Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate today. It is unfortunate that we did not have such a debate back in September before our current military deployment to Iraq.
The question in today's debate is not whether Canada should do something about ISIL; we should, and our response should be serious and significant.
The question is, what should Canada do? How can we be most helpful, not just in the short run but in defeating ISIL over the long term?
I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's East.
I want to make one thing very clear: we do not need to shoot missiles or drop bombs in order to take this threat seriously. Over 60 countries are helping to defeat ISIL, and the vast majority are not taking part in air strikes.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to how Italy and Germany support the coalition. They do, and so does the NDP, and like the NDP, governments in Italy and Germany have judged that they can best help through logistics, weapons, training, and humanitarian support.
So have conservative and social democratic governments in Norway, South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Ireland, Spain, Finland, Greece, Poland, and dozens of other countries.
ISIL has perpetrated appalling crimes, including mass killings, sexual violence, forced displacement, and the destruction of holy sites. More than 20 million Iraqis have been affected. Two million people have been displaced from their homes. More than five million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance right now. The violence ISIL perpetrates is entirely unjustifiable and entirely contrary to Islam. The only ideology it supports is the ideology of hate.
The crisis in Iraq also seriously jeopardizes regional peace and stability. The flow of internally displaced people and refugees is threatening the ability of Iraq and its neighbours to secure their borders and govern effectively.
The NDP has been clear that Canada has an important role to play in contributing to the international response to this crisis. In fact, in the House in June, I asked the government to help refugees fleeing ISIL. In July we issued a statement calling on the government to work with our allies to support the Iraqi authorities in building responsible democratic governance in Iraq as a counter to ISIL.
My recent visit to Iraq with the Minister of Foreign Affairs reinforced my conviction that action is needed. I heard first-hand what the Iraqi and Kurdish authorities are asking from Canada, and nobody ever asked for fighter jets. That was true in 2007 when I visited Iraq for the first time and it was true again this year.
In 2007 I went to Iraq to participate in a conference on governance with members of Parliament from all major groups, including Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. I shared the Canadian experience of federalism and inclusion.
On October 14 and 15, 2009, I hosted a conference on Iraq here in Ottawa with the Stimson Center and the Centre for International Governance and Innovation on governance and the impact of conflict on minorities in Iraq. We cited at that time the need for more inclusion from the government in Baghdad and the need for the protection of minorities. That was then, but what I heard on the ground a month ago was similar.
We need to do more as a country, but instead of following through on its commitment to increase humanitarian and governance assistance to Iraq, the Conservative government went looking for military action. The government is now sending more Canadian men and women into harm's way in Iraq without a clear plan for going in and with no plan at all for coming out. Last week it was 69 troops; this week it is 669 troops.
Like many Canadians, New Democrats are concerned about the deployment of Canadian troops to Iraq on a combat mission that is ill-defined to the point of being irresponsible. Far too many questions about this mission remain entirely unanswered. Who will be commanding this mission? Where will our troops be located? What will the process be for expanding the mission? Will there be another debate and vote in Parliament?
The motion we are debating today is ill-defined and ill-conceived. It offers no plan and no exit strategy. Shockingly, there are no new humanitarian commitments, albeit we did hear one today, which is good news.
Just as shockingly, there are no territorial limits on operations. Nearly every other member of the coalition has explicitly ruled out air strikes in Syria; the Prime Minister explicitly ruled them in. This is unfortunate, to say the least.
The Prime Minister explicitly ruled them in if requested by the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, and the motion we are debating today would open that door to air strikes there—or anywhere, for that matter.
There are also no restrictions on who could be included in the category of “terrorists allied with ISIL”. The motion would allow for the government to go far beyond Iraq and far beyond ISIL.
There are very few details in the motion on our deployment of “military assets”. Could these go beyond the nine planes and 600 troops currently committed? We just do not know.
Also, there is no requirement for Parliament to be consulted during or after the six-month term if the mission is expanded or extended.
Canadians are rightly uncomfortable with this mission. It is ill-defined and ill-conceived.
Canadians are concerned that the government has no idea where our hundreds of troops will be based or when they might even get there.
Canadians are concerned that the government is now passing off responsibility for Canada's response to Canadian Forces. Our soldiers will do as ordered. That is their job, but this war is the government's decision and it is the government's job to take responsibility for that.
Canadians are also concerned about the government's willingness to support Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship in Syria and the uncertainty of what we might leave behind in Iraq.
Canadians are concerned about the Conservative government's record of failing to give straight answers to important questions about our military involvement. That is why we have not only opposed the government's wrong-headed war but have also proposed smart, responsible, and genuinely Canadian alternatives, while demanding transparency and holding the government to account.
We have asked the government to do four concrete things: support the construction of refugee camps, help victims of sexual violence, assist in protecting ethnic and religious communities, and encourage international prosecutions of war crimes.
When I made these requests directly to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee, he said, “Yes”, “Yes”, “Yes”, “Yes”, but we are still waiting for specific and concrete actions on all these fronts.
Canada also has an important role to play in encouraging responsible governance in Iraq through collaborative capacity-building projects. We have been asking the government to act in these areas for months. Our call has been both pragmatic and principled, motivated by our common commitment to global security and basic human dignity. The mission we are debating today is simply not the best that Canada can do and has to offer.
When I was in Iraq last month, I visited a refugee camp. For a few minutes, I walked away from the group of dignitaries and aid workers to look around. I came across a group of small children playing on the dirty ground. Like millions of other children, women, and men in Iraq, they are in desperate need. How we can best help these children is the question I ask. How can we best help them to not only survive, but to grow up and thrive and live in a peaceful and prosperous Iraq?
This debate is not just about what we do in Iraq but about what we do as a country. Canadians deserve a Canadian foreign policy that plays to Canadian strengths while representing our interests and our values. We are most effective on the international stage when we exploit our comparative advantages in areas like security logistics, nation-building, and humanitarian support.
The children I met in Iraq need our help. We should be smart on how we deliver.