Debates of Oct. 7th, 2014

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, like others before him in the Conservative caucus, talked a lot about compelling reasons. No one questions that. He made reference to people being beheaded, slaughters that have taken place, and rapes. There is a litany of offences against humanity that are taking place.

The government has chosen air strikes as the best way to use Canada's resources in a combat role. Does the minister not recognize the value of non-combat roles that Canada could be playing?

Germany has chosen not to participate in the air strikes, but it is contributing. It believes that there is a better way for Germany to contribute.

To what degree does the minister believe—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. minister.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a very balanced and reasonable approach.

The way we see it is that we have been active in a non-combat mission for the last 30 to 35 days, but as we see now, the cancer continues to grow. Canada and our allies have had to decide to take further action to make sure that we stop this cancer from growing. Otherwise, world peace will be jeopardized. As the international development minister responsible for humanitarian aid, I need to reiterate to this House that it is not either-or, targeted military action or humanitarian aid delivered on the ground. It is the opposite. We need to secure a humanitarian corridor to make sure that we reach people in need. That is exactly what we are doing.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to address this issue.

I am proud to be part of this government. I hear a balanced, responsible, and reasonable approach to what is being suggested. We have certainly been involved in humanitarian aid in the area we are speaking about today, and for a number of years. We have been responsible in that direction. We have spent some time evaluating a non-combat role and have come to the conclusion, as the minister said recently, that a decision needs to be made to participate in a combat role in Iraq and in this area.

When I look at a couple of the other parties, I am not entirely surprised by the position of the New Democrats, because they have a history of isolationism, of turning their backs on international involvement. They do it through both history and by choice. Over the last few years we have thought that perhaps they were moving to a position that was a bit more relevant to Canadians. It seemed that they were trying to do that to perhaps expand their base. However, it also seems that in the last couple of months they have made a choice to go back to the place they have been in the past. I think it will not turn out well for them, because typically it means opposition to trade deals, resource development, and the sale of resource products around the world. It means opposition to most international development. Now we hear from them that they have taken a position of strong opposition to what I think is a good decision by our government.

I was a bit surprised last Thursday to hear that the height of their suggestions was that we send international investigators into this area to try to gather data. I think every one of us understands that when we are talking about the kind of viciousness, brutality, and barbarism that is taking place right now, the safety of those investigators cannot be guaranteed at all. I saw that as being naive and foolish, if that is the extent of the request they will be making here. It is up to them to make their decision, but I am a bit disappointed.

The party that has actually been surprising has been the Liberals, because in the past, they often have come out in a position of support. We have been able to stand together when we have had to face bad things. In this situation, it seems that they cannot make up their minds as to what it is they want to do.

We first heard their leader talking about supporting involvement. We have heard that some of their old guard, members like Lloyd Axworthy, Dosanjh, and Bob Rae, have come out and said that there needs to be a commitment. Canada has to make a commitment that needs to move ahead. It needs to be a military one if we expect this to be effective.

We thought the opposition leader was going to take that position, and then a couple of days later, the position changed. It seems that they shifted the Liberal car into neutral, then put it into reverse and backed away from that position. It is interesting that they have taken the position that they do not want Canadians to engage far from here with one of the most vicious and aggressive terrorist organizations that exist on the face of the earth. I guess the alternative is to wait until they come here, and we are not prepared to do that.

Three positions in two weeks is probably not a new record for them. It just does not seem responsible, given the seriousness of this issue we are dealing with. It is not particularly unusual to see this kind of pattern of irresponsible positions taken. I would just like to run through a couple, because I think that is important for setting out where the Liberals are going and what it is they think is important across this country.

If we go back over the last year or so and look at the positions the Liberals have taken internationally, I think we need to be concerned. For example, who can forget the Ukraine gaffe, the comment that the events in Ukraine would be determined by the Russian hockey team's success at the Olympics? This was in a situation where lives were being lost. People were joking while other people were dying.

There was a flippant answer to a question about what government the Liberal leader liked and admired. The comment was, “there's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime”. It was a commitment to admiring a dictatorship where rights are routinely violated, where free speech is limited, and where freedom is restricted. When the leader was offered the chance to apologize, he said that the comments were reflections on a growing economy. There was not a sense that he needed to apologize or that he had made a mistake. Rather, it was a justification.

We heard that the first response to the Boston Marathon bombing was that we needed to discover the root causes of what those men had going on in their lives so that we could better understand them, never mind the carnage that resulted from that.

We were also told that we could not call honour killings barbaric, because that would make some people feel uncomfortable, people who may be more familiar with that practice than we are.

There is a pattern, I have to say, on the Liberal side. It is basically a pattern of failing to understand even the basic values Canadians see as important. I think it is an inability to see that Canadians have values worth protecting, and it is a lack of understanding and thinking through these issues.

We have some tough decisions to make. That is what government is all about, and we are willing to make those decisions, but avoiding decisions, changing one's mind daily, or waffling to deflect attention by making jokes about situations is not a recipe for good leadership or good governance.

I wanted to bring up the things that have happened in the past, because it establishes a pattern. That is why I am not so sure there was a lot of surprise about last week's joking comments about military engagement.

When we heard it, I did not think people would say it was unusual to hear someone talking about whipping out our CF-18s and showing them how big they are. Is that the extent of the understanding the Liberal leader has on this issue? I would say it certainly shows the depth of his analysis and his reaction to a serious question.

It was inappropriate to use that time and space to make a juvenile joke that somehow our military aid and assistance in that area is nothing more than a display of sexual prowess in some strange way. I do not know if that offends anyone in the House. I think it should, and I think it should offend Canadians right across this country, from sea to sea to sea.

Is it unreasonable to ask how it is that this person expects to lead our country on these kinds of issues, when that is the response? It is not that he is new at the job, because he is certainly not. I think it shows an inability to grow in understanding and an unwillingness to learn or listen to other people.

Just recently, some of his former colleagues made a comment about how the abortion issue was being dealt with in the Liberal Party. His reaction was to say that people who have not had direct personal relationships to or experience with an issue really should not comment on it. Someone at home asked me what a middle-aged person who has lived off a trust fund has to say.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I regret interrupting my friend. I know relevance is often a question that has some looseness to it. I am not going to disagree with his comments about the lack of judgment, as he perceives it and as many others have, of the Liberal leader. However, as he was speaking, I was reading through the motion in front of us today very specifically put forward by the government about bombings in Iraq. It stretches the limits of connection to suggest that the Liberal leader's opinion on issues like abortion somehow bear some relevance to Canada's role and mission in Iraq.

We have very limited time. We only have 10 minutes for our speeches, and this is under time allocation, so all speeches are limited. I would ask the Speaker to give direction to focus in on the motion as presented to us and what he believes the merits of that motion are.

Of course, the Liberal leader's opinions on global affairs may be relevant, but the member seems to be extending this now beyond that to questions of character and to issues that clearly have nothing to do with the motion at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have to take issue with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It seems to me that the parliamentary secretary is raising a relevant point as to the quality of leadership coming from a certain individual in the House. That is relevant to the position that particular party has taken. It may be stretching it a bit, and I would ask the member to bring it a little closer to the motion before the House, but I do not believe it is out of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may continue.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague across the way, but if he would have listened for another minute or so, he might have had an answer to his concerns, because it is relevant what the leader opposite listens to.

He has former colleagues who are telling him that they do have a personal connection and experience with these events. They are telling him that he needs to change his position, but again, that is not being listened to. When senior statesmen across the spectrum come to us and ask us to reconsider our position, the party opposite needs to do that.

We do provide humanitarian need. The opposition is telling us that we need to do that in this situation. We have done that from day one.

There is certainly a need to play a larger role if we want to protect Canadians. It is not just a military decision that is being made here. Our government is proud to make that proposal and we will be supporting it.

We provide international leadership in this area. I am honestly questioning both parties on the other side for what I would call their inability to step forward in the proper fashion on this issue.

The NDP wants to isolate itself. That is fine, and everyone expects that is the case. However, the Liberals have taken three or four positions over the last week. A pattern is taking place in that party. Canadians need to be aware of it prior to us ever getting to the point where we come to making a decision about who should be guiding our country. Clearly our Prime Minister has done an excellent job of leading the country. There is no comparison in terms of the leadership.

We are a multicultural, multifaceted society and Canada is uniquely called to promote peaceful co-existence around the world, particularly in this situation of Iraq's various groups and communities. We have a rich and proud tradition of diversity, respect and tolerance in our country, and that tradition has yielded peace and prosperity for our people here.

Through our engagement in Iraq, we will honour Canadian tradition by acting against hate and persecution by championing the values of pluralism and religious freedom, and supporting Iraqis as they build a more stable future.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Development as well as the parliamentary secretary said that it was not one without the other. Yet when we have been asking for a national inquiry on murdered and missing aboriginal women, it seems we cannot have both.

On this issue, what we have seen over and over is a demand for more humanitarian aid with respect to water sanitation, hygiene, food security, shelter, health, protection and gender-integrated responses. This is what is needed.

We have seen over and over that this is not an isolated case. We have seen other countries that have done the same thing, but we do not rush into a war with them. We do not rush in and say that we will take over and help them whether they ask for it or not.

Could the parliamentary secretary confirm whether it was humanitarian aid or was it actually military aid that the governments of that country asked for? Who specifically asked for us to get involved as a military? How much will this cost and will the Conservatives be transparent about the cost?

We know what happened with the war in Afghanistan. The Conservatives were not transparent with that cost.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same kind of discussion a couple of times from the other side. It is as though those members see us as going into a place where there has been, for example, a natural disaster, a drought or famine with no conflict taking place. I am not sure if they are trying to mislead Canadians or if they just do not understand that we are dealing with one of the most vicious, barbaric organizations in the world which has taken over control of an area, will not surrender it willingly and do not want to see peace in an area.

If we are going to come to the point where there is going to be an ability for those refugees to go back home, for that society to rebuild itself, somebody is going to have to step up and play a role in seeing that come about, and that is going to take military engagement. Now the opposition, particularly the NDP, want nothing to do with the fact that somebody has to go and sometimes deal with it in a military sense. We are willing to make that commitment.

I can talk about the other commitments we have made. We have provided $15 million to support security measures in Iraq. We have provided more than $28 million to respond to humanitarian needs there, $20 million of which is for populations affected by civil unrest. There is another $10 million for Syrian refugees. We have added Iraq to the list of Canada's developing country partners.

We do not believe this needs to be isolated as either military or humanitarian. We think there is a package there that we can put together. We would really like to see the other side support that complete package instead of defending one small part of it at a time.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary is in regard to the conversations I have heard throughout the day today. It has been really disturbing to me.

I am the son of immigrants from the Netherlands who came to Canada after being liberated by Canadian Forces in 1945, and there was a humanitarian aspect to that. There was Operation Manna in which the Canadian Forces were deeply involved. It helped many people from the Netherlands get through the hunger winter as they called it. Without actual forces coming in and pushing out the oppressors, that humanitarian aid basically got people through a period of time, but they were still barely hanging onto their lives.

I look back at history and if the attitude I hear today had been in the Canadian Parliament at that time, I shiver to think of what would have occurred to my parents and their families.

Could the parliamentary secretary speak to that issue and how disturbing it is to those of us who are descendants of immigrant parents?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is why Canadians will need to ask themselves who they want to lead the country as we move forward into the next several years.

For example, Iraq's religious minorities have been targeted under a campaign of sexual and gender-based violence. I would point out the situation for Iraq's Christians. Hundreds of thousands have fled their homes, joining an estimated 1.8 million now displaced by the violence. There is a near total disappearance of Christians from the region. The population included more than one million Christians prior to 2003, 600,000 in Baghdad. As of late July, these numbers are estimated to have dwindled to less than 400,000, with many more having already fled Iraq.

We could talk about other minority communities if I had more time, but that is why this question and the answer are relevant. We need to do what we can to stop this organization.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from British Columbia Southern Interior.

I looked forward with some trepidation to being a part of this important debate. It is with trepidation only in the sense that the time is so limited, particularly because the government has now moved to shut down this most critical debate. It is with trepidation because the complexity of this issue requires all of us, as members of Parliament, to rise to our very best and attempt to decipher and interpret one of the most complex regions of the world and what Canada's role should be.

I represent the northwest of British Columbia. It is a beautiful part of the world that often knows peace. It has proud and courageous people. It has a history and stories that invoke great pride for me as a Canadian. These people are proudly Canadian. They sent me here to speak on their behalf as best as I am able.

When I think of the people of northwestern British Columbia and how proud they are to be Canadian when they travel both abroad and here at home, I speak with a voice of the deepest held Canadian values of compassion, courage, understanding and engagement for the world.

I seek not to degrade the debate, as some of my friends across the way have, by talking about those who have no spine and no courage for simply opposing the government's intentions and plans. To rise up and stand against the government's intentions if we think that they would do harm to our country is a courageous thing to do.

For those who have spent any time in a refugee camp or with international aid workers who have, under cover of darkness and under the threat of their own lives to deliver aid to those most needy, to suggest that delivering such aid is not a courageous act, I say shame. Shame on my friends across the way. Shame on all those who suggest that the only courageous thing Canada can offer the world is a bombing mission in Iraq.

Let me show the government's sense of disproportion around this issue. The rhetoric that it offers in this place is that it is a global threat, a threat that is a direct and immediate danger to Canada. Then it suggests that to counter such a threat is some allegory to the Second World War, as was purported here just minutes ago, and the equivalent of what is going on in Iraq today. Then it suggests Canada's military response will be six planes. That is incoherent.

If ISIS represents a clear and present danger to our country on the order that was represented by the Nazis in the Second World War, as was just suggested, one logically would conclude that Canada's response would be more than six fighter jets over six months. That is what the government is suggesting.

The government is also making another false suggestion between false choices. It says that the only way in which Canada can offer aid is in conjunction with a military bombing mission and that there cannot be one without the other. That is false. Canada has a proud and noble history of delivering aid into war zones around the world for generations, without the assistance of Canada's military performing bombing missions at the same time.

What we have is the repetition of history. It has often been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. When the Prime Minister stands in the House of Commons, in our Parliament, and says, “I have neither the will nor the desire to get into details here” on the eve of an engagement of war, it is shameful. He may be frustrated with the questions. He may find it frustrating when the opposition leader asks such tough questions as: How many military personnel do we have on the ground in Iraq? What is our exit strategy in Iraq? What will the cost of the mission likely be in Iraq?

The Prime Minister may grow frustrated with that. He may not have “the will nor the desire” to answer such questions, but Canadians deserve answers to these questions before we send our troops into harm's way.

The U.S. has provided such answers. It has costed the war out to this point and made projections for the American people. We cannot even find out where our planes are going to be based. The U.K. government has told its people that, yet we find the Canadian government unwilling and unable to offer the truth. It simply says “trust us”.

The New Democrats will not rubber-stamp a mission into the Middle East. There have been hard fought lessons just learned over the last decade that it is easy to get into an incursion, but it is very difficult to get back out. A mission that starts off as a 30-day non-combat role turns into a six-month bombing mission, which turns into something else.

The other contradiction in the so-called plan offered up from the Conservatives is that, as every military expert has said, we cannot defeat ISIS by bombing from 35,000 feet alone; there must be boots on the ground. However, the Conservatives have promised not to offer that; the Iraqi forces in Iraq will take care of that.

Somehow contradictorily, the Prime Minister of Canada has said that we will not bomb Syria, even though that is where many of ISIS actions are taking place, without the permission of Assad, a dictator and despot whom Canada has been forcefully trying to remove from office. We will wait for his permission to conduct a mission. The contradictions that are rife in the Conservatives' proposal to this point fill us with grave concern over Canada's role.

As we have seen in Afghanistan and we have seen in other places, when military aid and humanitarian aid are offered by the Conservatives, the ratio comes in somewhere about 10 to 1. For every $10 we spend militarily, we spend about $1 on the humanitarian side. That is a ratio with which the Conservatives might feel at peace, when 1.7 million refugees have left Iraq.

I was in Turkey before the summer, meeting with Turkish officials there who were pleading with Canada to get engaged, because the more than one million refugees from Syria and Iraq who were in southern Turkey at that time were receiving no assistance from the Canadian government. The Turks' concern was that people in those refugee camps without shelter, without assistance, and without hope can very easily be turned into soldiers for ISIS. Canada showed no concern for that. The disproportion of response and the inadequate response do not match the rhetoric that has been offered by the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister to this point.

The fact is that we are shutting down the very debate that is being held now. Some Canadians might ask why a debate around six planes going to Iraq should matter and why they should have so much concern about that. We concern ourselves whenever we send our military into combat, but we also know that this is the first step of likely many, because it has been a moving target.

The Conservatives have claimed that the Liberals have had a position that has also wavered, and I will not argue with them on that, but when we ask a simple question of the Conservatives and of the Prime Minister—how would he measure success, how would his government measure success—we have three distinct answers when it comes to ISIS. We will contain them; that would be a success for Canada. No, not contain them, we will degrade them, so that they cannot attack anymore. At one point, we were to eliminate them.

Those are all three very different things, when we are dealing with a guerrilla group that commits such horrific acts as this one does. If elimination is Canada's term for success, then let us all agree on one thing. A six-month bombing campaign with six planes, Canada's contribution, will not satisfy that, and we cannot pretend otherwise.

Clearly, the humanitarian crisis that is happening in Iraq and Syria right now is not the only qualification for Canada to get involved, because clearly, we would have been in the Congo, we would have been in Darfur, and we would have been in Syria before this. Five million people were killed in the Congo. Did we talk about bombing missions then? Did we talk about Canada's military getting involved then? No, so clearly this is a combination of events that has drawn this Conservative government into a war in Iraq.

We all know that, when Canada was debating the first Iraq war perpetrated by George W. Bush, the Prime Minister, as opposition leader, actually went into the United States and chided and scolded Canada for not going into Iraq with the U.S. in its ill-fated mission. That was the Prime Minister's position when he was in opposition. He thought Canada was wrong to stay out of Iraq the first time. Now he thinks he has the terms and judgment to dictate a new war in Iraq.

I must ask one question about the politics of this. My friend across the way alluded to our position, having something to do with a reach-out to a base or against a base. We have seen the Conservatives actually launch a fundraising campaign on this issue. Because of the insensitive and ridiculous comments from the Liberal leader, the Conservatives have now sent out a fundraising email.

We question the tactics of this party. Could the Conservatives, for a minute, take this option to remove the narrow-minded base-playing politics and do something that is right for this country, and bring forward a resolution that can be supported by this country? Bring the opposition leaders into the room. Find common ground for Canada's role in the world, rather than the divide-and-conquer strategies we so often see from the government.

We can do better. New Democrats demand better of this government. We see a better role for Canada in this world, and we will insist on it and form that government in 2015.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that was a rather sad and unfortunate speech, given the high quality of debate that we have heard over the last couple of days.

I have been in the chamber and I have heard a number of members, including myself, highlight the fact that we have a difference of agreement here. With respect to this particular mission, the NDP has been clear from the outset that it was not going to support the motion that was brought forward. A number of members on this side have enunciated that.

We also heard the Minister of International Development talk about the importance of Canada providing, and continuing to provide, humanitarian assistance. We have talked about the fact that Canada is among one of the highest contributors in the world. We have been doing this for many months.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona talked about some of the important initiatives that Canada has taken in the past with other allies.

Not specific to this motion, because we understand the NDP is not going to support the motion, but in the future, under what conditions would the NDP ever support a Canadian combat mission in times of world strife? Under what conditions would the NDP support Canadian Forces moving abroad to protect communities or countries that need our help?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to address the criticism I received from my friend about the quality of debate in the House of Commons and the quality of my interjections. It is a bit rich coming from somebody who has declared that his job is to avoid giving proper answers, who had to apologize—

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You were asked a question. Answer it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Another one is entering the debate, Mr. Speaker, on the quality of conversations in Parliament.

I must address that first, because the member raised it in his question. For the parliamentary secretary to suggest that he is somehow now the judge and arbiter of what passes for quality of conversation and debate in the House is a bit much.

With respect to his specific question, unlike his government, New Democrats have proposed actual ideals and principles when Canada seeks intervention in the world—for example, United Nations resolutions. The Conservative government has said the UN resolution on Iraq permits and encourages this bombing mission, which is an absolute and outright falsehood. I have the UN resolution right in front of me, and what it does say is that countries signatory to this and countries in agreement with this must do several things—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

So never, never.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My friend asked, Mr. Speaker, and now he cannot hear the answer to his question, that a UN resolution would have some strength. The UN has not given such a resolution. The UN has said a number of things Canada could do—prevent fighters from entering ISIS, stop the funding to ISIS—and we hear nothing of this from the government. We hear about CF-18s. When one only has a hammer in the toolbox, every problem looks like a nail.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat a question I asked of another member who rose in the House today.

We share the member's apprehension about bombing. We have clearly seen that bombing one's way to a solution in that part of the world has not led to problems resolving themselves.

We are onside with the call for a much stronger response on the refugee issue both inside the area of conflict and in neighbouring countries, as well as bringing refugees to this country.

The amendment that the NDP has moved raises the issue of transporting weapons. I asked the question earlier and I am looking for an answer. To whom would these weapons be transported? How would these weapons be used? What accountability would be put in place to make sure these weapons do not fall into the hands of yet another group that then causes even more trouble in that part of the world? How would transporting more weapons to that part of the world solve this problem? If that party is opposed to military action, how would those weapons be used in a non-military way?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the direct response in the motion we moved and will vote on tonight, an alternative motion to what the government is proposing, comes directly from the groups that members met with when in Iraq. The problem that was being faced in many situations was the actual access to weapons at all to defend their communities.

The suggestion from my friend is a good one in identifying those key groups and working with our UN allies to do that, because anyone who stands in this Parliament and pretends to be an expert on the history, the sociology, and the layer upon layer of complexity that typifies the region, particularly when engaged in war, is perpetrating a falsehood.

It is incredibly complex. Canada must have the strength and humility to take guidance from those whom we seek in the region as true allies. This is not easy.

However, the suggestion that we can somehow stand idly by, as the Conservatives have said, is false—as if participating in humanitarian aid is standing idly by, as if seeking to bring those who have committed the crimes to justice is standing idly by, or as if enabling those who are defending their communities is standing idly by—and an option is contained in the NDP motion here today.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to share this time with my hon. colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

As the Leader of the Opposition stated in this House:

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.

As a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I believe that the deployment of troops into combat has to be a very last resort, the ultimate decision, when everything else has failed.

Afghanistan took a heavy toll on Canadians as a result of a former Liberal government's decision to send our troops into combat in 2005. There has been a lot of discussion as to why we did this. Some say it was to appease the Americans for our lack of support in Iraq. Others say it was to test equipment and combat readiness. The list goes on.

This mission was prolonged by the current Conservative government, and according to an article in the Vancouver Sun on October 3, the Afghan Islamist insurgency is not defeated and there is no peace. In addition, sadly, our veterans have not received the necessary help they need, not to mention the 160 who lost their lives.

As a result of the western bombing campaign in Libya, there is now a patchwork of warring factions. Many of our allies to topple Gaddafi in 2011 are now fighting for the Islamic state, and North Africa has been destabilized.

The terror unleashed today in Iraq is a direct result of the wrong-headed mission in 2003. According to Tom Engelhardt, in an article entitled “How America Made ISIS” on September 2, 2014:

In the process, the U.S. effectively dismantled and destroyed state power in each of the three main countries in which it intervened, while ensuring the destabilization of neighboring countries and finally the region itself.

Engelhardt goes on to state how the deaths that ran into the hundreds of thousands and the uprooting of millions of people proved to be “jihadist recruitment tools par excellence.”

In other words, the U.S. destroyed the Iraqi state, supported the Shia who suppressed the Sunnis to create a welcome situation for ISIS. As our leader has stated:

...it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade.

The question before us, therefore, is this. Will Canada be stuck in a prolonged war that we wisely avoided in 2003?

We are entering into a bombing mission. Can we be certain that the civilian death toll will not increase?

To date, the U.S. has not provided any information about civilian or combatant casualties and is denying on-the-ground reports that civilians are being killed or wounded.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, civilians are dying as a result of the bombing, and Human Rights Watch estimates that, on September 23 alone, 24 civilians were killed in air strikes.

Peter Certo, editor of Foreign Policy In Focus, states in an article entitled “Here’s Everything Wrong with the White House’s War on the Islamic State”:

War planners are predicting that the latest conflict could rage for three years or longer....

...U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed that IS presently poses no threat to the U.S. homeland.

Further, he states:

This plan won’t work....

...you can’t bomb extremism out of existence.

In Yemen and Pakistan, al Qaeda has not been destroyed and the drone attacks have recruited more terrorists.

Many have said that bombing alone will not win this war. Therefore, some U.S. generals are calling for ground forces. Does this mean that Canada will be drawn into another Afghanistan?

To my knowledge, there is no post-bombing plan. Will the Iraqi army, the Shiite militias, or the Kurds take up the call to consolidate control on the ground? In Syria, which rebel forces should the west co-operate with? Will arms delivered to moderate rebel forces wind up in the hands of ISIS? Will Assad triumph in Syria, thanks to U.S. air power?

This is an extremely complex conflict into which we are being drawn. The more bombs fall, the more enemies we create. We are not even sure who our friends are. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have given cash to ISIL, and yet they are supposed to be our allies.

We are rightly outraged by the atrocities committed by ISIL, yet as pointed out by CBC's Neil Macdonald in a post on September 29, the Congo war has left five million dead, and the west has hardly reacted to the atrocities committed by both government and rebel forces.

It gets more confusing. We are reacting to the beheadings committed by ISIL, yet we remain silent when our ally, Saudi Arabia, has so far beheaded 46 people this year, some for sorcery. Can anyone imagine that?

Bernard Trainor, a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant general, stated the following in an article that was published in The Washington Post. It appeared as well in the September 26 edition of the National Post:

The Islamic State presents a problem to be managed, not a war to be won....

The U.S. role should be limited to helping Kurdish forces and the new Baghdad government better organize to keep the pressure on, with U.S. airstrikes contingent on their progress....

The idea of destroying the Islamic State,...is nonsense....

The situation in Mesopotamia is a violent game of mistrust and self-interest. The Saudis despise the Iranians but will cut deals with them if doing so is in their interest. Iran will play any card necessary to achieve regional hegemony, while Turkey is coy about its own quest for pre-eminence. The Gulf states talk out of both sides of their mouths. Syrian dictator Bashar Assad uses the Islamic State to create problems for other rebels. Iraq plays at democracy as long as it can subjugate the Sunnis. Shiites and Sunnis fight each other while carrying on intramural warfare with their kinsmen. The double-dealing is almost endless. It doesn’t make sense to us, but it does to the players.

After more than a decade of frustration and humiliation, the United States should have learned that the Middle East is no place for Wilsonianism on steroids.

I believe it would be very prudent and in everybody's best interests to let the U.S. attempt to resolve this crisis, as General Trainor suggests. After all, it created this situation in the first place.

Our energies and efforts would be much better spent on humanitarian aid. As we have seen in this debate, my party has presented some very concrete and workable suggestions as to how this could be accomplished. In other words, rather than spending something like $40,000 an hour per plane to fly bombing missions, would it not make sense to add this money to the $43 million already committed, justly and rightly, by the government? Thousands, if not millions, of people could receive desperately needed assistance. Since January 14, an estimated 1.8 million people have been displaced, and conditions are worsening every day.

According to Peter Certo, the U.S. also has other options. According to him, the U.S. could freeze the bank accounts of IS funders and negotiate partnerships with villages where oil pipelines run to cut Islamic state oil revenue, work with Europe and Turkey to stem the flow of western fighters, and dramatically increase support for UN humanitarian assistance support to Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, which have absorbed millions of refugees.

The U.S. must recognize that the Islamic State flourishes because of political breakdown on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. One would think, then, that a priority has to be to build a strong, stable government in Iraq. We could help in this regard.

Certo went on to say that on the diplomatic front, the U.S. could work with Syria to convene rebel groups, the regime, Turkey, Iran, Russia and the Gulf States to restart negotiations for a political solution to the war. It could also link its nuclear negotiations with Iran to the political crisis in Iraq. For example, it could allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear power generation in exchange for support to rein in Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.

It should be clear to all that there are many options to explore. Instead of blindly jumping into war, Canada could be a leader in offering some creative solutions to this tragic conflict. There is no easy way out, but we must try. We owe it to our men and women in uniform and certainly to the millions of innocent victims already affected by this tragedy.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the way. He quoted a number of other people in his speech, but I would like to quote someone he might be familiar with, former premier Gary Doer, who recently said, “...I'm proud of the recommendation the prime minister's made, and I respect what Parliament will do with it. ... The government, I think, is making the right decision.”

Now we are hearing from former Liberals and former NDP members who are clearly on side with what our government is proposing.

More importantly, just this week my staff received a call from a husband and wife who were born during the Holland crisis. They said during the call that Holland could not have freed itself from the yoke of the Nazis without the help of many people. They are forever grateful to the Canadian government and army and Allied soldiers for freeing them. They feel that ISIS cannot be confronted with humanitarian aid, that it needs force, and that people cannot free themselves from ISIS brutality. They wanted me to know that they stand behind the government and that their thoughts and prayers are with us

I would welcome my colleague's response to the question that my colleague raised earlier about what Holland would be like today had not Canadian soldiers on the ground and in the air stood with them in a time of need.

We have to do the same today with those who are facing this brutal regime.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to pick and choose. We did not do anything in the Congo, where five million people have been slaughtered under conditions that are just as atrocious as, if not even worse than, what is happening right now. We have not gone into other areas where we could have helped.

This conflict then presupposes, if we look at the example given about Holland, that we need troops on the ground. My answer to the hon. member would be as a question. Would he then agree that air strikes are not enough, and that eventually Canadian troops will be on the ground in the same kind of situation that we had in Afghanistan? That would be my answer to his question.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will preface my question with the same remarks. We share the concerns that the member's party has spoken to around the effectiveness of air strikes and also the damage that air strikes can do. As a result, we are taking a position in opposition to using air strikes as a way to resolve the significant challenges in this part of the world.

I am asking the question again through the Speaker. The NDP amendment to the motion says it wishes to transport and supply weapons to people on the ground in the area. The previous member from the same party said they are going to transport those weapons and arm people they met in Turkey over the summer.

That still does not define exactly which forces the NDP seeks to arm, what weapons it seeks to ship, how those weapons would be used, or what accountability there is to make sure we do not just dump more weapons into a troubled area and find them in the wrong hands.

Which groups does the NDP want to arm in this part of the world?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. What we are debating in the House is a motion to go either one way and start bombing attacks or to change that part and say we will transport weapons to those who need them.

If the government motion passes today, it will put in regulations. It will decide exactly how this will happen. If our amendment passes today, then it would be up to the government to decide on the needy group and how we make sure these weapons do not get into the hands of those people who could use them against us.

Details are worked out after decisions are made here in Parliament. That is how I would interpret our amendment as opposed to the current government motion.