic and political change is needed. If we simply repeat the past, we are bound to fail. For example, this very day, the Americans are bombing ISIS fighters in the town of Kobani, which is located on the border of Syria and Turkey. This has been only partially successful. They are bombing during the day, but that is not working because the troops are light and mobile. This intervention has already practically failed.

That is what is happening at the Turkish border. Approximately 140,000 people have already left Kobani for Turkey. Who is helping them? Are we giving them enough assistance? Are we allowing the Kurds to properly defend themselves? No. We are ignoring the geopolitical problems of the region because it is located near the border of Turkey and Syria. The Turks do not want to intervene because the situation involves the Kurds and the al-Assad government would consider any intervention

an act of war. Perhaps diplomacy is needed to resolve the situation. That would help everyone on the planet. However, the government does not seem to want to take that approach. It is truly unbelievable. We have to look at the problem as a whole. We cannot look at humanitarian aid as a one-off. We have to look at the bigger picture and draw on all of our knowledge.

That is why I am saying to the Prime Minister that it is time for him to consider sociology, social sciences and political sciences, indeed all our world knowledge, both in Canada and elsewhere in the West, and think about effective ways of intervening so that we never have to go through this experience again and deal with groups of madmen going around beheading people. What is more, it is important to support the local people. They are the ones who will manage to solve the problem and if we do not support them in finding a solution, I can assure the House that we will never resolve this crisis.

The thing is, we are falling into a trap. All the horrors are being broadcast to the world when usually they are hidden. They are being made public precisely because ISIS wants us to do what we are in the process of doing right now, which is to conduct the bombings. This will help them recruit people. It is obvious. It is not rocket science. The Daesh, or Islamic state terror group, is not very strong. It is definitely wealthy, structured and well equipped. However, it draws its strength from the weakness around it. The systematic destruction of all the social structures in this region allowed it to grow.

It is important to recognize that. However, in the current situation, nothing is being strengthened. Every political and social organization in this region continues to be undermined. Imagine that. An Iraqi army of 200,000 soldiers trained for seven years by the Americans at a cost of $26 billion fled from a small group of 20,000 people who are not even soldiers. A few are, but most are militants. This Iraqi army bolted. Their training was a failure. It is a serious failure. That is why it is so important to intervene with a UN mandate. We must also find our place within this coalition.

(1300) A number of countries including Norway, Sweden, Spain and Austria are focused on humanitarian aid. I think Canada should get involved as well. We would not be alone. We could talk about forming a coalition to provide aid. We have to think about the future. We have to do more than just trying to solve today's problems. [ English ] Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I have found him to be a very reasonable colleague in discussing these issues.

He made some great points today in terms of the fact that military action alone would not solve this problem. On this side, we agree that military action alone would not solve the problem. The member mentioned humanitarian aid. We are sending humanitarian aid into this area, and we will send it, but all of us know that humanitarian aid sent into an area that is totally chaotic, where there is no law or order or security of any kind, will not get to the people who need that aid. The member said that our Prime Minister indicated that this will not solve the problem.

Would he suggest that because my efforts on suicide prevention have not stopped every suicide in this country, efforts to minimize the number of suicides are not effective? Is he saying that we would allow the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and children? If we can at least reduce that to a few, would that not be better than the large number who are currently being decimated? [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He will obviously understand that hard work is part of life. I think we will both agree on that and he will truly see it.

However, when we say that this will not solve the problem, it means that we need to find other solutions and be more innovative. If we already know that our strategy is doomed to failure, that does not mean sitting on our hands, doing nothing and giving up. On the contrary, it is a call for action, for being innovative and finding other solutions that are much more effective. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureu