Debates of Oct. 7th, 2014

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know ISIL is a brutal group of people that is out to kill, maim and injure Iraqi people and dispose of very vulnerable small religious groups that get in its way because they do not believe in the same thing.

This mission that Canada is looking to undertake, in conjunction with our allies, does not preclude any of the humanitarian assistance that we need to get there, but it has to be done in tandem. In order to get any humanitarian aid there, we need to clear the routes. We know ISIL will not allow it, but we need to continue to work with our humanitarian partners.

There are people with deep roots in Iraq. The Canadian Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, Plan Canada, MercyCorps, Save the Children have been there for a long time. We are going to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question.

It is really important that the Government of Canada and its allies ensure that allied military action does not give new life to a separatist Kurdish movement in that region of the world. People should know that there are some 10 to 15 million Kurds in eastern Turkey, some 2 million Kurds in northern Syria and some 6 million Kurds in northern Iraq. It was only just last year, March of 2013, that the Republic of Turkey negotiated a ceasefire with the paramilitary Kurdish group, the PKK, in eastern Turkey.

The conflict is at Turkey's borders today and we will be assisting the peshmerga in northern Iraq. Therefore, it is really important that the assistance be provided in a way so as not to give rise to another separatist movement. A civil war in Turkey would be a far bigger danger to western interests than the current situation presents.

Would the member comment on that?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason why we have to work with our allies. We are working in conjunction with countries like the United States, Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom. All of these partners are working together because our goal right now is to downgrade the ability of ISIS to create more tension in that part of the world. We have to work with our partners on this.

We will continue to assess the situation on a day-by-day basis. We have committed to a six-month term working with our allies. We will be continually reassessing, and we will reassess when that times comes.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have become extremely wary of hearing the word “allies” every time it comes up, because some of those allies are the very reason these terrorists have become this important and this powerful.

We know that Turkey has served as a major hub for many fighters from western countries who have gone to fight from the other side of the border. We also know that rich gulf countries have funded the purchase of weapons. That is where we are at today.

If our solution does not take those factors into account, we may as well put our heads in the sand. Nothing will be accomplished.

Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the very reason that we need to work with other countries. Canada will not be alone. Countries from the Middle East are working with us. We heard the minister today talk about Bahrain coming in. There are countries in that part of the world that also see this ISIS group as a huge threat to peace and security in the Middle East.

We need to work co-operatively on this. We will continue to assess the situation on a day-to-day basis, but we have to work with other countries.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will sharing my time with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

I am very pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the motion concerning a military contribution to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. After weeks of silence, the Conservative government finally decided to reveal its plan. Yes, it agreed to a debate in the House of Commons, but it has already made up its mind, unfortunately. The government wants Canada to engage in war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and it has decided to do just that.

We know that the Islamic State is responsible for violent atrocities against the peoples of Iraq and Syria. It represents a genuine humanitarian and security threat for civilians. Their day-to-day lives are controlled by fear and threats because of the horrors they have witnessed and experienced. The Islamic State has taken advantage of how powerless the people feel and is spreading its oppression over an ever-expanding area, plunging the region into a genuine humanitarian crisis.

I of course believe that we should be providing assistance to local populations. However, the Conservative government plans to join the military mission against ISIL in Iraq, using air strikes. Military measures are likely to have very little impact, because the terrorists, having been warned that this will be a short mission, could simply go into hiding and wait it out, coming out again after most of the aerial bombings are over. Sources on the ground have already said that the jihadists have left the official bases and are temporarily hiding amongst the civilian population. Air strikes will therefore not have the desired effect.

As a doctor myself, I worked for the Red Crescent during the first Persian Gulf war. I witnessed first-hand the ravages of the war led by George Bush Sr., a war that was supposed to be like a surgical procedure. It was an operation based primarily on air strikes targeting the Saddam Hussein government. I was on the ground and I can assure this House that that mission was not a success. The reality was quite different. The air strikes affected seniors, women and children. In military jargon, this is known as collateral damage. The losses were primarily civilian. There is one image I will never forget: a daycare centre that was bombed by the allies. There was nothing left but the charred remains of infants, babies and children.

From the beginning, the government has been saying that we have to be good citizens and support this motion. It forgot to mention that there will be dozens if not hundreds of civilian lives lost in collateral damage, as is always the case with air strikes. Has the government planned for that obvious reality? I do not think so. It seems to care more about pleasing the United States by sending fighter jets than it does about the requests of local authorities and local populations. I would remind the House that Kurdish and Iraqi authorities have not asked for these fighter jets to be sent in.

The Prime Minister wants to take part in the conflict not under the UN, but rather as part of a coalition put together by the United States for the sole purpose of legitimizing its attacks.

More western intervention in the region will not stop the tragedy in Iraq and Syria. The tragedy will stop when we help the people of Iraq and Syria build the political institutions and security forces they need to counter these threats themselves.

The Conservative government seems to have forgotten that terrorism is not just a military undertaking. It is also a fearsome propaganda tool that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant fighters have learned to use in a depraved but savvy way by filming hostage executions and issuing diatribes against western mobilization.

Canada must provide immediate aid to local populations. They are in desperate need of any humanitarian aid we can offer, be it building refugee camps, fighting sexual abuse, protecting minorities or hunting down alleged war criminals.

Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that we had to support this mission because that is the Canadian way. The Canadian way is not to rush headlong into a quagmire in Iraq; it is to help local people, establish peace and keep people safe.

We played a leadership role in creating the UN peacekeepers. We should continue to adhere to those principles and remain leaders in conflict resolution, specifically in the conflict we are talking about today.

Personally, I believe that before the government makes a decision, it should consult Parliament and hold a vote. It should also provide the necessary information and answer questions about the Canadian Armed Forces' participation in this conflict. However, the government has already sent members of the forces without consulting anyone or holding a vote beforehand.

This evening we must vote on a six-month deployment of 600 troops. The debate is once again being cut short by the Conservative government, which keeps us in the dark and continues to muzzle us. Its objective is to prevent debate that would force the government to reveal all the parameters of this mission, including the financial terms. The government cuts public services, but manages to find money for a war. How much will this war cost Canadians? If the government was truly concerned about Canadians, it would have invested this money where the people need it most. It would invest in health, where there have been many cuts this year once again. It would invest in programs for veterans and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who saw nine offices being closed. Finally, it would invest in job creation.

For all these reasons, I oppose the government's motion and I invite my colleagues to vote for the amendment proposed by our leader, the Hon. Thomas Mulcair.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's ambassador Bruno Saccomani was one of the first to visit Dohuk and witnessed the incredible humanitarian disaster that was unfolding and the atrocities. He heard accounts of the horrors, especially things that were being done to women, Christian minorities and Yazidis.

In Iraq, emergency humanitarian aid is necessary but there is no room for negotiation with such a group as ISIL. It is incumbent upon the international community to engage so that we can protect the work that is being done. We need to have that protection to bring on the humanitarian work.

The member's nightmarish recount of the last war in Iraq is the reason why we have to be involved. There are nightmares of women and children being beheaded with barbaric acts of violence. For her to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite, who has been here for three and a half years already, is very familiar with the Standing Orders. She is ignoring them by naming members of the House during her presentation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Ottawa—Orléans has reminded us that the Standing Orders do not permit members to name members or ministers. I believe that the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert knows this rule and that it is a mistake on her part.

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that I should have said “the member for Outremont” when referring to our leader. I am so passionate about this topic that I made a mistake. I am sorry.

I do not know whether my colleague was asking a question or making a comment. I said in my speech that this radical Islamist group was committing atrocities. I condemn everything it is doing. The NDP does not want to fight violence with violence. There are other ways of doing things. If my colleague is concerned about minorities, women, children and seniors, that is what I spoke about. In military jargon, these people are referred to as collateral damage. Unfortunately, they are civilians. We do not believe that air strikes are the right way to resolve this conflict.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that I lived in Turkey during the terrorist campaign by the PKK, a Kurdish group.

Most members of the House have never experienced real terrorism in Canada. They have not seen bombs going off in shopping centres or other things I have witnessed.

Does my colleague believe that we have seriously considered the support that we are going to give the rebels in this region if we vote in favour of the motions to go to war in Iraq?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

I have experienced the same thing as him. For me, it was a privilege. For him, it must have been difficult to live in a war zone. However, I repeat that air strikes are not going to solve the problem. There will always be civilians who are affected by such actions, since these terrorist groups have already left their bases and blended into the population.

We are saying no to the atrocities and the attacks against minorities, women and others. We want to use other means to help these people. The local authorities never asked for fighter jets.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I take part in this debate on the Canadian Forces combat mission in Iraq, and with a sense of urgency to offer a different take on this from that of my Conservative colleagues, whose approach I do not share.

The debate is vigorous because once again the Conservative government is trying to present things in a far too simplistic or binary way, coupled with a flagrant lack of relevant information. This insults the intelligence of partners and citizens who would like to understand the issues and the context, instead of getting broad strokes of Conservative rhetoric.

In the government's eyes, there are good guys and bad guys, allies with whom we must join in solidarity, meaning only one thing: contribute to the air strikes.

The question is: of the 60 countries that make up this international alliance, are those who have chosen to intervene other than militarily, such as Italy or Norway, lesser allies?

The government's position rests mainly on argument (iii) of the motion moved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which says:

That this House accept that, unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow;

Are we to understand that deploying a strong and direct force means sending six CF-18s?

One does not need to be a five-star general to understand that air strikes are not a guarantee of success and that a strong and direct force requires a strong army backed by an air force.

Thank heavens the government has not taken us down that path yet, but I am afraid that is in the cards for the future because it is not very likely that the situation will be resolved six months from now. A number of analysts even go so far as to say that the air strikes may be completely counterproductive.

Just look at the recent air strikes in Kobani, which, in addition to being inaccurate, have prompted the exodus of hundreds of new refugees and momentarily dispersed Islamic State militants into the city, transforming the conflict into urban guerrilla warfare that is hard to combat from the air. Once the bombing stops, the forces regroup and move on to their next objective.

It is difficult to argue that there is a simple solution to a complex problem. It is an illusion to try and make people believe that aerial bombings are the solution to a conflict that pits the world against this Islamic terrorist group. Things get even trickier when it comes to clearly defining the objectives of the Canadian mission, where our troops will be based, who will lead them, what criteria will be used to measure our progress and how we will measure our success or the obligation to extend our mission beyond the planned timeframe. All of those questions remain unanswered by the very people who are trying to convince us that Canada needs to be engaged in a military mission.

The conflict we are facing today is the result of just such an approach, where, under false pretenses, the United States invaded Iraq and dismantled it. The country the Americans left behind needed to be reorganized. In addition to numerous tensions, there was no balance of power, and the governance structure was in disarray.

It should also be said that this combat mission is in no way justified by a UN or NATO mandate. Here again, the government is flirting with disinformation by insinuating that our involvement is connected to UN resolution 2178. However, that resolution addresses the need to prevent nationals of member states from leaving their country to join the jihadist ranks. It has nothing to do with any international strike force.

Does that mean that we should do nothing and that Canada should remain unmoved by these atrocities? Of course not.

In fact, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre went to Iraq just weeks ago and, upon his return, briefed us on what he witnessed and the requests that were made. There were two requests, and they are perfectly in line with the amendment proposed by the leader of the NDP and the hon. member for Outremont in his speech yesterday.

The NDP is not saying that Canada should sit idly by and do nothing. On the contrary, we are saying that our humanitarian aid should be increased dramatically.

For instance, we are asking the government to increase humanitarian aid activities in areas where they could have an immediate impact and save lives every day, starting today.

We also want to offer Canada's assistance in investigating and prosecuting war crimes. We also want Canada to provide support to the many victims of sexual abuse.

All of these measures do not preclude our support for military involvement, which, we believe, should focus on transporting weapons for a period of up to three months, as this will allow local stakeholders to act effectively on the ground. After all, they know the area so much better than we do, including its geographic, ethnic and demographic makeup. When it comes to saving lives, that is how our efforts could be most effective most quickly.

Of course, we were all horrified by those terrible images showing the beheading of journalists and humanitarian workers. However, since there is not scale or gradation I could apply to such horrors, our reflection should transcend the disgust generated by these atrocities and our action must respond to all of the horrible situations caused by this conflict.

Although I commend the $28 million Canada has promised, we must recognize that that is not very much. The UN has asked for over $300 million for the short term, so is $28 million enough of a contribution from Canada? To answer that question, unfortunately, I have only a number of other questions that also remain unanswered.

For instance, we could ask ourselves why it is that our government cannot give us a figure regarding the cost of our military involvement, so that we can assess our humanitarian aid as compared to our military support in terms of services on the ground to local populations dealing with all kinds of atrocities.

Are we responding to a request from our American allies, or did Canada offer to take part in these air strikes? Has Canada turned into a nation of war, or does the spirt of the peacekeepers remain somewhere within our walls? Why are we taking part in such a large mission against the Islamic State terrorist group when so little effort was put into fighting Boko Haram or preventing the crisis in the Congo or minimizing its consequences?

For now, let us concentrate on the motion currently before the House. Needless to say, unless the government recognizes the appropriateness of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Outremont, I will be forced to vote against the government motion.

In doing so, I will be consistent with my beliefs and those that many of my constituents shared with me when I met them in my riding or in comments on social media. If the government were to reconsider its position following this debate, I could reconsider mine too, but there would be many more questions in need of answers.

In closing, I cannot help but note the strange coincidence that, on Friday, just as the Prime Minister was moving his motion, the 30th International Poetry Festival was getting under way back home in Trois-Rivières. All day, the words of our national poet, Gilles Vigneault, kept coming back to me.

Our poet said: “Violence is a lack of vocabulary.”

Unfortunately, what I see in this motion is a preference for weapons at the expense of dialogue, diplomacy and assistance even though these are the only ways to establish long-term security and good governance in a region that is experiencing tremendous turbulence.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap and we have heard a lot of talk from the NDP. In fact the member opposite is even suggesting a larger-scale ground operation. The NDP is working really hard to find some legitimate excuse for not being in this conversation. I know the member opposite is being demanded to vote a certain way, and that is a shame.

I understand as well that humanitarian aid is a big issue. I also know the NDP is worried about our refugee support, but we are doing exactly that. The refugee support that is actually necessary is to return these displaced human beings to where they live. The only way to do that is to participate in a sophisticated and controlled military operation that includes air strikes.

I know the NDP members want to eat their lunch in peace, as long as they do not have to pay for that peace or pay for that lunch. However, I would ask the member this. What are we doing about those civilians who cannot escape to become refugees?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, if New Democrat MPs sleep well at night, that is because they are consistent with their beliefs and in tune with what their constituents tell them. New Democrat MPs are not saying we should not participate—far from it.

It is strange that my colleague opposite mentioned conversation because we are talking about the bombs they want to drop on people's heads, which will probably produce a lot more casualties than anything the Islamic State is doing. I do not want to downplay the actions of this terrorist group, but it is totally obvious that air strikes are not the solution to this conflict.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague talked about the issue of inequity in his presentation.

I am very troubled by the thought of abandoning six million direct victims in Congo, where rape has been a weapon of war for 10 years. My colleague, who is in international relations, told me that Congo asked Canada for aid and military support three times.

How can we refuse the request for assistance three times, then charge right into another conflict and drop bombs from 10,000 feet?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult for me to answer that question by trying to get inside the head of a Conservative, which is almost genetically impossible.

Clearly, it must be because of their views and interests. I even think that, to some extent, it is part of the election strategy to get what they believe to be the majority of Canadians behind these air strikes. However, in the weeks to come, as we find that this undertaking has not been effective, I believe that public opinion will change dramatically.

It will not be a coincidence that we will re-evaluate this mission in six months when we all know that nothing will have been resolved. The government is doing this so that it can gauge public opinion about its decisions as it goes along.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to a critical international issue, the ongoing crisis in Iraq. Before I go any further, with your permission, I would like to share my time with the distinguished and learned member for Kitchener Centre.

While the military dimension of this crisis is important—and I will speak to this point later in my speech—Canada's involvement in Iraq is much broader than our military contribution. Indeed, Canada's contributions also aim to address the security, humanitarian, human rights and political dimensions of the crisis.

First, let me provide some context on the nature of the ISIL threat. In recent months, Canadians have observed events taking place in Iraq and Syria with growing alarm. The consequences of ISIL's advance have been dire. Thousands of people have been uprooted as they flee ISIL's advance, while thousands more who remain in their homes have been given the terrible choice of either converting to ISIL's twisted theology or facing torture and death.

Religious minorities and ancient communities such as the Yazidis have been persecuted and forced to flee their ancestral homelands. Young women and girls have been subjected to rape and forced marriages. Men have been executed in public after sham trials for supporting the government in Baghdad or for having ties to westerners.

ISIL poses a grave threat to Canada's friends and allies in the region, including Jordan and Israel. If left unchecked, ISIL could pose a threat to Canadians as well. ISIL has made repeated and direct threats against western countries, including Canada. If left unchecked, there is little doubt that ISIL will use its territory, resources and fighters to operate terrorist training camps and to plot terrorist attacks against targets in the west.

For all these reasons, inaction is not an option. The international community is acting, and Canada will play its part.

I would like to point out that since the House last debated the crisis in Iraq, the international coalition against ISIL has grown considerably.

ISIL's heinous and repulsive actions have shocked the world. As reports have emerged of whole communities being terrorized and murdered, of women and girls being forced in to sexual slavery, and of mass executions based on religious identity, the international community has grown increasingly horrified and has quickly responded to Iraq's request for military assistance.

The Obama administration has sent approximately 1,600 military personnel to advise Iraqi forces in the fight against the terrorist organization. U.S. leadership and coordination have also helped to galvanize support around the global coalition. This coalition has already brought on board almost 50 countries that have indicated support for military action against ISIL. A core group of these countries has already decided to go beyond contributing military advisers and military equipment.

Many of Canada's closest, like-minded countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and the U.S., have committed to engage in a combat role by contributing to air strikes against ISIL in Iraq.

The international coalition against ISIL includes 10 Middle Eastern countries as well. Several of these countries, including Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have participated in, or supported, air strikes against ISIL targets.

In addition to ongoing military efforts, a broad coalition of states, from Europe to North America to the Middle East, has responded to the crisis by supplying humanitarian assistance

On September 7, the Arab League foreign ministers committed to take all necessary measures to join Iraq and the international community in confronting ISIL and other militant groups, including by stemming the flow of foreign fighters. As a six-year co-chair of the Canada Arab World Parliamentary Association, I paid attention. Canada is pleased that partners in the Middle East are doing their part to address the threat posed by ISIL.

Canada takes the ISIL threat very seriously, and that is why we are joining our international partners to confront this threat head on. As the Prime Minister recently stated:

We do our part....

That's always how this country has handled its international responsibilities, and as long as I'm prime minister that's what we will continue to do.

On the humanitarian side, Canada is one of the largest donors to Iraq and was one of the first to recognize and address the significant needs of the Iraqi people. We have allocated over $28 million to respond to humanitarian needs in Iraq. The government is working quickly to establish an overall framework for Canadian development programming in Iraq over the next five years, to build the economic and social foundations that are vital for a prosperous and stable future.

On the military side, Canada has assisted in the delivery of critical military supplies from contributing allies to Kurdish Peshmerga forces. The aptly named Royal Canadian Air Force provided airlift support to deliver military supplies donated by Albania and the Czech Republic, using CC-130 and CC-17 cargo planes. As well, special operations Canadian Armed Forces personnel are deploying to northern Iraq for an advise and assist mission.

As mentioned, many of Canada's closest allies are sending air force jets to participate in the air war against ISIL. As announced by the government on October 3, Canada is planning to participate further in coalition operations against ISIL by contributing air strike capability for a period of up to six months. Canada's air combat mission will include up to six CF-18 fighter jets, one air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two Aurora surveillance aircraft, and the necessary air crews and support personnel.

Beyond these measures designed to address the most immediate security and humanitarian challenges, Canada is actively rolling out forward-looking initiatives that will help Iraqis make the eventual transition towards longer-term recovery and sustainable peace.

Thus far, Canada has identified more than $64 million in assistance for Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced $15 million in new security programming alone. This sizeable contribution is being used to strengthen the capacity of security forces in Iraq by providing them with non-lethal assistance, including vehicles, computers, radios, and personal protective equipment, such as helmets and body armour.

Canada is also using these funds to advance regional efforts aimed at limiting the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria. Additional support is being explored, for instance to enhance Iraq's capabilities to prevent, detect and respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats or incidents.

In short, our engagement in Iraq incorporates a range of measures to tackle the various security, humanitarian, human rights, and political aspects of this conflict.

The challenges that Iraq faces are enormous. The good news is that the international community is united in responding to the threat of ISIL.

The threat posed by ISIL is broad based, and Canada is taking a holistic approach in response to this crisis. We are doing our part. Canadians can be proud of this contribution, and we do support our troops.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time the Conservatives rise in the House to speak to this debate, they think the magical solution is to bomb the area. After six months of air strikes, the problem will be fixed and our forces will be able to come back home. That is what I hear every time I listen to a Conservative.

Things are not that simple. The Conservatives also need to be aware of the collateral damage to civilians that these air strikes could cause. One of my colleagues mentioned this earlier. A number of experts have also shared their concerns about how air strikes can be counterproductive. This may not be the best solution to fix the problem.

What does the member think about these concerns that air strikes are not the best solution in these circumstances, when terrorists can hide among civilians and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orleans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of my colleague's question, but I have no illusions. I know he is an adversary.

The party he represents has always opposed Canada's involvement in defending this country. It was even opposed to defending Canada during the Second World War against the worst dictator in the history of humankind.

They are trying to make it sound as though we are attacking a country. We are not attacking a country. We are not attacking Iraq. What we are doing is responding, with the international coalition, to Iraq's invitation to protect the country and its people.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution to the debate today. He talked about the role that different countries are playing with regard to the mission in Iraq.

One of the things that causes me such grave concern when we send our military away is what happens when they come back.

I ask the member this. Is he concerned by the fact that there are so many soldiers in this country, today, who have come home from Afghanistan who feel they are not getting the services they should be getting as Canadian soldiers on home soil?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the tone of her question.

I want to advise her that I participated in the veterans affairs committee with members of all parties, including a representative from her party, on a unanimous report to the government in order to improve services to veterans.

I participated in that. The official opposition participated in that. So did the third party. We came to a unanimous recommendation, and the government has accepted it.

Quite frankly, a lot of these problems that our veterans have were caused in Afghanistan because the party she represents, when it was in government, sent them there poorly tooled, actually sending them to the desert with green uniforms.