House of Commons Hansard #124 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was isil.

Topics

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, it seems that as we debate the 79th motion for closure, the government does not take seriously the need to debate critical issues. What more important issue is there than sending our country to war and members of our military personnel into harm's way? All we are asking for is to speak on behalf of our constituents, the Canadians who sent us here.

If the minister and his government are so passionate about this issue, why will they not allow an open debate on an issue as important as sending our country to war?

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, what this government is doing is having a vote at eight o'clock tonight. That is the exact time the New Democratic Party wanted to have a vote—

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

You said tonight.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

—8 p.m. tonight.

We will debate this today. We debated it yesterday. We had an emergency debate on it two weeks ago. We brought the committee back early and debated it every day between 2:15 p.m. and 3 p.m. The opposition, if it would like additional days, has a certain amount of opposition days.

If this is so important, as the member opposite says, there are many opposition days and her party has yet to use one on this issue. If it is the most crucial and important issue, as she suggests, I know it will.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question for the minister before we conclude all of this debate, unfortunately.

Can he tell me which countries are engaging in a combat role and which ones are in a non-combat role? Also if Canada is to go in a combat role, how will that affect the work that we would be doing in terms of humanitarian aid and other supports in a non-combat role?

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite that I guess it depends on how one defines “combat”.

The German government is not sending fighter planes. It is providing arms and munitions to troops on the ground there. In the United Kingdom, all three party leaders supported this initiative. They are conducting the combat mission that Canada's is contemplating with the motion before the House, as well as France and the United States.

If we look at our friends in the Arab world, Jordan is participating in a measure similar to Canada. The United Arab Emirates is participating. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is participating as we are. Bahrain is participating as we are. Denmark is participating as we are. Belgium is participating as we are. It is a long list and we are in good company.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing from the Minister of Foreign Affairs the same kind of imagination that he used in inventing the idea that the UN resolution in some way justified the government's intervention in his trying to pretend that the NDP had agreed to a certain time tonight for debate and a vote. The point I was making earlier and the point that I stress again is that there had been broad consensus in terms of a vote tonight, though not in terms of the exact time.

However, the issue here is the use of closure, which will take well over an hour out of the debate today that members of Parliament wanted to be engaged in. Certainly the government has shown a profound disrespect yet again, 79 times, to Parliament by invoking closure at the drop of a hat rather than discussing with opposition parties or establishing the kind of consensus that is needed.

My point back to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the question is very simple. Why does the government never seek consensus or discussion and always seek to impose its view?

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, it might surprise the member opposite, but I share his concern. I wish there could be better collaboration between the government and the opposition, and the opposition and the government. When I say “opposition”, I mean all members whether independent, Green, Liberal or New Democratic. It is unfortunate that these things cannot be dealt with. The fact that it has risen to such a level speaks just as much about the official opposition as it does about the government.

When I was in opposition in the province of Ontario, opposition members did something remarkable. We actually worked with the government on a programming motion where, instead of debating day after day the most inconsequential bill, with the most consequential bills getting the same amount of time, we could come up with a motion, get a certain amount of work done in a prescribed amount of time, and all members could structure the debate and allocate how much would be on important issues and how much would be on less important issues.

Unfortunately, we have a situation now where the opposition wants to debate everything without ever having a vote on anything. We also have important responsibilities to move forward the people's business. I wish there could be a greater meeting of the minds and perhaps this debate will inspire everyone to do better.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's comments.

By muzzling the debate, the government is saying that we should work with it because it has a majority and we should reach a consensus. To reach a consensus, however, it is important to listen to the minority, those who are not part of the government, namely, the opposition. In a democracy, the government does not have absolute power. That is undemocratic.

Let us be clear: we have a majority government in a parliamentary system that is supposed to be based on dialogue and agreements. How is it a dialogue when a majority government makes all the decisions regarding votes? That is not a dialogue at all. It actually puts our democracy in danger.

Since the minister was talking about working together, why is the government not more open to dialogue and more accepting of the opinions of others?

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think at some point in our history there might have been an opportunity where people came into this place and made impassioned speeches and spoke to the current issues of the day.

I have been here in this Parliament for more than three years. I have yet to see one single member of the official opposition, ever, not once, not one MP on one vote, vote against his or her party.

I, as a minister, a senior minister, have stood and voted against my own government on one or two issues, and I do not have a problem with that.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The time for questions has expired. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Motion that debate be not further adjournedMilitary Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #250

Military Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Military Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. Minister of State for Western Diversification had the floor. The hon. Minister of State for Western Diversification has seven minutes remaining.

The hon. Minister of State.

Military Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel ConservativeMinister of State (Western Economic Diversification)

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke of the clear danger that is presented by ISIL's advance in the region. I would like to speak today about the threat to our country and to other western nations.

If colleagues here do not recognize this direct threat to our country, all they have to do is search any social networking tool to find repeated references to the desire to spread ISIL's vile ideology to Canada.

I am deeply concerned that the expansion of ISIL is attracting individuals from the west, including Canadian citizens, to radicalize to the point of violence. Canadians are known to have travelled to conflict zones to participate in terrorism-related activities, including front-line combat, fundraising, operational planning, and disseminating online propaganda.

ISIL has been able to bolster its strength by recruiting thousands of foreign fighters, including many from central Europe and central Asia. Recent media reporting highlighted the deaths of Calgarian Farah Mohamed Shirdon and of Mohamud Mohamed Mohamud, who both died fighting for ISIL.

As a nation, we have recognized that this expansion of ISIL via the recruitment of foreign workers is a serious issue and have already begun to address it, which is why we co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 2178. We have also implemented several key legislative tools, such as the Combating Terrorism Act, which created new offences for leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit certain terrorism offences. The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, now law, allows for the revocation of Canadian citizenship from dual Canadian citizens if they are convicted of terrorist offences.

However, as the democratically elected government of Iraq has recognized by its request for assistance in containing the expansion of ISIL, if ISIL is allowed to operate in the open with its expansion of territory left unchecked, we and our allies have ignored the true source of aggression to our collective borders. This is why, after careful consideration, our government has put forward the motion in front of us today.

I would be remiss if I did not discuss the treatment of women under the ideology of ISIL as part of the case to support this motion.

A report listed by the United Nations outlines the alarming atrocities committed by ISIL. Through their actions, they have embedded the view of women as subhuman into their ideology. Hundreds of women and girls have been sold as sex slaves by ISIL in a bid to tempt buyers to join their ranks. They have been given to ISIL or trafficked for sale at markets.

Women with professional careers have also been targeted and executed. In one example, ISIL publicly killed a female human rights lawyer in Mosul after their self-styled Islamic court ruled that she had abandoned Islam. Samira Salih al-Nuaimi was seized from her home on September 17 after allegedly posting messages on Facebook that were critical of the militants' destruction of religious sites in Mosul. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, al-Nuaimi was tried in a so-called Sharia court for apostasy, after which she was tortured for five days before militants sentenced her to public execution.

There have also been reports that ISIL planned to make four million women and girls undergo female genital mutilation in the Mosul area. This is, of course, on top of the thousands of cases of rape, innumerable instances of forced marriage, and the complete removal of equal rights of women to receive education and to participate in the economy and in politics.

ISIL's treatment of women goes well beyond any concept of misogyny we are accustomed to fighting against in western culture. Given that this group has been able to attract fighters from western nations and clearly has sympathizers residing therein, it poses a threat to the ability of women to have equality in free society around the world.

That said, I am not afraid of these cowards, who see women as subspecies with little value over being a necessary nuisance in procreation or as chattel to be raped and traded to the ignorants that fight for their cause. This is because our nation's anthem has never rung hollow. Our brave men and women have always “stood on guard for thee” against threats to our country and to its people.

This motion presents a clear and defined response from Canada to the threat ISIL presents to the global community. We will continue the deployment of up to 26 CAF personnel to advise Iraq's security forces, with no ground combat mission. We will coordinate with our allies to participate in air strikes against ISIL, with the goal of limiting ISIL's ability to operate in the open and of preventing its continued expansion of territory. In doing so, we will contribute one air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two Aurora surveillance aircraft, and the necessary crews and support personnel. The above will be for a period of six months.

We are ready and capable to take on this challenge. Our investments, as articulated in the Canada First defence strategy, are building a modern, first-class military ready to face the challenges of our generation. The government has steadily been delivering upon this plan, providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment that has made a positive difference in the way that they operate.

We will seek to prevent the flow of funding and financing to ISIL, work to halt the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria, and provide diplomatic support to help Iraq toward a religiously and ethically inclusive government.

Supporting the government's motion shows Canadians that we as a Parliament accept that unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat that ISIL poses to international peace and security will continue to grow.

By supporting this motion today, we show Canadians that we understand the depth of the atrocities committed by this terrorist organization. We show Canadians that we support Iraqi leaders in undertaking a concerted effort to confront ISIL's barbaric advance and to mend sectarian divisions that threaten Iraq's long-term security. We show Canadians that as representatives of their voices, we are prepared to stand with our allies who have committed to containing this threat. We show Canadians that we support a clearly defined combat mission, which we are capable of delivering, coupled with humanitarian assistance for the region.

By supporting this motion, we show Canadians that we are willing to act, not obfuscate, while ISIL flourishes.

Military Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I have some real concerns about how well defined things are and what the goals and objectives are. After we heard from the government, one of the concerns that we have is that we are talking about three weeks, maybe, before we actually have planes situated somewhere. We are still not sure. That definition has not been provided by the government.

If the government is putting all of its focus on the air strikes, what happens in three weeks if there are no targets or if things have changed on the ground? Is there any other strategy that the government has come up with to deal with that scenario?

Military Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Mr. Speaker, in the take note debate on Mali on February 5, 2013, my colleague opposite said:

The government's alternation between disengagement and divisiveness has weakened Canada's voice on the world stage....

I would argue that in this motion here today, we are being decisive. I would encourage him to support it. Canadians around the world understand the urgency of this situation.

To his direct question, I read an article in the Calgary Herald this morning by a columnist who is on the ground there. One of his comments was:

Those packed into the grounds at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church were astonished when they were told that two of Canada’s three main political parties have opposed the Harper government’s plan to send half a dozen warplanes to the Middle East....

Somebody from his article basically said that if these air strikes do not happen now, there will be further advance upon this territory.

We need to act now. We need to send these planes there and we need to join our allies in this combat.

Military Contribution Against ISILGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I remind all hon. members that they cannot refer to their colleagues by name in the House, including when they are reading something from a newspaper.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.