Debates of Oct. 7th, 2014

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite had an opportunity to participate in the debate today. If there are other members of her party who wish to join the debate, we will all be here until 8 o'clock this evening debating this matter. It is also debated every day in the House of Commons in question period.

We had an emergency debate when Parliament returned. The committee was seized with this issue. We called it back early. We will continue to debate the issues of the day. Both of the opposition parties have opposition days when this can be further debated and discussed in this place.

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

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

Second, my question about the relevance of this debate is this: does this desire to put an end to the debate arise from information obtained today about the fighting, which is that air strikes have been ineffective and the Turkish government has officially called for our soldiers to intervene on the ground?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think when Mosul fell, there was no outside aerial support for those trying to protect religious minorities.

I suppose if we had adopted the definition of success and the criteria that the New Democratic Party sets out on this, we would not have been able to justify previous missions, whether World War I, World War II, Korea, or elsewhere.

I do think it is important that we have a good debate in this place. The member opposite's party was supportive of the timeframe that the government laid out and, frankly, we agree.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for the debate, but I do object to the closure for the following reasons.

Side conversations with the minister just before the House resumed have given me more information than I have had through this debate.

I will not be able to speak on the current speaking order with closure, but I appreciate greatly that all members allowed me to have an opportunity on Friday, through unanimous consent.

However, being aware of the time, I was hoping that I would have an opportunity for a full presentation of at least 10 minutes. There are options that the Green Party would prefer we pursued rather than aerial bombardment, which we still believe could be counterproductive.

A fuller debate would make a big difference. I ask the hon. minister if he would not reconsider or at least provide a speaking slot to the Green Party out of one of the many repetitious Conservative presentations.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the non-partisan nature of the member opposite's comments.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this closure motion is particularly disturbing. As my hon. colleague said, there was an agreement in terms of the debate continuing and then voting tonight. Now we are in a situation where we are basically wasting an hour on this debate and vote on closure, rather than spending it on the important work of trying to figure out how to come to consensus on this military action.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said there was agreement. I seek agreement. If we can adopt this motion on division, we can resume the debate right away on this important question before the House.

If the member would like to seek agreement to call the question, and that it be approved on division, we can return back to the debate as the member opposite would like. I hope he will support my suggestion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, the chair is presuming the minister is speaking rhetorically. If in fact he wishes to move a motion, he is familiar with that procedure.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We have not been in agreement with the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation. They have used it not once, or 12 times, or 70 times, but 79 times. This has been the reality of the current government. The Conservatives invoke closure and time allocation at a snap of the finger.

The point we have been making, and the point the members for St. John's East and Jeanne-Le Ber just made, is that the government has changed the focus of the debate that we were to have yesterday and today, and instead we are now having a debate around the 79th use of closure by the government. It is absolutely unacceptable.

No, we do not support the use of closure. We think the government was wrong-headed in bringing this in. It just shows how the Conservative government likes to impose its view rather than have the kind of debate that should be part and parcel of what we do as parliamentarians here in the House.

We will not agree to closure. We will not agree to time allocation. We will not agree with the 79 times the current government has snapped its fingers and tried to impose its will on the opposition. It is simply wrong to do this.

The government should be allowing the discussions to continue. Rather than having a debate on closure, we should be debating the mission and our disagreement with the government's approach right now in the House of Commons. However, we cannot do that because of the government's closure motion.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should check the record. The House leader of the official opposition was very clear when he said there was agreement to vote on this at eight o'clock. That is exactly what this government is proposing we do.

I do share the view with my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition. We have in this Parliament the most unreasonable official opposition that we have ever had in this country, and that is indeed regrettable.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the fact that the government agreed to bring the motion to the House for debate. It is a motion of immense proportion and it would have a tremendous impact on Canadians. Regrettably, the government is going to stifle debate. This is not unlike the tactics it often performs in controlling and asserting itself in the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that it has chosen to do this.

The irony in all of this is that we are debating this important motion during Mental Health Week. Many Canadians have asked me what the government is doing for our soldiers and our veterans who have already come home from combat and are receiving no services.

As the government revs up the CF-18s, I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing for all of the soldiers and veterans in our country who are suffering immensely today because of combat efforts.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. minister, I would like to remind all hon. members that they ought to keep both their questions and their comments relevant to the matter that is before the House, which is the closure motion and the motion itself.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence would welcome the opportunity to discuss the range of mental health supports. Canadian society over the last 25 years under successive governments is coming to grips with mental health issues. These issues were never discussed for far too long, and the government has taken a number of leadership roles with respect to that.

We are having a debate in this place. We did not have a debate when our troops went to Afghanistan the first time. There is no legal or constitutional requirement to have one. We are having a debate because the Prime Minister respects Parliament. The Prime Minister made commitments when we were both a minority and a majority government about having a debate before our men and women are sent into combat missions. He is living up to that commitment of accountability.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to see that this government is using time allocation yet again. This time, it will cut short a debate that is crucially important to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians.

How can the minister justify his behaviour in the House to Canadians? How can he justify muzzling debate and, by extension, our constituents?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is simply adopting the time for debate that the party opposite supported. The member's own House leader stood in this place at the outset of this debate and said that his party would be happy to have a vote at 8 o'clock and that is exactly what we are proposing.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the opposition talk erroneously many times about limiting debate. I wonder if the minister might be able to share with the House how often Parliament was previously consulted when military action was taken prior to the Conservative Party taking leadership.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Parliament was not consulted, Mr. Speaker.

The only sin of the member opposite is that she was once a Liberal member of Parliament; otherwise she is a great parliamentarian and wonderful person.

The Liberal Party, of which she was a member, never had a parliamentary debate when our forces left for Afghanistan. This is something that the Prime Minister campaigned on, and we have honoured that, whether we had a minority or majority government. A key part of the parliamentary process is a vote. All members of the House wanted a debate and a vote, and that is exactly what this government is providing.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that the Conservative government has decided to limit debate on the current motion, does the government have plans to provide briefings to opposition members of Parliament, which may include non-public information that may be required for opposition members to carry out their duties of holding the government to account?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken opposition members to meet with Iraqi and Kurdish officials. I gave them full access to all of the meetings I had. They could participate, ask questions, and make comments. As the hon. member's leader mentioned yesterday, I have had occasion to reach out to him on occasion when Parliament was not in session.

The government is certainly prepared to work with parliamentarians and answer all reasonable questions.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness I have seen the light. That is what I am tempted to say to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That said, I know that this issue is extremely important to the people of my riding of Gatineau. I receive emails and telephone calls every day from people who do not necessarily agree with the government's position. This is an extremely important debate. This is probably one of the most important decisions a country has to make.

In light of that, I understand the argument put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to the effect that we already agreed to a vote at 8 p.m. I want to repeat his question, since I did not hear the response. Why take away an hour of debate on something this important? At the very least, we could have heard from four or five more members of the House and tried to foster the broadest possible consensus or heard as many opinions as possible.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my dear colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau, and all the members of her party unanimously agree to a vote at 8 p.m., as she said, and if no one else rises to speak to this motion, we can immediately return to the focus of today's debate. We are prepared to do that if the House agrees.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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

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

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands, to whom I made complimentary remarks yesterday, while I do not agree with her, while I think she is wrong, I think she is principled in her position on this issue.

She did say that members on one side of the House just make repetitive speeches, but only apparently she is able to give good speeches. I think there are rules that allow parliamentarians to speak. Not every parliamentarian can speak to every issue. That is a reality we all have to come to understand in a Parliament of 308 members.

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

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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

I would therefore like to know why, for the 79th time, the government is playing fast and loose with the rules of the House, rules that are there to ensure that all parliamentarians can represent their constituents properly?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we obey the standing orders of the House of Commons. That is not simply a goal; it is mandatory. You are here, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that everyone follows the rules. We agree to have a vote at 8 p.m., the time proposed by the official opposition. The motion currently before us confirms that.