House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prostitution.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse, the tallest in Canada, was designated as a national historic site in 1974. In addition, the government implemented the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act in 2010. Now, the government is neglecting it. We cannot let such a gem slip away. The lighthouse desperately needs repairs. Water is seeping in through the cracks.
What is the government going to do to preserve the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse?
Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, of course, the member will know that under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, there was a process in place for local groups to take over the ownership and maintenance of lighthouses that are surplus to the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard. I assume that is what is happening in this situation.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, invasive carp pose a threat to the ecological and economic health of the Great Lakes and inland waters. If they are allowed to get a foothold, the effects will be irreversible. That is why I introduced a bill to ban the import of live invasive carp into Canada and to give the powers and tools to the CBSA officers to keep these fish out.
Will the Conservatives recognize the seriousness of the invasive carp threat and commit to passing my bill?
Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his interest in this issue. He might recall that in May 2012 our government made an investment of $17.5 million in the Asian carp program. Also in 2012, we made changes to the Fisheries Act that allowed our department to work with the provinces and territories to develop a regulatory framework to include prohibitions against import, transport, and possession of specific invasive species. In fact, we are working on that now. I do wish the member had voted for both of those initiatives.
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, Canada's north is a fundamental part of our heritage, our future, and our identity as a country. Our government is taking action to ensure that the north realizes its full potential, and there has been significant progress made. The Yukon Territory has had the capability of managing its land and resources for over 11 years now, and just this spring the Northwest Territories realized its devolution agreement by the signing of that with the Government of Canada.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please update the House on the progress we are making to make sure the north realizes its full potential by administering its own fate and its own future?
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing the people of Nunavut with more control over their economic and political future, including negotiating the transfer of land and resource management responsibilities. That is why today our government was pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Brian Dominique as the chief federal negotiator, to begin working on a devolution agreement in principle. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to Canada's north. With devolution comes the power for the people of Nunavut to make their own decisions in the area of resource management, to reach out and take control of their own destiny, and to build a strong and prosperous territory for future generations.
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Canadians from coast to coast to coast will attend vigils for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and stand in solidarity with their families. The premiers, indigenous leadership, and the international community all understand the need to deal with the sociological root causes. They have demanded a national inquiry.
Could the Prime Minister finally admit that he was wrong, get on the right side of history, and call a national public inquiry now?
Kellie Leitch ConservativeMinister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has acted. We have moved forward with a national action plan to make sure that these victims of crime are being supported, protected, and we are putting in place preventive measures. Unlike the Liberals who vote against matrimonial property rights and those unique things that aid these women, we are focused on making sure that these victims of crimes are supported. We encourage the Liberals to do exactly that and get on board with our action plan right now.
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories has experienced the worst forest fire season in memory, destroying 3.5 million hectares of boreal forest. In comparison, the average area of burn per year in all of Canada over the last 10 years was 2 million hectares.
Northerners know that this disaster is directly related to climate change. Will the Conservatives finally admit the reality of climate change and take action? Will the government be helping the people of the Northwest Territories deal with the overwhelming costs of this year's forest fire season?
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, our government's record is clear. We have taken decisive action on the environment while protecting our economy. Everyone internationally has to do their fair share, and Canada is doing its part. We emit only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Building on that record, the Minister of the Environment announced a number of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from vehicles a couple of weeks ago. We have announced our intent to regulate HFCs, one of the fastest growing greenhouse gases in the world. We are accomplishing this without a job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, two men were convicted on six counts of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the October 2007 killings of six men at an apartment building in Surrey, B.C.
These so-called Surrey six killings were part of a violent gang war that included multiple drive-by shootings and assassinations in the Vancouver area over several years.
Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please tell the House what our Conservative government is doing to keep Canadians safe from violent gang turf wars?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, Canadians absolutely refuse to be held hostage in their own communities by thugs and criminals who are members of street gangs.
While I cannot comment on this specific case, our government is moving along with making murders committed for organized crime an automatic first degree murder charge and eliminating the sentencing discount for multiple murders, which will allow for longer parole ineligibility. We will bring forward legislation to make life sentences truly mean life behind bars.
The people of Surrey and across Canada can count our government to make our streets safe.
André Bellavance Independent Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is about to announce details about Canada's involvement in Iraq. While military intervention to fight terrorism may be necessary, that alone is never enough if it is not combined with sufficient humanitarian aid, as we saw during the war against Saddam Hussein's regime, which is what gave rise to the fanaticism we are fighting today.
What concrete action does the Prime Minister plan to take to address the root causes of the conflict, such as the lack of democracy and the extreme poverty that are fertile ground for terrorism and fanaticism to grow, as we have seen recently?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we have always been clear. In that part of the world, we are one of the leaders in providing humanitarian assistance. Certainly, that will continue as we conclude our 30-day mission and have a look at that.
I think all of us are waiting in anticipation and eagerness for the words of the Prime Minister.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, brutality and atrocities of all sorts of religious extremists and sectarian violence offend every Canadian and are deeply troubling to every citizen. However, we have seen five million killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have seen Boko Haram kidnap schoolgirls.
Are we particularly motivated to send fighter bombers because ISIL puts its barbaric acts on YouTube? Will we ask ourselves why do they do that? Are we falling into a trip in which these religious extremists want the U.S. and Canada to bomb?
Would we not be better off to work with allies, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and potentially even Iraq—
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are working with our allies. The number of allies that are engaged in this process is growing on a daily basis.
I would just point out for the hon. member that the brutality and extremism that is experienced by the people in that part of the world is also a direct threat to Canada.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister is about to send Canadian soldiers to war in Iraq. He will give us just one day to debate a motion that would put the lives of Canadians at risk. This decision could engage Canada in a costly and unwinnable war with no end in sight.
Will our Prime Minister allow the House to have a full debate? Will he agree to not limit debate?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I have been very supportive of the actions this government has taken when combat military missions have been undertaken.
We put this matter before Parliament. We have been forthcoming. Again, we are committed to doing something in this area.
I would urge the hon. member to keep an open mind. I would remind him again that we will not go back to the ways of the Liberals, implementing these things with no discussion in Parliament.
Rick Dykstra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, and for referral to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Telefilm Canada's 2013-14 annual report, as per section 23(2) of the Telefilm Canada Act.
In 2013-14, the success of the Canadian audiovisual industry radiated beyond our borders into new markets. Telefilm Canada, along with an array of partners, ensured that Canadian talent was front and centre, gaining new fans throughout the world.
Canadian Military Mission in IraqRoutine Proceedings
Calgary Southwest Alberta
Conservative
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the international community has almost unanimously expressed its indignation and concern over the rise of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
ISIL has established a self-proclaimed caliphate, at present stretching over a vast territory, roughly from Alepo to near Baghdad, from which it intends to launch a terrorist jihad not merely against the region, but on a global basis. Indeed, it has specifically targeted Canada and Canadians, urging supporters to attack “disbelieving Canadians in any manner”, vowing that we should not feel secure, even in our homes.
It would be easy to downplay such statements and tell ourselves that these are merely the words of some fanatic fringe; however, this terrorist organization does more than just talk.
More shockingly, ISIL's words are matched by its actions. In the territory ISIL has occupied, it has conducted a campaign of unspeakable atrocities against the most innocent of people. It has tortured and beheaded children. It has raped and sold women into slavery. It has slaughtered minorities, captured prisoners and innocent civilians whose only crime is being or thinking differently from ISIL. Indeed, by late last summer, ISIL stood on the brink of committing large scale genocide in Northern Iraq.
This is why Canada's allies in the international community, led by President Obama, decided to intervene, and why our country, Canada, became part of that intervention.
On September 5, I announced that members of the Canadian army, in a non-combat role, would advise and assist security forces in Iraq battling the terrorists.
We have already begun, and the Royal Canadian Air Force is transporting weapons and equipment sent from our allies to the security forces in Northern Iraq.
We also indicated that Canada was prepared to do more.
Today, we are bringing forward a motion asking the House to confirm its confidence for a government decision to join our allies and partners, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and likely others, in launch air strikes against ISIL.
In addition to these air strikes, the Government of Canada, at the request of the Iraqi authorities and other allies and partners, will continue to provide assistance in other non-combat anti-terrorism roles.
We will also contribute one air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two Aurora surveillance aircraft and the necessary air crews and support personnel. In addition, we are extending the deployment in a non-combat role of the up to 69 members of the Canadian army advising and assisting security forces in Iraq.
There will be no ground combat mission, which is explicitly ruled out in the resolution.
These contributions are for a period of up to six months.
Let me be clear on the objectives of this intervention. We intend to significantly degrade the capabilities of ISIL, specifically, its ability to either engage in military movements of scale, or to operate bases in the open.
This mission will stem the spread of ISIL in the region and will significantly degrade its ability to conduct terrorist attacks outside the region.
To be clear, let us say that this intervention will not eliminate this terrorist organization or automatically guarantee that our style of governance will take its place in Iraq or Syria. However, it will provide the opportunity for others to do so.
But again to be clear, while ISIL will not be eliminated, the risks presented from the territory in which it operates will be significantly reduced to those of other similar ungoverned spaces in the broader region.
There are two other matters on which I wish to elaborate.
First, the resolution confirms the Government of Canada's intention to strike ISIL and its allies.
We will strike ISIL where—and only where—Canada has the clear support of the government of the country in question.
At present, this is only true in Iraq. If it were to become the case in Syria, then we will participate in air strikes against ISIL in that country also.
The Government of Canada will not hide its disgust at the actions of the Assad regime. What we are doing is taking part in an anti-terrorist operation against ISIL and its allies. We do not want to wage war on any government in the region.
Second, let me assure Canadians that the government is seized with the necessity of avoiding a prolonged quagmire in this part of the world.
The actions we have announced are actions that will be relatively easy to end.
Indeed, we and our allies are acting now precisely to avoid a situation that was clearly headed to a wider, protracted and much more dangerous conflict.
The military measures we are taking do not in any way preclude humanitarian actions. There is no either/or here.
We are horrified by the human suffering and are already providing emergency shelter and emergency medical care to thousands of civilians in Iraq in support of humanitarian organizations on the ground. We are also providing substantial assistance to the Government of Iraq.
This is in addition to large scale financial assistance already being furnished to the significant number of countries in the region that have been impacted by the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.
Let me also assure Canadians that the government will continue to be seized with the broader terrorist threats against Canada. We have strengthened laws in this country to deal with the issue of so-called Canadian foreign fighters.
We have broadened the grounds for revoking the passports of people who take part in terrorist activities, and we have taken measures to revoke the citizenship of such individuals who have dual citizenship.
We will soon bring forward additional measures to strengthen the ability of our security services to monitor aspiring terrorists to, where possible, prevent their return to Canada or to, where that is not possible, give greater tools to be able to charge and prosecute.
To return to the matter before us today, I urge all members to consider and to support the motion we have presented. I do this in recognizing that in a democracy, especially one approaching an election, there is rarely political upside in supporting any kind of military action and little risk in opposing it.
Nonetheless, this intervention is necessary to ensure regional and global security and, of course, the security of Canadians.
The evidence of the necessity of this is none better than the fact that the mission has been launched by President Obama, the leader who had withdrawn American troops and proudly ended the war in Iraq.
Of course, one could say that while the mission is evidently necessary, we do not have to be the ones doing it because others will. But throughout our history, that has never been the Canadian way.
It has never been the Canadian way to do only the most easy and praiseworthy of actions and to leave the tough things for others. Indeed, we should be under no illusion. If Canada wants to keep its voice in the world—and we should, since so many of our challenges are global—being a free rider means not being taken seriously.
ISIL presents a very real threat. It is serious and explicitly directed against our country, among others.
Left unchecked, this terrorist threat can only grow, and grow quickly. As a government, we know our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians and to defend our citizens from those who would do harm to us or our families.
We also know that our country, and it allies, share the obligation and the burden that is incumbent on all free peoples: that of rising up against global threats when it is in our power to do so.
When our allies recognize and respond to a threat that would also harm us, we Canadians do not stand on the sidelines. We do our part.
On Monday, the House will debate the motion moved in favour of an air-strike campaign against ISIL.
I call on all members of the House to show their support for this mission and for the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are now and always ready and willing to answer the call of their country.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House of Commons today to make this important announcement. This should be a given in a democracy such as ours, because the Prime Minister has just decided the fate of many courageous young men and women who will risk their lives serving their country.
There is no more important decision that we make in the House, no more sacred trust for a Prime Minister, than sending young Canadian women and men to fight and risk making the ultimate sacrifice in a foreign war.
The Prime Minister is asking for the support of Parliament. He is asking for Canadians' support, but the Prime Minister has refused to answer their questions.
Let me quote the Prime Minister. He stated:
Mr. Speaker, as you can understand, I neither have the will nor the desire to get into detailed discussions of military operations here.
He said “neither the will nor the desire”. “Here” was this Parliament, and it was not just about the details: the Prime Minister has not outlined a broad strategic blueprint for the mission. He cannot even answer basic questions about the breadth or cost of Canada's military deployment.
When did Canadian Forces arrive in Iraq, and how many? There was no answer.
What contribution have our American allies requested? There was no answer.
How much will this mission cost? What are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? There was no answer, no answer, no answer.
These are not hypothetical questions.
Canada just completed its mission in Afghanistan. That too began as a short mission with a small contingent of soldiers but wound up being the longest war we have ever been involved in. Twelve years, $30 billion, over 40,000 veterans, 160 deaths, thousands of soldiers injured and thousands more with post-traumatic stress disorder: is that what the Conservatives consider a successful mission?
As in this case, the mission in Afghanistan started out with only a few dozen soldiers. Twenty-nine days ago, the Conservatives were adamant that Canada was getting involved in a non-combat mission for only one month with just a few dozen soldiers. The NDP had its doubts. Canadians had their doubts. The Prime Minister's only ally was the Liberal Party, which fully supported a mission that, without a shadow of a doubt, would lead us to where we are today.
However, now that Canadian troops are committed, Conservatives are telling us the mission will be expanded to air strikes, refuelling capabilities, and aerial surveillance, and now the Prime Minister is specifically opening the door to bombing in Syria. We have gone from mission creep to mission leap.
The United States has been in this conflict for over 10 years. It has been fighting ISIS under one name or another for over 10 years. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade.
Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a moment of rare candour for the Conservative government, admitted that there are no quick fixes in Iraq. He called the fight against ISIS and groups like it “...the struggle of our generation”. That may well prove to be an understatement.
In one of the Prime Minister's few real answers about this mission, he said that Canada would be in Iraq until ISIS no longer has the capability to launch attacks in Iraq, Syria, or anywhere else. Now he claims it will be only six months. It cannot be both.
The defeat of the insurgency in Iraq is a goal that the United States has been trying, without success, to achieve since the wrong-headed invasion of 2003. All of the horrors unfolding before our eyes are as a result of that failed mission.
Let us remember that back in 2003, it was the current Prime Minister, at the time leader of the opposition, who went to the Americans to berate the Canadian government for not getting involved in what he considered a just and noble cause. Their nostalgia is such that during the emergency debate in this House just a few days ago, his immigration minister actually dusted off the canard of “weapons of mass destruction” to try to justify this war.
The Prime Minister insists that this mission in Iraq will not be allowed to become a quagmire, but is that not precisely what our American allies have been facing in Iraq for the last 10 years? A decade from now, will Canada still be mired in a war we wisely avoided entering a decade ago?
Do we have a plan for the war? Do we have a plan for the thousands or tens of thousands of veterans for whom we have the sacred responsibility to fully support in the years afterward?
We hope that we will get some answers during Monday's debate and that, unlike what we see in emergency debates, the ministers responsible will be in attendance and will be able to tell Canadians what is going on.
It is not only New Democrats who feel these questions have not been answered. Here a few examples.
In The Globe and Mail, we read “The case for Canada to go to war in Iraq has not been made”.
In La Presse, André Pratte writes about the courage to say “no”.
A Toronto Star editorial says “[The Prime Minister] fails to make the case for Canadian combat role in Iraq”.
There are dozens of editorials and opinions like that across our country.
Military intervention is not the only tool at Canada's disposal, and Iraq is not the only place where acts of unspeakable violence are being committed. In the Congo, 5 million are dead after 15 years of slaughter, but the Prime Minister has never considered military intervention there. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions have had to flee, but the Prime Minister has never considered military intervention there. Why?
Why is military action supposedly our only choice in Iraq when it is not even considered elsewhere?
Why does the Prime Minister think that he can use military force to accomplish what others have been trying unsuccessfully to do since 2003?
ISIS has thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, well-functioning governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders.
Canada's first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground and to strengthen political institutions in both those countries.
With the well-deserved credibility Canada earned by rejecting the initial ill-advised invasion of Iraq, we are in a position to take on that task.
However, the tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another western-led invasion in that region. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria to build the political institutions and security capabilities they need to oppose these threats themselves.
We believe that Canada should not rush into this war.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, with this motion, the Prime Minister has finally said in Canada what he said in New York City more than a week ago. He is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq.
ISIL is a threat both to the region and to global security. ISIL murders ethnic and religious minorities across Iraq and Syria. It murders innocent civilians, humanitarian workers, and journalists. These awful acts have been documented, often by the perpetrators themselves.
This is why the Liberal Party supported a 30-day non-combat role in good faith. It was a mission on which we were briefed. This time, instead of briefings, there has been only overheated rhetoric.
The Liberals will take the following core principles into the debate. The first principle is that Canada does have a role to play to confront humanitarian crises and security threats in the world.
The second is that when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada within that mission.
The third is that the case for deploying our forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.
The fourth principle is that Canada's role must reflect the broad scope of Canada's capabilities and how best we can help.
Unlike the Prime Minister, Liberals believe that Canada can make a more helpful contribution to the international effort to combat ISIL than a few aging warplanes. Canadians have a lot more to offer than that.
We can be resourceful. There are significant, substantial non-combat roles that Canada can play, and we can play some of those roles better than many, or perhaps any, of our allies. Whether in strategic airlift, training, or medical support, we have the capability to meaningfully assist in a non-combat role in a well-defined international mission.
The fact remains that the Prime Minister has not been up front with Canadians about his plans.
The Prime Minister and the government have given us no reason to believe that once in combat they will be able to limit our role.
The overheated and moralistic rhetoric is being used to justify more than just air strikes: it is an attempt to justify a war.
For Canadians, it is all too familiar, particularly from the Conservative Prime Minister.
The 2003 Iraq war was waged on false pretenses and flawed intelligence. It was a mission that destabilized the region, sowed further conflict, cost our allies around three trillion dollars, and cost thousands of people their lives.
The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.
Let us never forget how that mission was sold to the public.
Back in 2003, this Prime Minister called President Bush’s Iraq war a matter of “freedom, democracy and civilization itself”.
We know the Iraq fiasco haunts the choices we have to make today, but we cannot make the wrong decision now because the wrong decision was made then.
Canada has asked a lot of our men and women in uniform over the past decade and too often they have returned home only to be let down. If we are to ask more of them now, our deliberations in the House should be honest and forthright to show ourselves worthy of the valour and strength we know our Canadian Forces will always show in the field. We owe them that.
We know there is a role for Canada to be involved in the fight against ISIL, but there is a clear line between non-combat and combat roles. It is much easier to cross that line than to cross back. It is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
The Prime Minister has a sacred responsibility to be honest and truthful with people, especially about matters of life and death. At the end of every decision to enter combat is a brave Canadian in harm’s way. We owe them clarity. We owe them a plan.
Most of all, we owe them the truth. The Prime Minister has offered none of those.
The Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not support this Prime Minister's motion to go to war in Iraq.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to rise to respond to the Prime Minister's remarks very briefly.
