House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

9:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member is an experienced member of Parliament. He knows full well, making reference to someone's absence or presence is not parliamentary. We do not point out every time the leader of the official opposition is not here. I do not think it is appropriate for him to be impugning motives.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is right. I will ask the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to be mindful of that.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

9:50 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

We have asked for some clarity on the mission. We have also asked for some direct humanitarian response and the government has said it is willing to follow up on the four requests that we have made. However, does the hon. member not agree with me that something as important as sending our troops into harm's way, and everyone agrees that they are going into a theatre of conflict, should have a motion from government that we vote on to satisfy all Canadians, in particular, if I may, the Canadian Forces we are sending into theatre. After all, it is our decision to send them abroad. They will go where we tell them to go, but it is incumbent upon us to tell Canadians and those forces exactly what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what the exact mission is.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by responding to that question as follows.

First of all, on this side of the House, we do not look at people as juniors and seniors. Every member who is present in the House this evening, and any other evening or any other day, is representing well over 100,000 constituents, certainly in Ontario, and perhaps a little less than that in some other regions of the country. However, every member is important and every member is senior.

The fact that there are so many members here tonight is a testament to the conviction of the people who are elected by their respective constituents. I applaud everyone who is here participating in this important debate this evening.

In response to the question, the member knows very well that, I believe it was on September 5 of this year, the leaders of the opposition parties were briefed by the Minister of National Defence on Canada's plans and how we were going to move forward. It was our hope, of course, that the leadership of the other parties would inform their members, engage them in discussion, and impart upon them the information that was discussed with the Minister of National Defence.

In addition, let me just say that I am a little surprised to hear the question from the hon. member, because I believe he was one of the people who was invited by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to visit Iraq and see the impact there. I would hope that he would be very supportive of this effort as it is very much needed in Iraq.

This is not the time to play political partisan games. I believe it is time for us to behave and act as a responsible united government, parties all together.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

9:55 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to contribute to this important debate, even at the risk of disappointing my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre.

As we heard today, and during last week's meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, in addition to pledging $28 million in humanitarian aid and $15 million in security aid to Iraq since the beginning of 2014, and delivering critical military supplies donated by our allies to the Iraqi security forces, Canada has also initiated deployment of several dozen military advisers, 69 to be exact. These military advisers will be working alongside the U.S. military to provide strategic and tactical advice to Iraqi security forces as they battle the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

I want to quote from a Globe and Mail article by an expert in these matters, Colonel (Retired) George Petrolekas. He said:

[The Islamic State] is the most savage strain of jihadism yet seen, publically reveling in its brutality and unapologetically killing anyone in its path. The danger of [the Islamic State] is that it is on the cusp of an inflection point, where a transition occurs from what we would call insurgent or terrorist activity to the trappings of a conventional force and state power with accompanying tactics which seek ground to conquer and people to govern. At present, [the Islamic State] provides its own brutal form of governance in many cities it controls; it acts as a state, it moves as an army and has state revenues. The killing of hostages, dressed in orange prison garb is meant to convey something beyond what terror killings in the past have done—it does not seek to destabilize a state, it seeks to be a state. If fully realized, [the Islamic State] will never simply be contained. If not destroyed, [the Islamic State] has the potential to dislocate an already volatile region, eventually embroiling Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and the wider Middle East—redrawing borders in its wake.

I agree with Colonel Petrolekas.

Dante said that the darkest recesses of hell are reserved for those who try and remain neutral in a time of moral crisis. I suggest we are there, at a time of moral crisis.

I would like to take a few minutes to explore the unique skill set and experience that Canada's Armed Forces bring to the table in this difficult situation. In all of our military collaboration abroad Canada always strives to remain responsive to the needs of our partner nations on the ground. As we know, these can evolve rapidly. With the rise of new technologies, socio-economic realities and geopolitical trends, the threats we face have diversified and now involve cross-cutting issues such as transnational organized crime and terrorism.

To respond to these emerging threats, Canada draws on the wide variety of skills and resources found across the Canadian Armed Forces, offering tailored, targeted training, capacity building and mentorship in areas of particular need. One of these areas is special operations, and specifically, counter-terrorism.

Beginning in 2008, Canada's Special Operations Forces Command, CANSOFCOM, expanded its international training and has now instructed over 1,300 personnel from Jamaica, Niger, Kenya, Mali and Afghanistan on different aspects of counter-terrorism operations. These aspects range from intelligence, to planning, staff training, command, communications, battle skills and medical support.

Much of this collaboration has been conducted through the counter-terrorism capacity building program, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. It is a whole-of-government initiative established in response to the UN Security Council's call for states to support each other in the fight against terrorism by providing training, funding, equipment and legal assistance.

Our special forces operators have shown just how much they bring to this interdepartmental and international counter-terrorism effort. These soldiers are highly educated and professional. They possess incredible technical skills and they have been battle-tested in some of the most austere, dangerous environments in the world, including Afghanistan, where they worked closely with their U.S. counterparts to fight insurgents and protect allied forces during Operation Enduring Freedom. Then they went on to help train and mentor the Afghan National Army special forces.

However, their real value comes from their adaptability and responsiveness. These women and men know their basics inside out. Trained and equipped to operate in small teams, without large logistical chains, and to respond quickly to evolving needs, they are ideally suited to go into even the most unfamiliar and unstable areas and apply those basics to get the job done, and fast.

The high level of expertise, readiness and maturity our special operations forces have attained through their own work and training give them the very technical and diplomatic skills they need to support, advise and instruct developing militaries throughout the world. Their efforts have already paid off. In 2009, for example, a Jamaican counter-terrorism unit, trained by Canada's Special Operations Regiment, successfully ended the hijacking of an aircraft with almost 200 Canadian passengers on board, overpowering the gunman without any shots fired.

Canada is a world leader when it comes to the provision of military training, capacity building and mentorship outside the NATO community, not only in the area of counterterrorism but right across the board. For 50 years, our military training and co-operation program, the MTCP, has helped deliver training to thousands of candidates from non-NATO countries. Its core programming, offered in Canada and abroad, includes language training, peace support and professional development and staff courses in a wide range of areas from communications to leadership, ethics and battle procedures. Its classes are geared toward the future leaders of tomorrow's armed forces, and its funding covers all regions of the world, including about 22% that goes to the Middle East and Africa. Last year alone, more than 1,400 candidates from 62 member nations received instruction through this program.

As Canadian co-chair of the Canada–U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defence, I am very familiar with the excellent work in capability development that Canada has contributed to our smaller allies around the world. In addition to the MTCP, different organizations within DND and the Canadian Armed Forces occasionally conduct international training and capacity building at the request of partner nations and within their own areas of expertise, such as countering improvised explosive devices or maritime navigation.

Canada's international military-to-military training, capacity building and mentorship serve three broad goals, goals that are intimately connected to National Defence's mandate to protect Canada and Canadians while contributing to global peace and security.

First, our training co-operation generates enhanced interoperability and capability in partner countries. For example, our peace support training has increased the number of qualified troops available for deployment with the UN and other multilateral organizations.

Second, working closely with members of foreign militaries also helps to expand and solidify Canada's bilateral defence relationships by increasing mutual understanding and good will and laying the foundation for further collaboration. In fact, countries that have participated in Canada's MTCP have been shown to be more likely to co-operate with and offer the Canadian Armed Forces access to their countries and their forces. This has been evidenced by our successful co-operation with countries in the Caribbean in the areas of transnational crime and drug interdiction.

Finally, our international capacity building promotes Canada's democratic values such as rule of law, protection of human rights and civilian oversight of the military in areas of the world where such principles may still be under threat.

Despite the clear success of our international training and capacity building to date, the question continues to be raised as to what relevant experience Canada can bring to this particular part of the world and this particular armed struggle. The Canadian Armed Forces have significant experience in hostile regions where armed insurgency is rife. Afghanistan of course provides a telling example. For more than 12 years, 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members worked with international partners to create the conditions for peace and security in that country by rooting out insurgents and training the Afghan National Security Forces. I had the privilege of spending some time with our forces in Afghanistan, including our special ops forces on several occasions. Their professionalism was manifest, and I was always impressed with their commitment to their mission on behalf of Canadians. I was especially impressed with the largely unsung and extremely difficult work of our special forces and left with the thought that I am very glad that they are on our side.

However, our men and women in uniform have also participated in stabilization, observer and capacity-building missions in Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, the Golan Heights and other parts of the Maghreb and Middle East. They have taken part in multinational operations to counter illicit trafficking and terrorism in the Mediterranean and Arabian seas, while helping to protect civilians in Libya during the recent upheaval there. Across the Middle East and North Africa, the Canadian Armed Forces have worked closely with allies and partners in international coalitions like the one currently supporting Iraqi forces as they battle ISIS, coalitions that demand a high degree of interoperability and collaboration, both between militaries and between military and civilian organizations. This experience will allow our military advisers to successfully mentor Iraqi security forces, which in certain cases are unprepared for full-scale modern warfare and are unused to collaborating with conventional forces.

Canadians should have no doubt that our military personnel on deployment in Iraq have a huge amount to offer. They will be able to make a positive contribution, and their deployment represents an immediate and significant step this government is taking to turn back ISIS's devastating advance through which thousands of innocent victims have already been killed and millions displaced. Their important work will help counter the threat this expansionist terror group poses to regional and global security, and will ensure the security of Canada and all Canadians.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:05 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution to the debate tonight. It was a well-written and well-read speech.

I know the member has had considerable military experience. We are happy to see that and we thank him for his contribution as a fighter pilot, a lieutenant colonel in the air force and serving on the defence committee and the joint board. I agree with him about the capability of our military, in particular our special operations forces.

I do have one question for the member. Being an experienced military person, he would also know that one of the areas that has been historically rife for what we are calling mission creep has been this whole notion of military advisers being sent in as an advance team, such as in the Vietnam War, the 3,000 or 4,000 sent in by President Kennedy leading to the Vietnam War. It is one thing to be training people, such as in Jamaica with the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit training others to do that. That is a valid and useful thing to be doing, and we can do it in many parts of the world, as well as police forces. However, we already have an example, and we are not even a week past President Obama's announcement of the Americans, through the president or the chairman or the joint chiefs of staff, talking about turning his advisers into assault troops along with Iraqi forces. Is this not really part of the slippery slope that Canadians are—

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I will have to stop the member there to accommodate as many questions and comments as I can.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, what General Dempsey does in the United States is up to General Dempsey. What President Obama does with the American forces is up to President Obama.

The simple fact is that we have some very capable members of the Canadian Forces, as the member rightly acknowledged. As Dante said, I believe we have an obligation to act in a moment of moral crisis.

The other point I mentioned earlier in a question to another colleague is that we are not the only ones who have a vote in this. ISIS has a big vote, just as the Taliban had a big vote in Afghanistan.

The member comments that we should have had a vote here. The opposition had all day to do an opposition day motion and have a vote. Therefore, the member should not whine to me tonight that we did not have a vote when they had all day to get that done.

With respect to his question about mission creep or whatever, we are there for a purpose with a specific number of people for a specific length of time. What happens after that, I wish I knew. The simple fact is that we do not control these things. We do not control world events. We react to them. We react to them in the interests of Canada, in the interests of our allies and in the interests of common sense and common decency.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the government that there are no junior or senior members here. Therefore, I know the member for Edmonton Centre will answer my question.

If we are to take on ISIS to try to defeat it, we must do it on both fronts, not only in Iraq but also in Canada. Apparently, about 130 Canadians have gone over to the region. Some of them have come back and they have been radicalized. The government has said that if people are accused of and found guilty of terrorism they could lose their citizenship, if they are dual nationals.

I want to ask my colleague what happens if one is just simply a Canadian and is found guilty of terrorism. What would be the consequences in that case?

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:05 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a simple question and I have a simple answer. They would go to jail and would stay there for the rest of their lives.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most difficult issues we have ever faced in Parliament since I have been elected. I hold town hall meetings, and I have heard from more than 1,000 members of my constituency in town hall meetings who have all raised the question of what we do about ISIS. They are horrified by the brutal beheadings, but neither are they sure that this is a simple issue where sending military efforts and advisers to Iraq will make the difference that is required.

We know that the beheadings of innocent people are an affront to the religion of Islam, that they offend the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. They know that this is not an exemplification of religion but an extremist, appalling, unforgivable, inexcusable act of merciless, ruthless and inhumane extremism.

With a military presence as small as Canada proposes and has committed to send, do we have any analysis that this is the best thing we could do? Are there humanitarian efforts that would be more successful?

We know that Iraq asked for humanitarian assistance with Liberal, NDP and Conservative members of Parliament. The Green Party was not included in that discussion. We know they were asked for humanitarian assistance. What more can we do that would blunt the attraction of this kind of extremism? It is pernicious and it is evil, but I am not convinced that what we propose to do will end this threat.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my colleague said. The fact is that this is what the 30 days is about. It is about going over there to assess, to advise the Iraqis, to give them assistance and to hopefully point them in a long-term productive direction.

We are not there by ourselves. We are only sending 69 for a month, but there are a lot of other countries involved. As I said earlier, we do not get the only vote here. ISIS gets to vote. For sure they want humanitarian assistance. When the Yazidis came down from the mountain, they were not looking for tents; they were looking for rescue.

The world collectively has to provide a robust response to ISIS. The role Canada is playing now is the one we have set out to play, and the 30 days will determine what may or may not come next.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:10 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join with my colleagues in this very important debate we are having in the House tonight on Canada's response to the situation currently raging in Iraq.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The debate in the House this evening is of the utmost importance because the situation that the people of Iraq are currently facing is frankly intolerable. That has been mentioned by members of all parties in the House this evening. The terrorist organization known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has committed acts of violence that are absolutely disgusting. Civilian populations are being massacred. Civilians are the targets of extremist strikes. There is sexual violence against women, children and members of Iraq's minority communities. Many thousands of Iraqi citizens have had to flee their homes in the face of the escalation of the violence currently raging in their country.

Each of us in the House agrees on one fact. ISIL represents a humanitarian and security threat and the acts currently being committed in Iraq are likely to destabilize the region. The intensity and the nature of the acts of violence are a direct attack on human rights and the freedoms of religion, belief and association. As well, the humanitarian aid needs in Iraq are staggering. Indeed that was the government of Iraq's request to Canada. The first thing the country needs at the moment is rapid humanitarian aid for the thousands, the millions, of displaced civilians who need material support and other kinds of assistance right away.

All parties agree on those elements. Where we disagree—and this is the crux of tonight's debate—is on the Conservative government's unilateral decision to send Canadian troops to Iraq with no consultation with Parliament or even a vote here in the House. I heard people say that our party had an entire opposition day to discuss the issue and force a vote in Parliament. Beyond that, the government has completely neglected part of its responsibility here. It was the government's obligation to consult members of all parties. Each of us represents Canadians who are concerned by the current situation in Iraq. They are wondering what will be the role assigned to the Canadian troops on the ground. People still remember what happened in Afghanistan. It is very fresh in their memories.

I represent the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which is home to the Valcartier military base. Many of the soldiers from that base were deployed to Afghanistan. Some never made it home, while others came back with physical or psychological injuries that they still have today. Soldiers and their families want details. They want to know what the Canadian government is sending them into, and the place for such a debate is here in the House of Commons, not behind closed doors with a just a few cabinet ministers. We are told that the information was sent to the Leader of the Opposition who was supposed to share it with his MPs. That is not a debate; that is not consulting Parliament; that is simply getting second-hand information. The government only tells us what it wants to tell us, and then it expects that that information will be shared among the members, and we are supposed to believe we were consulted. That is not at all the kind of work the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier sent me to the House of Commons to do.

Once again, the government made a unilateral decision that further undermines the democratic principles that are the very foundation of our country. I heard the Conservatives talking about the importance of sending Canadian troops to spread Canadian values abroad. The current Conservative government is completely incapable of living those values in the day to day. Thus, every day, we see many abuses of the democratic principles that are supposed to be the foundation of our society. Personally, I find it a little hypocritical to hear the Conservatives saying they want to send our soldiers to spread Canadian values and principles, when they themselves are not capable of respecting them.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has broken his promise to consult Parliament before sending Canadian soldiers overseas. When the Conservatives were still campaigning in 2005-06, the Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to ask for Parliament's consent before deploying Canadian troops. It is written in black and white in the Conservative Party election platform at the time. It was an election promise, so it is easy to say that it was just rhetoric.

When he was elected in August 2009, the Prime Minister also stated unequivocally that his government would henceforth demand that any military deployment be supported by the Parliament of Canada. However, this is at least the second time that he has done otherwise.

During the mission in Libya, we saw that the government broke this promise, and now, for the mission in Iraq it is simply forgetting its promise. The government claims that the issue is more critical, that it has a majority and it does not need to consult with the other members of Parliament.

In my view, this is a direct affront to democracy. As an elected representative, am I supposed to read in the papers that the government has decided to send troops to Iraq, including possibly some of my constituents, while I have absolutely no information about where the troops will come from or what their role will be?

On September 9, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade held a special meeting to provide some clarifications. What a surprise. Once again, theMinister of National Defence was unable to answer the questions of the members of the opposition.

Fortunately, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was there and was able to answer some questions. However, the Minister of National Defence was completely lost. He had no details at all and was unable to do his job in the committee and inform the members.

Technically, the purpose of tonight's debate was also supposedly to provide more details to MPs on the current mission in Iraq. However, once again, the government was generous with its rhetoric and obscurantism, but shared no answers. We have many questions, but we still do not know how many troops will be deployed in total. For now, the government is saying 69. The numbers are somewhat vague. We have no concrete idea.

What will they do exactly to advise and help the Kurdish forces? We still have no idea. What is the mandate and objective of this mission for Canada? We still have no idea.

Unfortunately, we are completely missing the point of tonight's debate because we are still in the same spot. We hear the young people talk about key principles, Canadian values and the advisory role that our troops could play. However, other than that, I still have no concrete information to help me take a stand as an MP, which is what the NDP is asking.

I heard people from different sides of the House ask the NDP members what their position would be. First, we need the details; we need to know what is the mission and what are the objectives. There are a multitude of questions to be answered and, for the time being, the information is sorely lacking.

In addition, we are being told that the Conservative government is reserving the right to re-evaluate the mission in 30 days and to determine what it will do next—once again without involving Parliament and MPs.

A little earlier, my Conservative colleague from Yukon said something interesting. He told us just how important it was to arrive at a consensus in the House and to have all parties support a common position. I would really like to know how we can do that if the opposition members do not have a say in debate.

How can my colleague from Yukon think we can achieve consensus and make a decision in the House when the contribution of opposition members is completely ignored by presenting them with a fait accompli and telling them that it is up to their leader to inform them of decisions made by the government? That makes absolutely no sense.

I have not abdicated my responsibilities as an MP. The citizens of my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, expect me to take part in the debate and to represent the civilians and the soldiers who live in my riding because they could be directly involved in this mission. However, no one has more information. We have nothing.

We must remember our soldiers' return from Afghanistan before we possibly engage in a mission that could go on forever and about which we know very little. I heard some of my colleagues talk about mission creep. We are currently facing that situation.

I find it deplorable that no vote is being held in Parliament. It is not the opposition's responsibility to devote an opposition day to this issue. The government promised to consult Parliament before deploying the military and they have broken that promise.

It is the Conservative government, not the opposition, that is responsible for this state of affairs.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:20 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, and I were in Iraq. We visited three camps just three or four days before the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the opposition members arrived. We heard from people in the camps that first of all, they very much appreciated that their needs were being provided for so they could continue to survive. They were very thankful for that and thankful to the Kurds in the area.

Second, through interpreters, about 80% wanted to return home. Well, if they are going to return home, ISIL has to be defeated or removed from the area.

Here we are today listening to debate from the member opposite about some picky little things to do with what is happening here in our Parliament, when what these people want is to ensure that as winter comes on they can survive and carry on with their lives in the camps, and more importantly, can return home sometime. I have not heard an awful lot of debate from the member opposite on that particular issue.

What Canada is doing is providing heavy lift to lift weapons in and an advisory capacity from our military, which is exactly what is needed to help defeat ISIL.

I would like to ask the member opposite why she is not speaking on that.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

September 16th, 2014 / 10:20 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, all of the points he brought up could have been questions raised during a debate in Parliament before a vote on this mission. The points he raised are closely tied to the humanitarian aid that the NDP and the Iraqi government have been calling for. Those aspects were discussed a great deal by my colleagues during previous debates.

What my colleague is trying to do—and we see this all the time with the Conservative government—is obscure the facts and downplay the importance of debate in the House. The fact that the government has a majority does not negate its responsibility to work with other members and bring these issues before Parliament so that we can vote on them and speak to them. The NDP has already called for humanitarian aid. Statements and comments to that effect were made in committee on September 9. My colleagues made the request multiple times.

What I am not hearing from the Conservative members is any objection to the fact that their Prime Minister broke a promise that he made to Canadians in 2009. That is what I would like to debate. If we want to be able to have confidence in this government to conduct foreign operations, we first need to be able to have confidence that it can manage things on home soil.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, listening to the NDP members, I have the impression that they do not want the military to get involved, but they do not want to admit it. They are looking for all kinds of excuses not to answer this question.

I have a hypothetical question. Several NDP members said that they would be forming the government next year. I have the impression that the Islamic State will still be around. In the unlikely but hypothetical event that the NDP forms the government next year, would there be no question of military involvement to try to help the other members of the coalition do away with this scourge that is the Islamic State?

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:25 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my Liberal colleague that as the government, we would never make a unilateral decision like this. We would bring the issue before the House of Commons for debate, which is what should happen, and we would hold a debate among all the parties, which is appropriate, to try and come to the best solution possible.

I am hearing these comments coming from the Liberal Party, which has a tendency to throw its support behind the government and then ask for details. We saw it with the free trade agreement with the European Union, and we are seeing it again with the current situation in Iraq. The Liberals say that it is an excellent idea and they give the government their support, but once they have said yes, then they ask for details and want to be in the know.

The NDP believes that we should have that information beforehand, that we should debate first and then vote, which is what happens in any good parliamentary democracy.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:25 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise to speak tonight, but I regret that this is an emergency debate, a debate that will not be followed by a vote.

For those members on the other side who are saying we wasted our opposition day today on a topic they do not think is important, I was pleased to speak earlier on the importance of a higher federal minimum wage for more than 100,000 Canadians who go to work every day and do not earn enough to support their families.

As a representative of a riding with a large military component, I know that the Canadian Forces are ready to serve whenever they are asked, no matter how difficult the situation. Our responsibility as elected representatives is to set clear directions for any mission we are sending the Canadian Forces on so that they can properly prepare and so they know what they are expected to do when they get there.

Like my colleagues in the NDP, I am concerned not just about this debate, even though an hon. member calls having a debate in the House of Commons trivial. I am concerned that the nature of this mission and its goals are not clear.

I have heard many good ideas on the other side. Perhaps we should be confronting ISIS. Perhaps we should be protecting minorities. Perhaps we should do this. Perhaps we should do that. What is it we are actually asking the Canadian Forces to do? That is the question we think ought to be clearly answered by the government before the troops leave.

I am also concerned about mission creep, where one commitment leads to something quite different. My concern about this lack of direction or lack of clarity and mission creep is based on my own personal experience in Afghanistan in 2002. I want to talk about this for just a minute, because I think it is an important precedent for what we see happening now.

In 2002, I spent four months working for Amnesty International as a human rights observer and investigator in between the first two Canadian missions in Afghanistan. Nothing I am about to say should be interpreted as criticism either of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan or of the way the Canadian Forces carried out their duties in Afghanistan.

What I want to say is that our commitment in Afghanistan began as one sort of mission, anti-terrorism in the wake of 9/11, switched to another mission, rebuilding democracy and infrastructure, then became a hybrid mission of combat and reconstruction at the same time, and finally became a training and reconstruction mission.

What began as a very small mission with, in that case, a clear purpose became something quite different as we stretched our involvement over a decade. It is useful to walk ourselves through those shifts as a kind of cautionary tale when the Conservatives are in the process of committing Canadian troops in Iraq.

There is actually an eery parallel with the Prime Minister confirming today that he sent 69 special forces troops to Iraq based on a request from the United States. In December 2001, a different Prime Minister, from a different party, sent 40 members of the JTF2 special forces unit to Afghanistan, also without a vote in Parliament, without a debate in Parliament, and also on a request from the United States. That mission suddenly expanded just a few weeks later when 750 combat troops arrived in Kandahar from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Then, in May 2002, the Liberal government announced that the withdrawal of Canadian troops had been set for August 2002. Those troops left just about the time I arrived in Afghanistan. We had already had a very narrow special forces mission that expanded into a large combat mission that was then shut down. All of this happened within a few months.

I was fortunate, as part of my job, to travel throughout Afghanistan. Amnesty International does not use armed body guards, so we were very close to the people and what was happening there. I saw very clearly the need for international assistance in rebuilding both civil society and government institutions and in rebuilding the physical infrastructure of Afghanistan after the debacle of Taliban rule.

In February 2003, when I arrived back in Canada, I was among those who supported Canada's commitment to an ISAF mission that was focused on reconstruction. Initially Canada sent 1,000 troops in early 2003 and added another 1,800 by July. This mission, called Operation ATHENA, was to last two years and was to provide assistance with civilian infrastructure and with rebuilding the democratic process. We had a clear statement, but a different statement than the original missions in Afghanistan.

That mission ended in December 2005, though no one would really argue that much had been done other than start that process of rebuilding both democratic processes and the civil society infrastructure necessary for democracy to prosper.

When Canadians realized that the government was considering some new extension of the mission, the NDP leader at that time, Jack Layton, and the current Prime Minister, as leader of the opposition, jointly demanded that we have a debate and vote in Parliament before any new commitment was made to some different expanded mission in Afghanistan. Of course, without debate and without a vote, in February 2006 the Liberal government committed Canadian troops to a re-engagement in Afghanistan, this time in the south, in Kandahar, a very difficult region, and once again for two years. However, this time, we joined the U.S. war against the Taliban and terrorism in what was called the Regional Command South. It was not a UN mission. It was not a NATO mission at that time. It was simply a request to go to the assistance of the Americans. A Canadian general actually assumed command of Regional Command South, and it was not until July of that year that the NATO-led mission of ISAF actually took control of that operation in southern Afghanistan.

The mission became a hybrid mission of fighting terrorism and doing reconstruction at the same time, something many of the civil society organizations in Afghanistan and international aid organizations heavily criticized, saying that it not only placed aid workers at risk but placed civil society members in Afghanistan at risk, because it connected reconstruction to the fight against terrorism. Had there been some kind of public debate before this recommitment was made at that time, those concerns could have been raised and I think could have been addressed. Certainly they would have been raised and might have been addressed.

To try to draw this parallel with Afghanistan to a close, Canada then stayed on in a combat role until 2010, and then from 2010 to 2014 played a non-combat advisory role until the final flag was lowered on March 12, 2014. More than a decade after the first small group of Canadian special forces arrived in Afghanistan, we had seen the deaths of 158 Canadians. More than 2,000 had serious physical injuries and many more were suffering the effects of PTSD. We also saw the death of one diplomat, three civilian aid workers, and one journalist. The parliamentary budget officer estimated the financial cost until the end of 2011 only at $18.5 billion.

I raise these questions tonight because the commitment in Afghanistan started exactly the same way we are seeing things start in Iraq, and I wonder whether we have learned the lesson that we need to consider this very carefully before we get engaged in an unclear mission in an area where the conflict is sure to last at least another 10 years. I raise these questions, again, not to argue that Canada should not have gone to Afghanistan and not to argue about whether any particular strategy there was right or not. That can be left to historians at this point, but I raise them to demonstrate where ill-considered commitments with unclear goals can lead us and also to remind us all that this is a serious step the government is now taking.

I am honestly disappointed that Parliament is not being allowed to have a say in this mission and a vote in the House. I am disappointed, given the commitments made by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition, not once or twice but repeatedly, that no troops would be committed abroad without a debate and vote in Parliament. Parliament would have a say. I do not believe that in a democracy we should ever say, as I have heard from the other side, that having a debate and vote in Parliament is trivial.

I am also disappointed with the position taken by the Liberals tonight. When they jumped in front calling for this emergency debate, I thought they had had a change of heart from their days in government. I thought they would now be joining us in calling for a clear mission statement from the government, followed by a vote in the House, but I am afraid that what we are seeing tonight is the same thing we have seen with some of the trade deals, where the Liberals are quick to climb on board with the government and to ask for details later.

The only specific thing I heard tonight from Liberals was a demand to be fully briefed and to be informed of any future change in the mission. I assert as a parliamentarian and a representative of my riding that we have much larger responsibilities and much greater rights than just to be told what the government is doing. I know that fits well with the government's interpretation of what a government does when it has a majority, but there was a very powerful speech by the Leader of the Opposition on the contempt being shown to the House at this time.

In conclusion, as the member for Ottawa Centre has reminded us, the assessment mission, which consisted of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Ottawa Centre, and the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, heard a clear request for humanitarian assistance. They did not hear a request for military assistance.

Again, we know that the things that have happened in terms of the actions of ISIS are quite evil, and no one here makes any excuses for them.

The last thing I have to say is that I cannot support sending Canadian forces to Iraq on some ill-defined mission, and I cannot understand why the Conservatives selected this mission over the humanitarian assistance that is so desperately needed.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:35 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments here and in the lobby. At the risk of complimenting the Liberals, I would point out that our two parties are the only ones that have actually been forced to face the realities in the world and actually do something about it in terms of Canada.

I would challenge my colleague a little on his statement that they were not allowed to debate, and so on. They chose all day to debate the minimum wage in Canada instead of taking their opposition day and debating the very thing they said they wanted to debate. Why did we not do this before? We would have had a vote.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:35 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and for his service to the country. He and I have always had a great relationship, and I feel that this is kind of a softball question. How in the world could we have scheduled a debate on what the government intends to do in Iraq? How would we put forward a motion about what the government intends to do in Iraq? That is exactly our point. We have not heard from you something we could actually vote on.

It would have been very difficult for us to do that as an opposition day motion when we do not know what you intend to do—

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I was actually trying to remind the hon. member to avoid using the second person but to use the third person when we engage in questions and comments.

We will go on to the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have to come back to the same question. The NDP has been talking nonstop about the need to have a vote. It seems to me that New Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. Today they had the choice. They had an opposition day with the possibility of it entailing a vote, yet they chose to talk about the minimum wage, which is an important subject, but in terms of timeliness, it certainly does not compare to what we are talking about right now in terms of the urgency of it. They have made the point repeatedly themselves.

Why did the NDP not use this opportunity today to force a vote on this issue?

Situation in IraqEmergency Debate

10:40 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie that it is the government's responsibility to present its program in the House of Commons. It is not the official opposition's responsibility to present its program. The hon. member for Westmount--Ville-Marie is the one who called for this emergency debate, and I assume--