Debates of Oct. 7th, 2014

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have to cite my admiration for this member. He is a very eloquent speaker. He spoke on the whole spectrum of the efforts of the Canadian government, which have been presented to this House, so we can fully debate them.

He covered everything from humanitarian aid, of which I know many members opposite are very supportive, all the way to an advisory role so that the Iraqi regional and national forces are able to try to fight back on the ground, and also air strikes, which would be done in concert with many different partners.

Does the member feel that, by presenting a whole-spectrum approach, we will be more likely to support the efforts?

Let us keep in mind that this is a democratically elected government that is trying to fight off a terrorist organization that is taking up huge swaths of land. We need to all work together on many different levels.

Does the member feel it is important for us to have an integrated approach with our allies?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, a holistic approach is what the government is proposing. This is what I was promoting in the remarks I have just made.

Actually, Canadians from across the country seem to be approving of it, including many members who used to support the third party.

Our former colleague, Michelle Simson, who represented the Liberals in the House until the last election, just wrote that she is ashamed of the Liberal Party.

The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who is likely going to vote against this tonight, said that after the vote is over, the Liberals will support it.

Members will remember Bob Rae. He said that there are some—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We are over time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to the erudite and wise member for Ottawa—Orléans for sharing his time with me.

It is considerable sadness that I rise in the House to do something that I never dreamed I would need to do, which is to convince the members of the Liberal Party to return to the internationalist and multilateralist roots of Liberal foreign policy and to reject the isolationism that its current leader wishes to impose upon it. To be clear, the Liberal leader wants his caucus to turn its back as he has turned his back on the atrocities being committed against innocent women and children in Iraq.

I would like to speak today about the multilateral and internationalist policies, like the responsibility to protect doctrine, which used to be the foundation of the Liberal Party's foreign policy, but which the current Liberal leader recently brushed aside with two short sentences amid a lengthy speech about what Canada's response should be to the atrocities being committed against women and children in Iraq, even as we speak.

Every state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The international community has an obligation to assist states to fulfill that function. The international community has recognized that its members may have to act quickly to protect innocent citizens against ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. For geopolitical reasons of its own, which I urge members of the Liberal Party to reject, China has expressed reluctance to allow the UN to invoke the R2P doctrine, vetoing R2P in response to the deaths of innocent civilians in Syria to date.

In the case we are debating today, however, where unlike the government of Syria, which resisted any effective international intervention, Iraq has actually invited Canada and others to provide military assistance to protect its citizens against the ethnic cleansing and other atrocities being perpetrated by ISIL. There is no reason to prevent the international community from acting.

I would like to quote from the Liberal Party policy document, “Canada in the World: a Global Network Strategy”, which represented the tradition of the Liberal Party before the current Liberal leader reshaped it to conform to his own unthoughtful and dictatorial whims. The document says:

Another Canadian-inspired idea, Responsibility to Protect, will ensure that military intervention is truly a last resort, but that when sovereign states fail to protect their people and the international community mobilizes to stop large-scale harm to innocent life (for example in genocide and ethnic cleansing), Canada will be there.

The same Liberal Party policy document also endorsed “A muscular approach to renewing Canadian multilateralism”.

This is not simply a Liberal Party sentiment. This is actually the policy of governments of Canada, past and present. This is the tradition that is being pursued by our Prime Minister today in the resolution that we are debating. Unfortunately, it is a tradition which the recent remarks of the Liberal leader show has been abandoned under his leadership in favour of spurning our multilateral ties with close allies and adopting instead an unpredictable and inept isolationist approach.

It is also helpful to quote from last week's report by the United Nations office for human rights, which said:

ISIL and associated armed groups intentionally and systematically targeted these (Turkmen, Shabak, Christians, Yezidi and other) communities for gross human rights abuses, at times aimed at destroying, suppressing or cleansing them from areas under their control...OHCHR notes that many of the violations and abuses perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

That report recommended that:

Iraqi political leaders should use every opportunity and urgently achieve a substantial and effective resolution of the crisis by restoring control over the areas that have been taken over by ISIL....

It is for that purpose that Iraqi leaders have reached out and requested international and Canadian military assistance.

In the face of this authoritative report of unspeakable atrocities, what did the leader of the Liberal Party propose should be the world's response? He suggested that R2P required the international community to provide no more than development assistance to Iraq and refugee assistance to Turkey, as if somehow that would protect innocent women and children from the slavery, murder, and other atrocities being perpetrated by ISIL. Shame. Tell that to the women and girls in ISIL's slave markets. Tell that to the children who will have to watch their parents butchered before their eyes by ISIL.

The Liberal leader called on the parties in Iraq to come up with:

...an inclusive government that speaks for and represents all Iraqi men and women....a government that is fair-minded and which respects the many ethnic minorities within its borders.

As if somehow a series of Canadian-sponsored seminars would convince ISIL to stop committing atrocities and to become fair-minded and respectful of minorities.

Perhaps that would have been an admirable prescription for the Iraq of 2004, but it has absolutely no air of reality today in 2014. Had I not read the Liberal leader's words myself, I would hardly believe that such an uninformed view could come from any member of the House, much less the leader of the Liberal Party.

I do not pretend that the international responsibility to protect, which has arisen in Iraq, is susceptible to any easy or predictable course. The government of Iraq, which has requested international help to protect innocent civilians within its borders, is not itself an ideal ally. The strength of ISIL has been misjudged up to this point. Military commanders, as in any armed conflict, will need to proceed step by step to contain our adversaries, and the course of that battle plan cannot be predictable.

Nonetheless, the responsibility of the international community, including Canada, to protect those innocent women and children in Iraq from ISIL could not be clearer. The resolution before us today offers a modest, even minimalist, Canadian contribution to the international responsibility to protect. We could not do any less.

I expect I am not alone in this House in wishing that pacifism was a sufficient answer to atrocity and to mortal threats. We would all prefer to avoid causing anyone's death, and no Canadian takes any glory in military action. However, no government can proceed without a firm commitment to protect its citizens. It has been one of the great advances in our international practice to recognize the global implications and application of that principle.

I have no great expectation that the NDP will turn aside from the isolationist approach with which it so often shrouds itself. However, I expect better of our colleagues in the Liberal Party.

I urge them to turn away from isolationism and to embrace Canada's role in multilateral efforts to assist the international community in fulfilling its responsibility to protect innocent women and children from the ongoing genocide and other atrocities in Iraq. I urge them not to surrender the time-tested principles of respected Liberal foreign policy to the dictates of the current leader.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this will make my old Conservative colleagues who are history buffs very happy. I have dusted off my old Carl von Clausewitz book, On War.

He said:

War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.

Is anyone here able to express our will with respect to this war? No.

Even better, in chapter four he says:

If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand; but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better.

The Vietnam War was lost because the people there said they would hold out. The war in Afghanistan was lost because the Taliban said they would hold out.

Does the government know what is going to happen? I would like to hear my distinguished colleague's opinion. What will the people there do? They will hunker down, lay low and come back in two or three years.

Is that what the government is proposing? That we go back every six months?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked about our will, because it is actually the simplest and easiest question to answer. I am going to answer it by reading some extracts from the UN report that I mentioned in my remarks.

It is recounted therein how “...women and children who refused to convert were being allotted to ISIL fighters or were being trafficked as slaves...in markets in Mosul”.

In another extract, “...150 unmarried girls and women...were reportedly transported to Syria, either to be given to ISIL fighters as a reward or to be sold as sex slaves”.

It is my will, it is the will of the Government of Canada, and I hope it is the will of my colleague across the way that we put a stop to these barbaric practices.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Kitchener Centre and I certainly listened to his tone in the House. When he talked about the leaders' dictatorial whims and isolationism, I think he was referring to his own leader, the Prime Minister, who refuses to meet with the leaders of provinces in our own country.

I would like to say to the member opposite that one of the largest problems that we have with this mission is trusting his government. The Conservatives have given Canadians no reason to trust them when it comes to managing our military or when it comes to our place in combat missions around the world, or even in this House.

I ask the member why his Prime Minister did not brief the leaders of the opposition parties in our country, in Canada. Why did he not sit at the table with them and talk about why Canada needed to go into this combat mission and justify our position in a combat role in Iraq?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question, because it clearly discloses what is at the root of her discomfort about this mission.

The member's discomfort is not about women and children being sold into slavery. It is not about women and children being given as rewards to soldiers. It is not about children being required to watch their parents being butchered. The member's discomfort about this mission is that her leader did not get a briefing from the Prime Minister, and I find that, quite frankly, beneath this House.

Let me tell the House also about provincial leaders—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thought I heard someone up on a point of order. It seems that is not the case.

I will let the hon. member for Kitchener Centre conclude his remarks. We are out of time, so I would ask the hon. member to wrap up quickly. Then we will get on to the next intervention.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my Liberal colleague's comment about provincial leaders by mentioning that Quebec Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard, whose son is in the military, gave his support to this mission before even knowing the specific details, saying that Canada “cannot escape its obligations” and “This is a significant threat to our society and Canada and Quebec are part of that landscape”.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if I have any time left, I would like to share it with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I am grateful for the opportunity to stand in the House tonight as a member of the official opposition and a representative of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. This is a serious issue, whether or not to send Canada's military women and men into harm's way, and it is a difficult issue. It is also a complicated issue and I hope I can add something to this discussion, a discussion being held not just in the House but in the pages of our newspapers and around kitchen tables all across the country.

Canadians are very concerned about the decision the government is making, because they know this is not just a question of whether we should send six jets to fight for six months. They understand that this is a decision about whether we commit our military to a prolonged, expensive and deadly war.

This may be a global issue, but as a member of Parliament, my first responsibility is to my constituents. Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is home to a large number of women and men in the armed forces, as well as countless veterans and reservists. For them, their families and friends, this is not a theoretical debate. These are decisions that change their lives and the lives of their families forever.

They know this because many of them are still struggling with the aftermath of other decisions the government has made on their behalf. Therefore, it is difficult for them, on the one hand, because they are the embodiment of loyalty, honour and commitment. If we ask them to go, they will go without a second thought because that is what they do. That is what they are trained to do, and they are trained very well. They are the best in the world. On the other hand, these same Canadians are on the front lines of another battle, a battle with their government for the help they need after they come home.

In my community, there are members like Major Marcus Brauer, who teeters on bankruptcy because the government has not honoured its commitments to him and his family. There are veterans with PTSD, like Medric Cousineau, who walked all the way to Ottawa to raise money for service dogs. There are great Canadians like Dennis Manuge, who led a year-long battle for pension benefits clawed back from disabled veterans.

When these are the experiences of so many people in my riding, people who have dedicated their lives to their country, it is a stark reminder that although the Prime Minister can talk in terms of months, for many the decision to enter this war will last a lifetime.

I am deeply troubled with how the government is framing this issue. It suggests either people are for air strikes because they care and want to do something or else people do not support air strikes because they do not care and would rather do nothing. It is outrageous.

If that were the case, the government would be accusing Germany of doing nothing. Does it call Norway a coward or say that Italy and Italians simply do not care? They are all allies that are deeply involved in providing aid and have all rejected air strikes. Of course we do not say those things because it is insulting. It is clearly untrue and such gross oversimplification diminishes us all.

Regardless of members' positions on the motion before us, I believe that we are duty bound to acknowledge how complicated, dangerous and fraught with risks this situation truly is. I would suggest that no clearer example can be found in terms of how complex it is than to consider the role of Syria.

Witness the moral knots the Prime Minister is tying himself into in trying to explain how he would deploy our military assets against Assad's enemies, but only at the request of that brutal dictator. We can also look to the campaign in Libya, where many analysts agree that our overreach in bombing that region has added more fuel to the fire.

I do not believe Canada should participate in these air strikes, but that does not mean I do not understand or respect the people who would make a different decision.

They are compelled to support entering this war out of compassion for the victims of ISIL, or out of rage at its atrocities, or out of fear in response to the threats made against our country. Intelligent, compassionate people disagree about what we should do.

I can appreciate the impulse to join air strikes aimed at people who have done terrible things, not just with impunity but seemingly with delight. It offends every fibre of our being. It provokes anger and outrage and disgust. I understand that. I feel it too, but these strong emotions are not the frame of mind with which we should make such decisions. We all agree that something must be done, but what?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said himself yesterday, and I quote, “The scale of the humanitarian crisis is truly hard to comprehend”. He also said, “When we look at a humanitarian crisis of this size, there is always more that can be done”.

I completely agree, because the millions of internally displaced men, women, and children matter. The victims of the horrible atrocities ISIL is committing matter, and how we respond matters.

Some are caught up in the notion that the only way to deliver peace is with bombs, when really it is not that simple. ISIL is an enemy that does not think like we do. It invites the attacks. It craves the violence. In fact, it is counting on it.

As I said earlier, we cannot underestimate how complicated this situation is, and no one can say what the future will bring, but it is becoming increasingly clear that in this case, more violence will not suppress the violence. Attacks will not dissuade attacks. Killing will almost certainly lead to more killing. This is complicated.

As I have said, we do know some things. We know that deploying six CF-18s would lead to a greater level of engagement, and engagement is sometimes known as mission creep. We have good reason to believe that the value of such air strikes is dubious. We certainly know from experience that the cost of waging war is enormous, not just to our treasury but to the physical and mental health of the Canadians we deploy, not to mention their families.

There are five million and counting internally displaced people who need immediate assistance. That is an area where Canada can and should do more. It is a task where heavy lifting is truly required.

Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked if we should “stand with our close allies...or stand aside as they put themselves on the line”. That is a false dichotomy, and the minister should be ashamed for diminishing the risk that will be taken by each and every person who is sent there to help in whatever capacity.

Make no mistake, humanitarian efforts in that region are not for the faint of heart. It is a job that will put Canadians in harm's way. It is also a job that better reflects who we are as a nation. We all agree that this is a problem that is not going away any time soon, certainly not in six months. It will take a long time, but that is what pulling our own weight is really about. It is about committing time, money, and the resources that are needed for the long run.

It is for those reasons that I implore the House to vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the official opposition. His amendment recognizes that strong and direct force is absolutely necessary to confront ISIL but that it must come from capable and enabled local forces. It calls for military support for the transportation of weapons where needed and for assistance to investigate and prosecute war crimes. The amendment calls for monthly updates on the cost of our mission and wholeheartedly supports the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us. Perhaps most importantly, the amendment calls for a significant boost in humanitarian aid in areas where there will be an immediate lifesaving impact, including contributing to winterized camps for refugees and investing in water, sanitation, hygiene, health, and education for people displaced by the fighting.

My time has drawn to an end. I thank the House for the opportunity to come here tonight on behalf of my constituents and to share some of my views and the opinions of some of my constituents.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to my hon. colleague that he may have misrepresented the Syria factor. The readiness to attack ISIS in Syria is not because ISIS is Bashar al-Assad's enemy but because ISIS is the enemy of humanity and decency in Canada. Like him or not—and we do not—Bashar al-Assad is the internationally recognized leader of that country, at least for the moment. Therefore, this has nothing to do with supporting Assad but everything to do with attacking ISIS where we can and, if necessary, where we must.

I would rather ask this of a Liberal member, but the member may want to comment. This goes to the credibility of leadership. When the Liberal leader was asked today what if Turkey invokes NATO article 5 when attacked by ISIL, his response was to ask what article 5 is.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a comment on that question, except to say that this is a complicated issue and the decision will affect many members in the constituency I represent.

I wish all members of this House would take it a lot more seriously because of the impact it will have, not only in the immediate term but in the long term, on them, their families, and all of the people who will be subjected to this bombing campaign.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of this particular debate, it is somewhat unfortunate that I have now heard Conservative members take cheap shots at the leader of the Liberal Party on a couple of occasions. At the end of the day, I would suggest that they need only look at their own leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, who has not been able to demonstrate to Canadians that an air strike is warranted.

We in the Liberal Party, and the leader of the Liberal Party, have been very clear that Canada does have a role to play. We are prepared to support that role. What the Prime Minister has failed to do is convey to Canadians, through the House of Commons, any sort of justification for an actual air strike role for Canada. He did not share with Canadians the other alternatives that could have been there, nor did he give any indication that he was exploring other options.

My question to the member is this. Could he provide his thoughts to the House on whether or not he believes the Prime Minister looked at any other options in a very real—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just spoke for 10 minutes and gave this House my thoughts on what we are involved with here. These questions going back and forth between the Liberals and the Conservatives are just noise. They do not relate to the speech I just gave, in which I talked about how complicated an issue this was and how important it was that all of us spend some time to reflect on what the short-term and the long-term impacts are of this particular decision.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 8 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 13 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Would the hon. member for Montcalm please indicate how she is voting?

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the amendment.