Debates of March 26th, 2015

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I have a comment.

With the nature and the gravity of the debate before the House today, members may have observed that we are only really getting about two questions during the five minutes allowed for questions and comments. This is something the chair occupants have been watching closely.

We will do our best to fit more questions in, but it is quite understandable that members, and those responding to the questions, want to take their time to speak on the kinds of points that are pertinent to the question that is before the House this afternoon and this evening, I understand.

With your co-operation and indulgence, we will do our best to accommodate as many as we can, but I do not expect we will get more than probably two questions or comments in during that five minute period.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we talk about the deployment of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces into a combat or combat-related mission, it is one of the most important debates we have in the House. Certainly as someone who served in the military, I take very seriously my chance to speak in the House of Commons.

I was proud to speak on October 7 of last year on the mission against ISIL, when the Prime Minister first brought it to the House. Now I speak in a unique role as well, as Minister of Veterans Affairs, recognizing that when we send our men and women into areas of the world like this, there are risks. I think of those risks and of those people, the moms and dads who are serving their country, the sons and daughters, people like Sgt. Andrew Doiron and his comrades who in their training mission encountered friendly fire. It just shows the risks and uncertainty when we send the Canadian Armed Forces in. We send them because they are professional and among the best in the world. As Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am not just proud of them, but I am here to assure those men and women and their families that we will serve them after their deployments and after they leave uniform.

I think back to October 7 and look back at my speech to see where we have come as a country, as one of the allies fighting the ISIL movement worldwide, and what has happened since October 7. I read the Prime Minister's speech to the House. It is important because we are bringing this debate and a vote to the House, unlike the Liberal Party before the 12-year Afghanistan mission. The Prime Minister said in October of last year, “It has never been the Canadian way to do only the most easy and praiseworthy of actions and to leave the tough things” to other nations.

Our country has had a proud history of playing a role commensurate with our size and ability. That is what we have been asked to do here alongside our allies like the United States and others, and that is what we are doing with professionalism.

Let us look at the world and indeed Canada since the first debate in the House in October of last year. We are now renewing the mission because we have taken very concrete timelines that were monitoring the impact of our mission to degrade and restrain ISIL from its advance and to halt its activities of barbarism in that part of the world.

What have we seen since October? We have seen attacks in the Middle East, terrorism attacks in Africa, Europe, and here in Canada. We have seen the rise of the foreign fighter phenomenon. Last year there were estimates of 20,000 foreign fighters joining the ISIL mission in that part of the world, 500 or more from Great Britain and Germany and more than 1,000 from France. There have been Canadians. We have been troubled by the fact that there are Canadians who have been misled and swept into this global jihadi movement, who are actually travelling there to commit these atrocious acts. That gives us a further responsibility as a leading nation of the world to not ignore what is happening.

There has also been progress. Sgt. Doiron and the CSOR, our F-18 squadrons, our Aurora crews, our Polaris crews, Canada, and our allies are making a profound impact. Religious minorities have been protected. There are refugees leaving these areas where their lives are at risk. We have degraded ISIL and we have constrained it out of large parts of Iraq, which it was essentially overrunning last year.

However, there is still progress to make. There are still inherent risks with allowing a terrorist force that has as its mission to create a state and execute and encourage attacks throughout the world. Canada is not immune. We have seen that in this city. Therefore, we have a responsibility to play an active role.

I am proud when the Prime Minister also highlights our leadership on the humanitarian aid side of the mission, because the subject of refugees and aid cannot be divorced from the fact that we need to bring security and safety to that region. Just this week in the House, the Prime Minister said, “We do not...choose between fighting... [terror] and helping its victims. We will continue to do both”. We are providing some of our world-class expertise from the Canadian Armed Forces, but we are also one of the lead nations in aid. We are one of the lead nations responding in the refugee crisis. We will continue to do that.

In my speech on October 7, I said debates like this define the very character of Canada.

The fact that we have the opportunity to have this debate is part of our Canadian values, values that we must defend.

A debate like this calls for a Churchill quote, because he was a leader to whom many parliamentarians from around the world look. Churchill, in debates like this, would say let us worry less about action but worry more about inaction. That is paraphrasing Winston Churchill. Our government is taking deliberate and measured action against not just a threat in that region but a threat to the world and to stability.

It is measured in that we are back debating a timeline of this deployment. We are also in a limited combat role where our fighter aircraft can degrade and pin down ISIL. We are doing a training mission to help the Iraqis and the peshmerga defend their own territory, to give them the tactical knowledge to help them defend against the atrocities. It is a limited, measured, and temporal mission that we are bringing to our Parliament to debate.

One of the most troubling parts of the debate in October and, indeed, this week is the sad position of the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, it is a deviation from that party's traditional approach to Canada's position in world affairs, and it is troubling. In my speech last October, I quoted Mackenzie King from 1939 in this place, who thanked Conservative leader Robert Manion, a Vimy Ridge veteran, for taking the politics out of the debate about World War II. King said, “This deep-lying instinct for freedom is, I believe, characteristic of the citizens of Canada from one end of this great country to the other”. That was said by Mackenzie King in this place, thanking the opposition for supporting Canadian involvement against tyranny.

What did Lester Pearson, another leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, say in 1951 in the era of Canada in Germany as part of the Cold War and the Korean mission? Pearson said, “We should accept without any reservation, the view that the Canadian who fires his rifle in Korea or on the Elbe is defending his home as surely as if he were firing it on his own soil”. These are not foreign acts that we can ignore. Indeed, Canadian security is inherent in what is happening across the world.

Even in 2001, the foreign affairs minister and deputy prime minister for the Liberal government, John Manley, said in that very foyer, after 9/11:

Canada has a good reputation...in the world, but let‘s make no mistake about it: Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or a neutralist country.

Canada has soldiers who are buried all over Europe because we fought in defence of liberty....

Those are three quotes from three generations of Liberal leaders in Canada. What will historians look back on as the current Liberal leader's profound quote in defence of liberty? Would it be that this is not about whipping out our CF-18s to show how big they are? It is sad. The Liberal Party has disappeared from what most Canadians knew that proud party to be. Even its defence critic today criticized what she called the laundry list of atrocities being conducted by ISIL that we are trotting out. This is what we are fighting. Canada does not let a laundry list like that be read and say that it is not our mission, that we have no role there.

We are a proud country that benefits from globalization, that benefits from trade, that gives aid and helps on a humanitarian basis around the world, and we are doing that, but we also do not shirk our responsibility to play a role that is commensurate with our size and ability. I am very proud of the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I am very proud of all uniformed figures in the operations centres working with our allies. I am very proud of our soldiers from JTF2 and the CSOR units who are giving the tools to some of the people on the ground to prevent these atrocities.

Canada has a role to play. Our party, our government, is bringing this to the House of Commons to show Canada that this is an important role. I truly hope that those members in the Liberal Party remind their leader of his responsibility in that regard.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to stand and ask my colleague a question.

At the end, he spoke very strongly about how he sees that Canada has a role to play. Canada could have many roles to play. This is a role that the Conservative Party has chosen to play in this conflict.

My understanding is that the conflict in Syria and Iraq is moving into the urban centres. We are going to be playing a role in which our airplanes, without guidance from allied sources, are going to be bombing urban centres. That is going to lead to civilian casualties. That is the role Canada is taking on with this conflict right now. This is a role that I do not think is appropriate for Canada right now. Canada can do much better in the field of humanitarian efforts.

How does my colleague feel about the situation that is going to occur when Canadian airplanes are causing civilian casualties throughout that region?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Northwest Territories for that question and remind him of what I quoted from the Prime Minister's two speeches in the House on this mission, just this week, in which he said that we will do both. We will not only try to contain and destroy a terrible force that is causing risk to Canada and to that region, but we are also going to help the victims affected by ISIL. This is not an either/or debate. We are doing as much on a humanitarian level as a leading nation, both giving and assisting, as we are playing a critical role in the security debate.

I would note that in my remarks I mentioned the Royal Canadian Air Force and its Aurora observation aircraft and the Polaris refuelling our CF-18s. We have the most modern and well-trained air force in the world. In conducting an air mission like this to contain and destroy ISIL and to cut off its supply line, we analyze every mission. Nothing goes if there are risks of collateral damage to civilians. Only an air force of our professionalism can do that, in which its members can actually assess targets and then learn from each strike.

The sincere hope, as the Minister of National Defence said, is that once we degrade and destroy it to that point, our exit strategy is called a flight plan back to Canada.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised that in that laundry list of examples of past prime ministers, the minister left out former prime minister Jean Chrétien and his decision not to take Canada into the war in Iraq in 2003. The member's own leader, the current Prime Minister, strongly supported going into that war, with arguments based on the very provocative kind of rhetoric, and not reason, that is being used in the talking points from the Conservative members today. That war proved to be disastrous and the ground for the very chaos and terrorism that is happening in that country today.

When I hear from the member about his experience in the armed forces, I wonder what he would do if he had leaders who were doing what the two ministers are doing, where one is saying that the goal is to degrade ISIL and the other that it is to destroy and eliminate ISIL. These are two very different objectives. How would that member have responded to having very different objectives from leaders when he was in the armed forces? Would it not have given him concern that perhaps it would not have been in his interest to follow those very conflicting and fuzzy directions?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite shocked that the Liberal defence critic accuses me of using talking points here today. My talking points were actually how previous Liberal leaders talked. I quoted three generations of leaders of the once-proud Liberal Party: MacKenzie King, Lester Pearson and John Manley, who was Jean Chrétien's deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs. They knew Canada had a role to play in the world. In fact, Mr. Manley became the Time magazine newsmaker of the world essentially for that remark he made, showing that Canada would respond. We responded by going into Afghanistan to stop the gathering threat that was being perpetrated through the Taliban, allowing terrorists to train in that country.

What is interesting, that might not be in her talking points, is that Jean Chrétien did not bring that to a debate here or vote in the House of Commons. He used his executive power to deploy Canada for what ended up being a 12-year mission.

The stark difference between the talking points, which were really the speeches of past and current Liberal leaders, shows the decline and shows how the Liberal Party is out of touch with Canadians.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is formally today seeking from all of us in this place our support for extending and expanding Canada's military mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, commonly known as ISIL. With this motion the government is asking that we agree to continue to put men and women of Canada's armed forces in harm's way in Iraq and over, if not in, Syria.

That harm may find them is most obvious now in the wake of the recent and tragic death of Sergeant Doiron. May he rest in peace and may those who knew him and loved him find solace in some way. May his life and his fate be at the forefront of our minds as we consider this motion. Not just Sergeant Doiron's life, but let us also think about the 158 Canadians who died in service to this country in our war in Afghanistan, about the thousands who were injured, about the thousands more who will wrestle forever with post-traumatic stress disorder and about those who could not live any longer with the experience or memory of their service in Afghanistan and took their own lives.

This is the inevitability of war. This is what the Conservative government is asking us to accept with this motion. This debate then is about our responsibility for their lives, the lives of the men and women of our armed forces. Sometimes circumstances warrant our approval of military action. History, including our own Canadian history of military action, tells us that sometimes circumstances warrant that we say yes, knowing that those who go into military action on behalf of this country may not come back whole, if at all.

It follows that a few important requirements need to be met before “yes” can be the answer, before support for military action can be forthcoming. The first and most fundamental of these is trust. Trust in the government, trust that the government will abide by the language of the motion before us, trust that it will hold sacred the consent and the limits to that consent as set out in the motion before us given to it by the House.

We know the answer to this question. It has been provided to us many times over in many ways, but we need not reach any further than this mission before us. The House has been misled and the consent provided by the House for the mission to date has been abused. On September 4, the Prime Minister announced the deployment of several dozen military advisers for up to 30 days to help the Kurds in Iraq. We were told that this was an advise and assist mission.

On September 30, the Prime Minister told us in the House that Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat. Over and over again in so many different ways, the Prime Minister has been asked in the House about the role of Canadian ground troops in Iraq, about the engagement of Canadian ground troops in combat. Over and over again in the House, we were told that they would not be so engaged. By February it became clear. The answers provided by the government, by the Prime Minister himself, were not true.

Canadian soldiers providing ground support to air strikes exchanged fire with ISIL ground units. At least three such firefights were reported between the end of January and mid-February. Now we are being asked to approve a motion that “notes that the Government continues not to deploy troops in a ground combat role”. We know that not to be true. The government knows that not to be true. We have had ministers rise in the House to acknowledge the engagement of Canadian soldiers in ground combat. We have had the death of Sergeant Doiron to confirm this truth for us.

What it betrays is a government that is not just untrustworthy, but takes far too lightly its responsibilities, a government that falls far short of its responsibility to deal with this matter with the seriousness it deserves. It is not merely just about planting this strange clause about combat troops in the motion, the issue extends to the reference in the motion to UN Security Council resolution 2178. Its reference suggests that the resolution is somehow in support of this mission, that the United Nations Security Council resolution somehow confers support for this mission or legitimizes it. Resolution 2178 deals with the issue of the travel of terrorists and the financing of terrorism.

Moreover, on the matter of the conduct of the current government to date, and the proposed extension and expansion of this mission, it is difficult to read into the resolution anything other than contradiction to the motion in which it is embedded.

It recognizes, for instance, “...that international cooperation and any measures taken by Member States to prevent and combat terrorism must comply fully with the Charter of the United Nations”. It reaffirms respect for “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in accordance with the Charter”. It further reaffirms that:

Member States must ensure that any measures taken to counter terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, underscoring that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort and notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and noting that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity...

We have asked the Prime Minister and ministers of the Conservative government whether they have in fact complied with their legal obligations under international law. In response to that question from the leader of the official opposition, a question that arises straight from the text of the Security Council resolution embedded in their motion, the Prime Minister saw fit to crack on wise about ISIL lawyers. He said:

I am not sure what point the leader of the NDP is ultimately making. If he is suggesting that there is any significant legal risk of lawyers from ISIL taking the Government of Canada to court and winning, the Government of Canada's view is that the chances of that are negligible.

While he sends our Canadian Armed Forces around the world to stand up for the rule of law, while he cites in this motion the Security Council resolution reaffirming it, we have a Prime Minister who flouts the rule of law, who openly mocks it in our Parliament.

I have one final point about the text of the resolution as it relates to the motion. It tells us not only that compliance with international legal obligations is mandatory, but it explains why. It is the view of the Security Council, as reflected in this resolution, that compliance with international law complements and reinforces effective counter-terrorism measures, and that the converse is also true, that the failure to comply with international obligations, including under the charter of the United Nations is “...one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity”.

It is perhaps an obvious point that has not escaped the attention of so many analysts of these circumstances that it is in the context of tearing down state institutions and tearing asunder civil society that we provide fertile ground for radicalization. Surely we have witnessed this enough times that not hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground much less bombs from on high is the prescription for peaceful development and security.

Canada must respond differently from now on. We must accordingly say no to this main motion and support the motion as amended by the NDP.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech, and I know that the hon. member's intentions are perhaps good.

The member talked about the legal case, as if the other 59 or 60 countries that are participating in this mission to combat ISIL have no legal case. It is a very important consideration. Many countries, by the way, are participating in the initiative against ISIL in Syria also. Those countries have legal standing.

We have explained our position with respect to legal standing: article 51 of the UN charter. We will be notifying the UN as per article 51.

More importantly, and I think members of our party phrased it today, if the legal case is made, will that party then support this mission?

I think everybody agrees that there is a humanitarian disaster. There is a military imperative on the ground in order to be able to save people from the brutality being put in place by ISIL.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are virtually alone among all those coalition countries in expanding this mission into Syria. It is only the United States that has assumed aerial bombardment of Syria, and we are alone as the only country that has committed ground troops to combat as part of this mission.

I think what the member misses is the very fundamental point here, which is our ability to trust the government, our ability to trust that this government takes its responsibility for the lives of Canadian Armed Forces men and women sufficiently seriously. It is the very fact that this government holds great disregard for the rule of international law, as reflected in the comments of the Prime Minister in this House. That disregard for international law, as reflected in the fact that the government has not taken the necessary steps required under the UN charter to get legal approval for this mission, is what informs our position, in part at least, on the mission that the government is proposing to undertake.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals really believe that we have a role in the campaign against ISIL, and we feel that the role should be in the best interests of the people of Canada. However, we also feel that the government has not articulated its objectives, and Liberals cannot support a mission that could very well result in Assad consolidating his grip on Syria. As we know, Mr. Assad has oppressed and terrorized the people of Syria, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that does not continue.

I ask my colleague if New Democrats support this view that has been taken by the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is not clear what the Liberal position is on this matter.

Resolution 2178, which I cited, talks about the complementary measures of respect for law, for human rights, for freedoms, et cetera, and effective counterterrorism measures, yet we have the Liberal Party standing up in support of Bill C-51 before that bill is even tabled and remaining on their feet in support of that bill while knowing that it robs Canadians of rights and freedoms and fundamental human rights.

The Liberal position on the broader issue of counterterrorism, on the broader issue of the public safety of Canadians, and on this issue of the expanded mission in Syria is perfectly unclear to me and, I think, to the majority of Canadians.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an editorial in The Globe and Mail yesterday said:

But the logic behind the...government's Syrian plan has gaps, inconsistencies and blind spots.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very modest criticism of this mission. We have seen over and over again in this area of the world that responses from western countries in the form of military action, even to the extent of well over 100,000 troops on the ground in certain countries, do not reap the goals that we hope for the rest of humanity, which is the ability to live in peace and security and fulfill our potential here in this world.

To suggest that there is a blind spot here is a very modest conclusion. There is no end game that the Conservatives have in mind. They talk about “defeating” and “eliminating”. They use all sorts of words to characterize what they hope to do in the end against a counterterrorism movement that currently occupies territory the size of the United Kingdom in Syria and Iraq and through associative groups has spread through other continents.

We hear today from the Minister of National Defence that the end game is that we will leave when we have had enough, and that is more than a blind spot to this mission. That tells us that we really do not have a mission.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is deeply concerned by the recent increase in violence in Iraq and its humanitarian consequences. Canada condemns, in the strongest terms, the targeting of civilians and religious minorities, and we are deeply concerned by reports of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. I would like to provide some context that would help members understand the dire situation being faced by the victims of ISIL.

The humanitarian situation in Iraq and neighbouring countries continues to deteriorate as armed clashes drive displacement. Since January 2014, more than 2.4 million people have been displaced throughout the country, representing one of the largest cases of displacement in the world. Basic services, including health care and water infrastructure, have been disrupted, resulting in acute humanitarian needs. Intense fighting in ISIL-held areas has resulted in a security situation that does not allow humanitarian organizations to operate, and the persecution of minority groups is an ongoing concern.

A key challenge for the humanitarian community continues to be the difficulty of being able to get into conflict areas in order to reach the people who need their help. The military measures we are taking do not preclude humanitarian actions also being taken. There is no either/or. In fact, security on the ground is essential. It is essential to providing humanitarian assistance, and degrading the capabilities of ISIL is key to achieving this while assisting those most in need.

Canada is the fifth-largest donor country in the humanitarian response to the crisis in Iraq. In the last six months, in Iraq we have helped feed 1.7 million people. We provided shelter and relief supplies to 1.25 million people and helped with education needs for half a million children.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Canada has committed $67.4 million to experienced humanitarian partners, such as United Nations humanitarian agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and non-governmental organizations, to get life-saving assistance to those who need it most. Canada is providing food, hygiene kits, cooking materials, blankets, tents, medical supplies, and other essential supplies, as well as making emergency repairs to water and sanitation facilities.

The religious persecution of those seeking to practise their faith in a peaceful and secure way is unacceptable to Canada, and we are supporting efforts to assist in the protection of these rights. Our assistance is also supporting organizations that are responding to incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.

In addition, we have provided $9.5 million to respond to the needs of Syrian refugees in Iraq. Last October the former minister of foreign affairs announced an additional $10 million contribution to support the innocent victims of ISIL's brutality, in particular to respond to the heinous acts of sexual violence and human rights abuses being committed against women and children.

We have deployed humanitarian relief supplies to Erbil from our stockpile located in the International Humanitarian City in Dubai. These supplies included kitchen sets, jerry cans, tents, blankets, hygiene kits, and mosquito nets. These supplies, distributed by Save the Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in partnership with Iraqi organizations, are providing much-needed relief.

The size and pace of displacement have overwhelmed local communities and governments in the region. We know the suffering is spilling across borders. That is why Canada has been a leader among the international community in our response to the broad crisis in the region.

In Syria, Canada is the sixth-largest country donor in the humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis. Canada has made significant contributions in response to the Syrian crisis, including more than $700 million in humanitarian, development, and security assistance for Syria and neighbouring countries.

Our government has committed additional humanitarian assistance for the needs of Syrians within the country and for those seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, and we support UNICEF's “no lost generation” strategy.

This is to provide education and protection for conflict-affected children. With this funding, UNICEF in Syria provided 162,000 children with school material and reached 20,000 children with critical support.

In Jordan, UNICEF provided for 52,000 children and youth to attend child- and adolescent-friendly spaces and reached 36,980 women and men with awareness sessions on prevention and response to violence, on protection, and on referral, as well as on sexual and gender-based violence.

Canada has committed over $230 million in development assistance to countries hosting numbers of Syrian refugees, including Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. This assistance focuses on building resilience in refugee-hosting communities to provide basic services such as education, municipal services, water, and sanitation. The assistance is also to foster social cohesion.

In Egypt, Canada is supporting 195,000 Egyptian and Syrian refugee students through school feeding, and over 60,000 students through initiatives supporting access to quality education.

In Jordan, over one million Jordanian and Syrian refugee students are benefiting from improved access to quality education, water, sanitation, and hygiene initiatives. Canada is supporting the provision of municipal services to more than 1.1 million Jordanian and Syrian refugees.

In Lebanon, Canada is providing water, sanitation, and hygiene support in schools to 18,750 Lebanese and Syrian refugee students.

Thanks to Canada's support, our partners are responding to numerous humanitarian needs. They are providing drinking water to 16 million people, as well as food assistance to 1.4 million Syrians inside the country and emergency assistance to nearly three million refugees in neighbouring countries.

As mentioned, there has been a concern that children will fall behind with their education because of disruptions caused by conflict and displacement. We are addressing the protection and education needs of displaced children, who are being denied the right to a childhood, an education, and even a future. Canada is taking steps to address this issue across the region.

We will continue to work closely with our partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided to those affected by the barbaric group ISIL. Canadian officials will continue to monitor the situation closely and assess the security and humanitarian challenges that are facing the Iraqi people.

It is very concerning that both the Liberals and NDP fail to acknowledge the real threat that ISIL and jihadi terrorism pose to Canada. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government will continue to take this threat very seriously. ISIL has made it clear that it targets, by name, Canada and Canadians. We cannot protect Canada by simply choosing to ignore this threat.

We cannot provide humanitarian assistance to victims of ISIL in other countries by ignoring the threat. We will not sit on the sidelines, as our opposition, the Liberals and the NDP, would have us do.

I will be supporting today's motion because it is clear that Canada must help. We must help to confront ISIL. We must help to degrade ISIL. We must help to confront and degrade ISIL until it is no longer a threat to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to pick up on a question that a lot of Canadians are asking and that many MPs have asked, because it is hard to get an answer. At what point will the government be able to say that the mission has been accomplished?

We have heard several definitions of “mission accomplished” from various ministers. Some say that it is about degrading the resources and capabilities of these groups; others say that it is about defeating or completely annihilating them.

Can the member tell us at what point the Conservative government will be able to say that the mission has been accomplished and whether it is even realistically possible to permanently annihilate terrorist groups like the one we are talking about today?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as long as ISIL has a safe haven in Syria and that continues, which is why we made the decision to join our allies to attack ISIL in Syria, and as long as Syria is not resistant, we will be expanding our mission.

To speak about the end is very difficult when the mission has not been passed in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to the Liberals and the New Democrats not recognizing the threat that ISIL posed. I will not speak for the New Democrats, but the Liberal Party recognizes the terrorist threat that ISIL poses and its barbaric behaviour. We believe there are ways that we can deal with this.

It is interesting that the former minister of Veterans Affairs went to great lengths to applaud former Liberal prime ministers on the wonderful approach they had in dealing with war and getting Canada engaged. What the former minister of Veterans Affairs did not acknowledge was former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien and his decision that Canada not be engaged in Iraq.

Especially when we look at the lack of transparency with the Prime Minister on this important issue, it does not mean that in all circumstances the Liberals have to support what the government proposes.

With hindsight, does the member believe her government would have supported Canada going to war against Iraq back in 2003?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in hindsight, I look back to October 22, 2014, when we had a clear threat. Our threat was ISIL, and Canada was at war with ISIL and the jihadists. I think back to how the military and the men and women in uniform were targets from then on. From that day on, ISIL's target was anyone wearing a uniform in Canada, on our soil.

That is what I think back to, and that is why we have to do what we have to do.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, the last New Democratic MP to enter the debate characterized my remarks as having being that “we would leave when we had enough”. I would like the minister to comment on that. I do not know if she heard my speech, but that is a complete fabrication. I said no such thing. I said that we had a very clear mission, which neither opposition party seemed to want to hear.

Does the minister not agree with me that our clear objective is to degrade ISIL to a point where it no longer constitutes a threat to Canadian or international security? Does she not agree that this is the clear objective?

Would she not also agree that the government has been extraordinarily transparent here at the second debate on a second motion, with weekly technical briefings for the public and the media, and briefings offered to the opposition? In fact, I do not think any Canadian government has ever been more transparent about a military operation.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. I do agree. Yes, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. That is clear. As I said, I think back to the recent months. There is nothing to compare with what our country went through on those days and the threats around the world.

We have no doubt that it is an important part of our work to do what we can to stop ISIL.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Rail Transportation.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to the very important motion we are debating today. I am pleased to be addressing parliamentarians on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke, who have afforded me the privilege of being here today.

This is a very important motion. As parliamentarians, one of the most important decisions we must make is to deploy the men and women in uniform who defend Canada on our behalf. This is clearly the most important decision that we are asked to make.

Therefore, it is with a great sense of responsibility and duty that I will make this decision. I will try to state my position as clearly as possible, a position that I share with many of my colleagues who have already spoken on this subject.

I would like to go back to the beginning of the Canadian mission in Iraq, which the government now wants to expand into Syria. In the beginning, the mission proposed by the government was to last 30 days. It simply consisted of advising the Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

However, when those 30 days had passed, the government made a request to extend the mission by six months. Six months ago, we also debated a motion about this mission in Iraq. Today, the government is asking us to vote on extending that mission for another year. We went from 30 days to six months to a year, and each time, we had to ask dozens of questions to try to get clear and consistent answers from the government.

People like me who watch question period every day noticed that the government kept contradicting itself. For example, some ministers were saying two different things about whether we would accompany or assist Iraqi troops. Contradictory answers were given about whether or not our soldiers would be engaging in combat and whether or not they would be near the front lines. How can the government say that our soldiers are far from the front lines when they were only 200 metres away?

In that respect, an unfortunate incident occurred not that long ago. One of our soldiers lost his life for his country. I want to express my sincere condolences to his entire family and to thank them. This soldier gave his life for our country. He was 200 metres from the front lines, when the government told us that our troops were two kilometres away from Islamic State positions. Two kilometres may seem like a lot but it really is not in situations such as this. Unlike the Americans, who did not get that close to the front, our government allowed Canadian soldiers to get only 200 metres away. That also shows that the government is not giving us clear answers about what our soldiers are doing. Just in the past few days, we heard new contradictory remarks.

This time, they had to do with the purpose of the mission. Will the government say that the mission has been accomplished when the Islamic State's capacities have been degraded, when the group has been eliminated completely or when it has been stopped in its tracks? The government has been describing the goal of the mission in several different ways.

Sometimes their descriptions were even contradictory. Has the government earned our trust? That is the question I asked myself when I was assessing the motion and deciding how to vote. Can we trust the government, based on the seven months that have passed since the start of Canada's mission? The answer is no. As the leader of the official opposition clearly demonstrated on Tuesday, any trust we might have had in this government going forward was broken as a result of its contradictory statements and unclear information.

I will not vote in favour of the main motion today for several reasons. As I just said, I cannot trust the government going forward. In addition, there is a lot missing from this motion. As military experts have said, there are two things we are supposed to have when deciding to engage in a mission: a clear and specific objective, and a planned exit strategy. We cannot simply get on a plane and leave, as the government is implying. It is more complicated than that. Military strategies are more complicated than getting on a plane and leaving. It is rather rich to hear Conservative ministers say that it is as simple as that.

Thus, there are these two things: establishing whether there is a clear objective and whether there is a clear and well-defined end to this mission. The answer is obviously no. That much is obvious.

Earlier I mentioned that there are several definitions for the end of the mission. Some ministers spoke about degradation and others about annihilation. The ultimate objective of the mission is not clear. When will the government say that Canada has done its part, that the mission has been accomplished and that we are withdrawing? It is not clear. We cannot support a mission that, in our view, does not have a defined objective and is still unclear. In this case, the objective is vague to say the least.

We are supposed to learn from our past mistakes. When we make a mistake, we try not to repeat it. However, if we look at the outcome of George W. Bush's war, which began in 2003, the results are mixed. After many years in Iraq, the results of the U.S. government's efforts in that conflict are uncertain.

The situation we are in today might, to a certain extent, be a result of that conflict, which created a situation and internal conflicts in that country. Perhaps the impact of those conflicts is being felt today. The resulting situations are certainly not pleasant for the civilians in those countries.

The Conservative Prime Minister supported the war back then; he was in the opposition. We might ask ourselves whether the mission being proposed reflects the Prime Minister's desire to go back to his 2003 position, which was to wage war. We could say that this is the Prime Minister's war and it has no legal basis. This will be my last point, since I do not have a lot of time left.

Today, we are talking about the motion to expand the war into Syria. I will not repeat the entire argument made so well by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, but the legal basis is questionable and unfounded. We are having a hard time getting answers from the government on this legal basis. If the government wants to move forward, it will have to prove that there is a legal basis in international law.

Without that, I cannot support the one-year extension of the mission in Iraq.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks by my colleague across the way.

Canada and Canadians around the world have been targeted by ISIL fighters, but Canada is not the only country that has been threatened. Many other countries that guard the rights and freedoms of their people, such as Denmark, Australia, France and the United Kingdom, have been the target of attacks, attacks that are still happening because too many young people have been seduced by ISIL's barbaric message. We all agree that we need to end this situation.

The NDP says that we should do nothing and that Canada should not get involved in fighting this extremism. My colleague talked about strategy and ways to get out of this situation. However, before we can get out of it, we have to get involved.

How would the NDP go about fighting ISIL's barbaric fundamentalist Islamic forces? I must repeat that some 60 countries around the world are involved in this fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I agree that we need to confront this problem. Where we disagree, however, is on the role Canada should play. We should determine that role by looking at what resolutions international organizations like the UN have adopted. The United Nations Security Council has adopted three resolutions on Iraq, and none of them authorizes military action.

The United Nations Security Council is calling for action to prevent the influx of foreign fighters and the funding of terrorist organizations, including ISIL. Putting pressure on governments in the region to prevent cash transfers to ISIL is a real diplomatic effort that Canada can and should prioritize. That would be effective. These UN resolutions give Canada a mandate and a role to play.

We need to combat the rise of extremism and terrorism, both inside and outside our borders, by taking action against radicalization. However, I am not hearing anything about that from the other side of the House.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Guelph who I talked to several months ago were of mixed feelings about our engagement in Iraq, some for and some against. However, I have talked to them recently and they are concerned. They are concerned because of the extension for an entire one year. A lot can happen in one year. They are also concerned because we are now going into Syria.

We know the government is prone to exaggeration and sometimes misinformation. It told us we would not be on the ground at the front line. In fact, we have had a death on the ground at the front line in Iraq. Then there is the more recent exaggeration about Canada and the United States possessing smart bombs. We know that is not true. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have them.

Does the member opposite have some concerns, as do the people of Guelph, about now going into Syria and this becoming far more than anyone has planned for and given the evolution or the mission creep that has already existed, whether it is likely to continue even further?