Debates of March 26th, 2015

Military Contribution Against ISIL

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we must not forget. Every time we try to examine the roots of the chaos in that region, the members opposite carefully avoid looking at the past.

When the crisis started in Syria, Canada was the country's second-largest foreign investor. A Canadian company was supplying electricity and managing the entire infrastructure that provided electricity to three-quarters of the country. The company was forced to stop doing that when the United Nations imposed sanctions.

It is easy to accuse us of supporting Bashar al-Assad's regime and ignoring the cruelty of these barbarians. I think we need to look at what our allies are doing. Right now, Wahhabi units are training in the Golan Heights, and when the Syrian army tries to attack them, those units are being defended by the Israeli army.

The situation is more complicated than it looks, and if we act without a plan, we will cause more chaos, which will claim even more innocent victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant comment that reveals, as he explained so eloquently, how complex everything happening in the Middle East is in general.

That is why an intervention as simplistic as the one proposed by the Conservatives—bombing all over the place and hoping that will solve the problem—is problematic. Members of ISIL are blending in with local populations. It is very difficult to figure out which rebel groups in Syria we should be helping and which groups are committing other atrocities against people. It is extremely complex. It is our duty here in the House to have a much more in-depth debate that sets aside the dogmatic approach we all too often see here.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise in the House to participate in this important debate.

It is important to remember that our Conservative government is the one that committed to consulting Parliament regarding Canada's involvement in military engagements overseas. The reason why I am here today is that this is a specific kind of military engagement because it does not involve a state in the traditional sense but an entity that refers to itself as the Islamic State.

I would like to remind the House that these jihadi terrorists have declared war not only on Canada, but also on our French, British, Australian and Danish allies, who have all been the victims of terrorist attacks. Members will remember the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris. They will remember the terrorist attacks that occurred in Sydney, Australia, during the holidays and the more recent attacks in Denmark. These terrorists targeted Canada, urging supporters to attack disbelieving Canadians in any manner and going so far as to vow that we should not feel secure even in our homes.

I should apologize for saying this, but to illustrate the horrific threats that we Canadians and all of our ally countries are facing, here is what the spokesperson for the so-called Islamic State said:

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European—especially the spiteful and filthy French—or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner....

These bone-chilling statements are precisely why I am standing up in the House and supporting our actions both here and abroad to target those terrorists and protect our Canadian citizens. As a government, we know that our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians from those who would do harm to us and to our families.

We have seen first hand that this is not a problem in some faraway land. This is not someone else's war, as the leader of the NDP said yesterday. No, it is not.

What happened on October 20 in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu was not a traffic accident. A terrorist who wanted to commit a dramatic act of violence for ideological purposes brutally attacked Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who died at the hands of a terrorist clearly inspired by ISIL.

Earlier this week, on Monday evening, the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent appeared before the committee to support the measures proposed by our government to fight terrorism, and to show us the dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of letters and messages of support she has received not only from across Quebec and Canada, but from around the world. Families have sent handmade cards to show their support for Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent's mother and entire family, who have been devastated by this heinous crime. As Louise Vincent put it so well, an act of terrorism touches more than just one community; it touches Canada as a whole, and the entire world.

That is why we have a moral responsibility to take the necessary measures to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Since this was a terrorist-inspired attack, we clearly see the relationship and the connection between the measures we are taking here in Canada to fight the terrorist threat and the measures we are taking in the Middle East to attack that hotbed of violence and terrorism.

On October 22, Corporal Nathan Cirillo was murdered. As he stood guard at the National War Memorial—the very symbol of the sacrifice made by all the Canadians who served their country in times of war in defence of peace and freedom—he was murdered by another terrorist inspired by the extremist ideology of the Islamic State. He was a target simply because he wore the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces in his own country, in times of peace, to commemorate the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for their homeland, for our homeland.

That is why Canada cannot stand on the sidelines, which is what the Liberals and New Democrats would have us do in the face of this threat. On the contrary, we are a partner of the free and democratic countries against the Islamic State. We are a partner of this international coalition to defend our rights, our freedoms and our security here on Canadian soil.

It is important to combat terrorism abroad, but we must also combat the ideologies that inspire people to radicalize and embrace this violence, both here and abroad.

That is why our Minister of National Defence is participating, with the international coalition, in efforts to degrade the Islamic State's capabilities abroad. That is why our government is committed to taking effective public safety measures to give our law enforcement agencies and police forces the means to respond to the evolving terrorist threat here in Canada. That is also why we introduced a counterterrorism strategy more than two years ago, which the New Democrats did not support. This strategy focuses on preventing radicalization.

We must take concrete action before a criminal act takes place and before young people become radicalized and want to travel abroad to commit terrorist acts or, even worse, commit them here. This strategy has four elements: prevent, detect, deny terrorists the opportunity to act and respond to the terrorist threat.

We also passed the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it illegal to travel for terrorist purposes. This is an important legislation to combat the recent phenomenon of western-based individuals, including, unfortunately, a number of Canadians, who have become radicalized and are seeking to travel to Iraq and Syria to fight with the Islamic State.

However, we must go further, because as we speak, we do not have the capability to prevent these individuals from boarding an airplane if we have reason to believe that they are willing to commit a terrorist attack. That is why the legislation before the House, the anti-terrorism act, is to important.

I am more than open to answer questions, but we need to track terrorists abroad and at home. That is why this government has a coherent approach to target those who want to harm us here on Canadian soil.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness questions about government Motion No. 17.

I am very proud of my party's position. In our careers as politicians, we may never be asked to make a decision more important than the one we are making today. I take this role very seriously. I always take exception when opposing positions are attacked as being ridiculous or are belittled. That certainly does nothing to elevate the debate.

That being said, the minister made a point of talking about something he might be more familiar with in his role as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and that is deradicalization, if I can put it that way. I am curious to know whether in Motion No. 17, the minister sees any commitment by his government to counter this radicalization on Canadian soil. I do not see any such commitment in any part of the motion. No reference is made to it whatsoever.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I believe it is important to refer to the facts in a debate. When our government wanted to introduce a counterterrorism strategy, the NDP opposed it. That is a fact. The votes are on the record.

Likewise, the opposition did not support us when we wanted to ensure that passports are revoked from people who travel abroad to take part in terrorist activities, let alone when it came to revoking the citizenship of those convicted of terrorist activities. Those are the facts.

As we speak, my Conservative colleagues are listening to evidence, such as that provided by Louise Vincent, the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. This morning, we heard from the representative of a Muslim association who supported Bill C-51.

That anti-terrorism bill contains a number of provisions to improve our radicalization prevention measures. The NDP does not want us to have effective tools to protect the public.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there do not seem to be that many people interested in discussing this matter on the other side, but I appreciate the opportunity after my learned colleague.

I listened intently when the Minister of National Defence spoke, and similar to the issue that my colleague has just raised, the Minister of Public Safety is saying that this motion also deals with trying to prevent radicalization in this country, which seems to be absent in the motion.

Another thing is absent in this motion. Even though the Minister of National Defence started out by saying that the motion is all about humanitarian aid, invoking our troops in military combat, there is absolutely nothing in the motion that mentions humanitarian aid.

The minister spoke of supporting greater humanitarian aid to these areas under strife and turmoil, which is appreciated. If the minister is so strongly committed to what he has said, then it would follow that he would support the amendments that we put forward that call for greater engagement, such as Canada boosting humanitarian aid, stabilizing neighbouring countries and strengthening political institutions. Does the minister in fact support those measures that we have put forward?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear link between terrorism that took place here and what is taking place in the Islamic State. That is what my speech was all about.

It is because people here on our Canadian soil are inspired and activated by this terrorist threat abroad. The core of the problem is over there, and it is also here. That is why we have to work on both fronts. Attacking one does not excuse not attacking the other.

We have seen Canadians willing to travel abroad. We have begun to destroy and degrade the capability of ISIS with our allies. We cannot stop halfway. We have to go on and continue with what we have been successfully doing.

That is why the mission abroad is important. That is why our actions here are important.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before this House right now is a serious one, an issue that raises serious questions, and I think it gets to the heart of some of the most important and profound subjects that can be debated in the House of Commons.

We have the spectre of violent movements in the world, and that spectre is real. It is serious. Acts of oppression, of kidnapping, of rape, of ethnic and cultural targeting, of armed conflict and violence are present all over the world.

We have ISIL in Iraq, Boko Haram in Nigeria, events in Ukraine, civil war in Syria, recent conflicts in Israel and Gaza, tension in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and conflicts all over Africa and in the second and third world.

The government today is asking this Parliament and the Canadian people to commit Canada to war in one of these conflicts. The Conservatives assert that the acts of ISIL in Iraq are of such a nature that war is the only reasonable response of Canada, and that ISIL in Iraq represents a threat to Canadians here at home. I respectfully disagree with these assertions.

I have been privileged to represent the good people of Vancouver Kingsway in this House for the last seven years, and we debate many important issues and have done so over that time, but in my view, no issue is more important or warrants more serious scrutiny and attention than discussion of committing our troops and committing Canada to war.

I would like to start in my remarks with a review of some history. The old adage that those who do not pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it, I think, is time-tested and true. I will review what has been the experience of the west in terms of western military interventions in the Middle East.

Let us just take a brief synopsis of the last 30 years. In Afghanistan in the 1980s, the United States armed the Taliban. At that time the Taliban was the Americans' friend when it was attacking the Soviets. It did not matter to the Americans at that time that the Taliban's orthodoxy, doctrines, or dogma were oppressive, misogynist, sexist, and culturally intolerant and insensitive. At that time the United States armed it because they had a common mutual enemy.

Then 9/11 happened. The U.S. demanded the Afghani government deliver up what it believed were the perpetrators of 9/11 who had been, in its view, hiding in Afghanistan. When the Afghani government either could not or would not do so, the United States and a coalition of western countries attacked Afghanistan, including Canada.

Canada was mired in Afghanistan for 10 years. We lost well over 150 brave soldiers. Thousands more Canadian soldiers were injured, traumatized to this day, and Canada spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan.

What is Afghanistan like today? It is not a democracy. Tribal divisions are intact. Opium production is at record levels. It is a country that has been devastated, where western values have failed to take root and in fact are rejected today as strongly as they have ever been.

Let us talk about Libya. Just a few years ago in this House the government stood here and said it had to commit Canadian Forces to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, and the opposition, despite what the Minister of National Defence has erroneously told the Canadian public, endorsed that mission. We warned, however, at that time that we would not support a mission that morphed into a regime-change one, and that is exactly what happened.

We committed to a mission that eventually resulted in the removal of the Gadhafi regime in Libya, and what happened as a result of that military intervention? The country descended into chaos, with violence on an almost unprecedented level today. There is no democracy, stability, justice, or rule of law in Libya today. I have not heard the Conservatives say a word about the situation in Libya since they urged the Canadian public to go to Libya to remove a despotic government, and they have run away from accountability for those actions.

We have the other example of Iraq. I have a feeling of déjà vu today, because this is not the first time that a western country has been asked to intervene in Iraq in a military manner. In 2003, the United States led a coalition and attacked Iraq. This was based, as we now know, on fabrications and outright deception. Iraq was accused of importing yellow cake uranium from Africa to fuel its nuclear program. It was accused of developing weapons of mass destruction. American diplomats at the highest levels asserted that this was the case. It turned out that these were outright lies, absolute fabrications.

Massive military force was unleashed on Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Massive infrastructure damage totalling in the billions of dollars was inflicted on Iraq. Regime change occurred. Saddam Hussein was removed and replaced with what the west said was a better government, the government of Mr. Maliki. What happened after we installed him? There was brutal oppression of minorities, corruption on a massive scale, no democracy taking root, and a country shattered, divided, and socially fractured.

As a result of massive bombing in 2003, which we said was going to restore democracy, human rights, and the rule of law to Iraq, where are we today in 2015? We have ISIL in Iraq. One could argue that not only did military intervention not accomplish any of the goals that always are the goals asserted at the beginning of a mission, but they created the opposite situation. There was no ISIS or ISIL back in 2003. There is today.

If bombing and military intervention is a way to make Iraq and countries around that region safer and more conforming to western norms, then that would have been the case after massive bombing and military intervention occurred for eight years and eight months, from 2003 to 2011. Thirty years of a western approach to countries in the Middle East and that region based on violence, based on military intervention, and based on deception, have resulted in only one conclusion for anyone who is viewing the situation objectively: an utter, absolute failure to meet any of the objectives that were stated at the beginning of those missions. Worse, there is a complete absence of accountability on behalf of governments like the Canadian government, like the American government, or the British government, who told the people of these countries that they should be intervening in these countries to make their population safer. It has made the world more dangerous.

What should Canada do? Canadians whom I talk to and represent want a different foreign policy from that characterized by the current government, different from the one characterized by war and military intervention and demonizing and jingoistic exhortations to violence. They want a Canada that resorts to our history, which characterizes our foreign policy for most of our time as a country, where Canada was a peacekeeper, where Canada was a peacemaker, where Canada was regarded as an honest broker on the world stage, where Canada was regarded as a fair dealer, where we practised diplomacy and took a leadership role.

There are other ways that Canada can be addressing this very serious problem. We could shift Canada's warlike approach to one of democracy building. We could help countries like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen develop democratic responsible governments that build respectful rights-based societies. We can help these countries build strong civil societies, assist with constitution making, help them build public infrastructure, help them raise the educational levels of their populations, help with poverty alleviation, provide economic aid, and provide humanitarian assistance. These are the roles that stand in contrast to the one being proposed to us here today, which is, “Here is how we can help the people of Iraq: We will go in and add more violence to a violent situation”. The biggest myth of all is that this will make Canadians safer.

The truth is that we have not had one ISIL-inspired terrorist attack on this soil yet, objectively; not one. However, if Canada commits to force and starts bombing ISIL and ISIS positions in Iraq, it is a matter of logic that it would increase the chances that those people would feel entitled to take retributive action here in Canada.

To keep Canadians safe and to restore Canada to a position on the world stage that Canadians want, I urge all members of this House to reject this ill-conceived motion that is not based in fact and has even less logic and principle behind it than any other motion I have seen in this House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is much to discuss about the motion that is before us today. I know that I was really taken when the leader of the Liberal Party emphasized how important it is for us to understand what is happening in Syria, where the government is trying to move us into taking action.

It was interesting when he cited that the United Nations is telling us that, after four years of all-out war, more than 11 million Syrians have been driven from their homes, which is over half the population. Syrians are fleeing their country by the millions. He said that this exodus of refugees is causing a terrible crisis. In five years of combat, more than 210,000 Syrians have been killed, including more than 10,000 children. This is something that the leader of the Liberal Party brought to the House's attention in addressing the motion.

The question I have for the member is this. Does he believe that the government is even considering the many other options for a role for Canada to play in assisting, let alone what is taking place in Syria today?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not believe that the government is seriously considering that.

I want to quote one of my constituents who wrote to me and who answered that question directly. He wrote to me and said:

The “conservative” election propaganda is been unbundled and the Prime Minister seems to be shifting his strategic emphasis from the economy to terrorism. Prime Minister Harper is reported to have said that “Jihadi terrorism is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced” and “a great evil has descended on our world.” Does this alarming rhetoric sound familiar? Have we forgotten the "axis of evil" speech by President Bush more than a decade ago?

Information and government actions are again being shaped to sell security and military policies? In a democracy perception management is not a substitute for government accountability and transparency? A discussion of the recent experience, current objectives and policy options would better serve our democracy?

That was Dr. Robin Hanvelt who wrote to me.

The nub of what he is saying is that he, as a Canadian voter, is perceiving that the current government is using the external threat of ISIS and ISIL to shape the political debate in this country, not coincidentally because we have an election coming up.

I do not think there is a real consideration, as my friend suggested, of alternatives to deal with the real humanitarian issues facing people in Syria and Iraq.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I will just remind all hon. members that it is not permitted, of course, to use the names of other hon. members, even when the names actually appear in something that the hon. member might be citing in the course of his comments. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway is aware of that; nonetheless, those things do occur from time to time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that, by using the same recipe in Syria as in Iraq, there is a slim chance that the outcome will be different?

We are seeing what happens wherever this type of intervention has been undertaken, like in Libya. Libya was freed from a horrible dictator, and it is now under two dictatorships, one in Parliament and one on a boat, off the coast. Libya is now the most unsafe country in the entire region.

Is it not a bit ridiculous to imagine that the same recipe will yield a different outcome?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that we cannot bomb a nation into changing its values. We cannot force a country by force of arms to build a legitimate homegrown democracy or the rule of law. If that were the case, then today we would have thriving democracies in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. We do not.

The truth is, after decades of military intervention, billions of taxpayer dollars, and massive loss of life, we do not have democratic regimes. We do not have peaceful societies. We do not have harmonious countries. We do not have functioning countries in those areas.

Just as a matter of fact and evidence, I would think this would be enough to prove to the government that adding more bombing and violence to the situation in Iraq, regardless of how serious the ISIL situation is, is not an approach that is going to make anyone any safer, not there or here.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House to speak on an issue that is of grave importance to Canadians and to free and democratic societies.

Today's debate on Canada's role in the international effort to combat ISIL is, indeed, an important one. As we all know, ISIL is, simply put, a group of inhuman barbarians. It exists to create havoc and to infringe on global security from the Middle East to right here at home. It is a threat to basic humanity and is a murderous threat to even innocent children.

The opposition does not want to stand up to this barbaric organization motivated by a culture of brutality and murder. Listen to the words of the NDP leader only last week on this very issue. He stated:

[T]here's no reason for us to be involved....

Although no one’s trying to understate the horrors of what’s occurring there, the question is, “Is that Canada’s fight?”

I take exception to these comments from the opposition that pay more lip service than actual contribution to dealing with the horrors ISIL has wrought, especially on the most innocent of them all, that being children.

Canada cannot simply stand by as ISIL barbarians slaughter innocent men, women, and children. As it collects women and children as sex slaves and breeds terrorism globally, as we have seen right here on Canadian soil, the leader of the NDP loudly proclaims that this is not Canada's fight. However, throughout our history, Canada has stood up when peace, safety, and security were threatened. As a nation, we have always been deeply committed to defending freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

I know it will be uncomfortable for some to hear, but I want the House to fully understand the evil we are actually dealing with. It is all too easy in this debate to consider a mission against ISIL in the abstract, to forget the unspeakable crimes against humanity committed by this radicalized group. That is why I am going to speak of the unspeakable. For that, I will refer to the February 2015 report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child entitled, “Concluding observations on the combined second to fourth periodic reports of Iraq”. I will quote from that report, which states:

The Committee abhors and condemns the targeted and brutal killings of children by the so-called ISIL and in particular: (a) The systematic killing of children belonging to religious and ethnic minorities by the so-called ISIL, including several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings and crucifixions of children and the burying of children alive....

The report further goes further to state that there are a high number of children who have been abducted by the so-called ISIL:

...many of whom are severely traumatized from witnessing the murder of their parents and are subjected to physical and sexual assault.

Let those words sink in: beheadings, crucifixions, and burying children alive. Again, I ask the opposition, should Canada simply stand by on preventing these horrendous acts committed against children and not consider it Canada's fight?

I ask the opposition to read this United Nations report. I ask it to fully grasp the inhumane and deplorable acts ISIL has committed, acts such as, quoting again directly from the report:

...the continuing sexual enslavement of children since the emergence of the so-called ISIL, in particular of children belonging to minority groups who are held by the so-called ISIL. It notes with the utmost concern the “markets” set up by ISIL, in which they sell abducted children and women attaching price tags to them; and the sexual enslavement of children detained in makeshift prisons of ISIL....

Renate Winter, the well-respected international judicial expert who founded the International Institute for the Rights of the Child, is an expert who helped draft the United Nations report. I ask the opposition to hear her words. She stated:

We are really deeply concerned at torture and murder of those children, especially those belonging to minorities, but not only from minorities. The scope of the problem is huge.

Ms. Winter went on to say:

We have had reports of children, especially children who are mentally challenged, who have been used as suicide bombers, most probably without them even understanding.

Mentally challenged children have been used as suicide bombers and other children have been tortured mercilessly. I know that many members of this House have been blessed to have children of their own, and some, like me, have grandchildren. We must think of our own children and our own grandchildren being tortured, sold as slaves, forced to be suicide bombers, raped, and murdered. That is the stark reality of what ISIL is doing as we speak.

We can look at what ISIL did in places like Ar-Raqqah last May. We can look at the photos of people being crucified or decapitated. We can think about the Yezidis, a peaceful religious minority group in a mountain town that was targeted and surrounded by ISIL until its members faced starvation, dehydration, and eventually death. Some escaped, but many did not.

We can look at the many videos of the beheadings ISIL has produced and posted widely for all to see, such as of James Foley, a freelance journalist, who had his head sawed off as the ISIL barbarians cheered. We can watch the more recent videos of ISIL beheading 21 Coptic Christians on the shores of Tripoli. This is the reality of the ISIL terror we all face.

Does the NDP not think this is Canada's fight? I suggest that it is. Everyone is disgusted and repulsed by these acts performed by a death cult of barbaric thugs with no moral compass. Why would the NDP have Canada stand by and do nothing?

Even though I have spent over 40 years in law enforcement combatting the worst criminals and witnessing horrific crimes, I can only begin to grasp the destruction and havoc created by ISIL. Families have been murdered and destroyed. Mothers' hearts have been broken. Children have been buried alive.

Canada has a duty, and indeed a responsibility, to confront this evil alongside our growing list of allies from all regions of the globe, a coalition, of which Canada has been very much a part, that to date has halted the advance of ISIL, regained strategic territory, and significantly degraded ISIL's capabilities.

The opposition would take an isolationist stand. The opposition has claimed that this is a distant threat, not Canada's concern or problem. However, that is not the case here. From the great wars to the Canadian peacekeeping missions in places like Rwanda, the Congo, and elsewhere, Canada has stood up to terror.

I would also remind Canadians of the attacks and threats made by ISIL against Canada right here at home. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was killed by a violent jihadist in Quebec, and Corporal Nathan Cirillo was murdered point blank here in Ottawa.

Make no mistake: the international jihadi movement, ISIL, has declared war on Canada. As a government, it is our moral duty to protect Canadians from those who would do us harm. To sit on the sidelines is to let evil thrive.

I hope the opposition will join our government in support of this mission. However, with or without the support of the Liberals and the NDP, we will confront this evil and protect the safety and security of Canadians. Our government is proud of the work done by our brave men and women in uniform. We will continue to support them as we continue to fight this evil.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I resent the expression from the minister that the NDP stands for nothing on the situation.

I read the amendments that were proposed by our foreign affairs critic carefully. Here are just a few:

...boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be immediate, life-saving impact, including assisting refugees with basic shelter and food needs;

....work with our allies in the region to stabilize neighbouring countries, strengthen political institutions and assist these countries in coping with an influx of refugees;

...contribute to the fight against ISIL, including military support for the transportation of weapons;

...provide assistance to investigation and prosecution of war crimes;

...increase assistance for the care and resettlement of refugees impacted by this conflict;

...work to prevent the flow of foreign fighters, finances, and resources to ISIL, in accordance with our international obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2170, 2178, and 2199;

...put forward a robust plan of support for communities and institutions working on de-radicalization and counter-radicalization;

Are all these nothing in the eyes of the minister?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the NDP is really serious about fulfilling the responsibilities that we as Canadians have toward countering this very serious threat that is in fact also targeting Canada and Canadians, they should join with us and champion this work. We could all feel that much better for our collective involvement here.

Just to be specific on the issue of humanitarian aid, Canada is already doing a great deal of work in that particular area. It is a two-pronged approach, involving both military support and humanitarian aid. The military components allow for the aid to flow to more areas and allow for more accountability and security. That, of course, is what aid workers need. We cannot help these people in need with this threat looming over their heads.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the minister's remarks. I was very disappointed that it was really a long list of graphic atrocities.

Yes, we understand those atrocities are happening, but we are trying to have a debate in this country, a debate that educates people as to the complexities of the situation, a debate that educates people as to what is in the Canadian interest, what is good public policy, and what the ways are that Canada can contribute.

The minister wants to just narrow this down to the Conservative playbook, which, in a previous bill with a previous minister, was called “You are with us or you are with the child pornographers.” Canadians do not buy that kind of simplistic rhetoric, and I would appreciate it if the minister could discuss the importance of the diplomatic efforts to bring people together in this region so that there is respect for minority communities as ISIL is removed from areas.

As to the ethnic cleansing that has happened in some of those areas, how can that be stopped through the good work of the government and the minister's departmental officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, none of these things are mutually exclusive.

As I indicated earlier, we are operating on the humanitarian front very actively and every effectively, to the extent that we can. However, until such time as the threat of terrorism and the atrocities and inhumanities that are taking place in that part of the country are stopped, the effort and impact will be greatly diminished.

We are not alone. From what I understand, most Canadians are on side. Let me read a quote:

The Conference of Defence Associations welcomes the government's decision to extend the military mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

They go on to say:

ISIL represents a direct threat to Canadian national security since it has singled out Canada as an enemy and urged its members and supporters to kill Westerners, military and civilian alike. The group also serves as an inspiration for lone-wolf terrorist attacks, such as those committed....

here in Ottawa and of course in Quebec.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out what I think is obvious for many here. The position that the Prime Minister has taken for the last couple of days in the House suggests a serious continuity with the position he took in 2003. He was one of the cheerleaders and apologists for George W. Bush's decision to engage in a manifestly illegal and profoundly stupid invasion of Iraq.

There were two cheerleaders of note at that time. One was south of the border and became the leader of the Liberal Party. That was Michael Ignatieff. He was immediately recruited by the Liberal elites to become the anointed one. The other was the current Prime Minister. He did not give a hoot then about international law, and he does not now.

All we have to do is look at is the contemptuous response he gave in the House yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition. In the end, what the Prime Minister is telling us is “What I say is the law.” That is how he is used to running—and, frankly, ruining—this parliamentary democracy.

“I am King. I am the law.”

That is the Prime Minister.

We then heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs today. It was a more measured speech, but at the same time, he slipped. He started saying that if we vote against this motion, we are “voting against” our own soldiers. This kind of argumentation, this kind of attempt to suggest that any concerns about wisdom—and, in this case, lawfulness—is somehow beneath debate in the House of Commons is destructive of our democracy. We talk about a goal of degrading ISIL, ISIS, the Islamic State or whatever it is called, and at the same time we are engaging in debate that helps to degrade democratic discourse in the House of Commons.

One thing that is obvious from the last two days is that the government, or at least the ministers, did not have a clue about what the legal basis would be that they were going to be putting forward. They had not bothered to clarify in their own minds what it was. Their answers were all over the map in the House. Yesterday they were scrambling to cross their t's and dot their i's because they finally acknowledged that if they were going to be following the American model, the justification would be one of collective self-defence of Iraq, for which they need an invitation from Iraq. We will see whether that gets backdated, because there is no invitation from Iraq to go into Syria at the moment. They will also need to write a letter to the UN in the way that the U.S. did in order to go into Syria on September 23, 2014.

What that suggests is that legality is an afterthought. Not knowing and not reading whatever legal opinion they purport to have in order to know how they are allowed to go into Syria, so as to then know what the purpose of the mission can be in law, suggests that it does not matter to them. They are going in for other reasons.

Some of the reasons might be very good ones, in the sense that there is this visceral response to the brutality of ISIS. The imagery from the former minister is of that ilk. The government is mixing in justifications about how maybe this is actually a humanitarian intervention, although I have not heard the government give that as the legal basis. It is also on that side.

Frankly, there is also just politics. The government wants to go in for reasons that have as much to do with electoral politics as they do with the actual need for Canada to be involved in this way, especially by extending the mission to Syria.

We debated this question back in early October. At the time, the motion that was passed by the House included Syria. We knew that it did. It was clear, and there was a condition set by the Prime Minister that Canada would not extend its active mission, particularly the bombing part of it, without the consent of the government of Syria, namely Assad.

The U.S. had already put out its legal rationale for going into Syria a full two to three weeks before, on September 23, 2014. Surely any competent Canadian government and its advisers would know what that rationale was by the time we had the debate in the House, yet the only legal basis that the government put forward then for going into Syria was one of the consent of the Syrian government. No mention was ever made of the U.S. rationale.

Was that because the government had legal advice from somewhere within the government that the U.S. rationale was dubious, or even not valid? If so, how the government went about getting a legal opinion that it liked a lot better is a question that has to be asked.

Maybe there is a hint. Newspaper reports suggests that it was the Judge Advocate General, based in the Department of National Defence, who gave that legal opinion.

It is one, of course, we are never going to see, because the current government will raise the bogus argument of solicitor-client privilege as the reason we cannot see the legal opinion. However, the Judge Advocate General has no business giving legal opinions on ius ad bellum, the use of military force as set out in general public international law. That is the role of the legal adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs, who in every other government and every other Westminster system would be the one giving the opinion.

The question is begged: did the legal adviser give an opinion back in September and October? Was it favourable to the government? If so, why do we not know about it? If it was not favourable to the government, is that why the Department of National Defence has inserted itself and overridden the Department of Foreign Affairs in its proper role of advising the government on the lawfulness of going to war?

These are questions we have to ask. I would remind members that we have asked them and will continue to ask them. We will want to see the legal opinions. It is not for the sake of legality itself, but in order to know what the government sees as the basis for going in and to be able to hold the government to account for the reasons given, under law. It is also in order to be critical, to scrutinize, and have others who are also experts say “case made” or “case not made”.

The fact is that unless the government changes its ways, it is going to say, “Sorry, solicitor-client privilege”, which is so bogus. First of all, the client is the government. Second, this is the ultimate public interest. There is nothing reasonably confidential in what the government hears about whether it can go to war that cannot be shared, not just with Parliament but with Canadians as a whole.

Therefore, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs here in the House, I do ask him to make sure that any legal opinion that has been received by the government is tabled, and tabled forthwith.

I will briefly go over the three kinds of legal justifications that have been circulating.

One is that when things are finally clarified, it is beginning to look like the government realizes that for the Americans, the primary justification is one of collective self-defence of Iraq. Not surprisingly, the U.S. needed Iraq to request it to defend itself against whatever threat it sees coming from Syria. This is based on a very tenuous theory that does not have firm grounding in international law, possibly not even firm grounding in emerging international law: the safe haven theory.

The safe haven theory is that if another state is incapable or unwilling to eradicate safe havens from which non-state groups like ISIS are crossing the border into another state, that state can attack at will in order to deal with the threat. The fact is that the leading judgment in international law on this point, from the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case in the mid-1980s, specifically said that it is not a basis for exercising the right of collective self-defence.

The leading definition set out by the United Nations in 1974, the Definition of Aggression, does talk about a scenario like this, a scenario of non-state groups crossing borders to attack another state. It is not as if this issue has not arisen. However, the issue is whether another state is sending, by or on behalf of that state, or is substantially involved in sending, armed groups across the border. That does trigger a right of self-defence.

People have cited the 9/11 response. After the towers came down, after that brutal terrorist attack on New York, the response was to go into Afghanistan. People said the attack meant that we can go after any safe haven in response to a non-state terrorist attack.

That is absolutely wrong. At the time, everybody thought and understood that al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan were so interpenetrated that any al Qaeda attack was, in effect, one that had the substantial involvement of the Taliban government. That was the basis on which self-defence was exercised, and nobody objected at the time. However, to stretch that into this broader theory requires seeing the legal opinions. Maybe the law has marched on. Despite being a public international lawyer, maybe I have not watched enough in the last five years to know it has, but we need to see to know.

The last thing floating out there, especially coming out of the mouth of the Minister of National Defence, is the idea of a George Bush-style GWOT, a global war on terror. It is the idea that all that is needed is a threat by a non-state group to allow a state to go around the world bombing, whether with drones or airplanes, if another state is somehow or other not doing the job that this state says needs to be done.

The wording of the motion actually plays exactly into that idea, because the new motion—as my colleague, the critic for foreign affairs, brought up earlier today—specifically says that it is not just against ISIS but ISIS allies, which include, for example, Boko Haram in Nigeria.

It also says that the actions Canada can take “include” air strikes in Iraq and Syria. It does not create an exclusive list. There are good reasons the official opposition is asking for legal clarity and to see the legal opinions.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague. At one point he said there was something from National Defence overriding Foreign Affairs on these things. These things are done collectively. We are given advice and we are on firm legal footing.

It was of interest to me what he said with respect to solicitor-client privilege. Yes, the government does get legal advice. I think he described it as bogus, but I would suggest to him that the concept of solicitor-client privilege actually underpins our collective legal system in the country and it is extremely important.

That being said, we have been very clear with respect to article 51 of the UN charter. We have indicated we are on the same legal basis. Iraq has asked for international assistance and we are going to do that.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. minister is a lawyer. He knows that the solicitor-client privilege can be waived by the client. The analogy between private sector solicitor-client privilege and advice the government receives, especially on a question of going to war, is completely inapposite and he knows it.

Second, the government has not been clear. No one on that side could articulate for two days that they were acting in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter. There was so much scrambling going on behind the scenes, it was actually embarrassing.

The last thing is, the minister can reconstruct government relations all he wants but having an opinion from the Department of National Defence, if the newspaper reports are true, that the judge advocate general, as the minister who is now in the House has said, is the one who has given the go-ahead advice, is completely inappropriate unless there is parallel advice coming from the legal adviser of the Department of Foreign Affairs. If there is, we would like to see that opinion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members that they should try to avoid references to the absence or presence of other hon. members in the House as a general matter of routine.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments and his focus on the legal basis for the proposed mission. In fact, in my earlier remarks I made the point right up front that the mission and the motion failed to meet the test of whether they are in the national interest or not. That test failed because the mission has an unclear legal basis, unclear mission objectives and an open-ended scope, which means we could be embroiled for a very long time in a mission that does not have a clear plan or exit strategy.

I want to focus on unclear mission objectives. The member is I am sure aware that the Minister of Defence is saying the objective is to defeat and eliminate ISIL, whereas theMinister of Foreign Affairs is saying the objective is to degrade ISIL, which is a far different objective. Does the member have any comment about the effectiveness of a mission in which the two ministers have totally different views on what the point of the mission is in the first place?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any particular views other than to say a well set up question is asked and answered. Both ministers I am sure are capable of dealing with the conflict that exists between their rationales.

However, it goes back to the fact that, again, the government is content with wholesale, feel-good arguments in the sense of, let us lash out and attack brutal terrorists. It feels good to all of us. Who does not want to do that? That is the bottom line kind of justification they are getting to. Then, when they are really going for the moral impulse, they talk about all of the brutality. It is correct to be talking about that, but they are not linking it to any specific legal justification either.

All I am asking for, truly, is straightforward clarity. That will also come with seeing the legal opinions, although the government is rather afraid of the legal profession in this country. It is afraid of law professors who give opinions on Bill C-51, for example. It is disdainful of the Canadian Bar Association. I rather doubt it would want to see its legal opinion subject to the scrutiny of other experts.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, that we are again discussing Iraq speaks to the gravity of the current situation and to the reality of the struggle that many Iraqis are facing. As the so-called terrorist group ISIL attempts to spread its flawed ideology across Iraq and the country's civilians who stand in the crosshairs. They are targets, unfairly victimized by a group whose only rule is to be ruthless.

We know that ISIL is waging a campaign of terror in Iraq and across the region, preying on the vulnerable to advance its alleged cause and doing so with wanton disregard for any and all who dare stand in its way. This group is morally reprehensible, one that willfully kills innocent children, that murders humanitarian workers and innocent journalists just to make a point and that uses rape as a weapon of war.

It is a group that we must continue to take steps to confront and to degrade, in order to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East and to protect global security, but also, to lessen the incredible burden that has been so unfairly placed upon Iraqi civilians. They are the ones living on the front line of this conflict, the people whose lives have been turned upside down as ISIL has captured vast stretches of territory from the Syrian border in the northwest to the outskirts of Baghdad.

I want to focus on that, on the humanitarian aspects of this crisis and on the role that Canada is playing to help Iraq's children and its terrified mothers and fathers find the relief and safety they so desperately seek. Armed clashes have driven displacement, causing the humanitarian situation in Iraq to rapidly deteriorate. When such violence erupts, not only does it force masses of people to flee their homes and communities, it creates havoc in the entire country. Businesses have trouble operating. People lose their jobs. Food production and clean water services are disrupted. Normal supply routes are blocked. Families are separated and they suffer tremendous shock, especially when losing a parent, a child, a sibling or a friend. They are left to grieve amidst the turmoil of their own circumstances which for many has included fleeing homes, villages and the familiarity of everyday life. There has been concern that children will fall behind in their education because of the disruptions caused by the conflicts and displacements.

Canada is actively working with partners to address children's needs. To date, we have contributed $8 million to UNICEF's no lost generation initiative in Iraq, which is providing education and protection assistance to conflict-affected children. We are also working through experienced partners such as Save the Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to help provide child-friendly environments for displaced children and to give them the psychosocial support they need. Although conflict is a disruptive force in the lives of children, we must do everything possible to see that their education continues. Education is essential in Iraq right now. It gives children and youth a sense of normalcy, stability and structure. When schools are open, they are places for children to free their minds of the anxiety of war and instead focus on the pursuit of knowledge and improving their skills.

For most Canadians, the situation in Iraq is simply unimaginable. Canadians will say that the actions we have undertaken in response to this crisis are a direct reflection of their own values and of their understanding that a country like ours cannot possibly stand idle while millions of Iraqi civilians are suffering.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Canada has committed $67.4 million in humanitarian assistance for conflict-affected Iraqis. In addition, we have provided $9.5 million to respond to the needs of approximately 215,000 Syrian refugees in Iraq. This makes us the fifth-largest donor in response to this crisis. These funds have been provided to United Nations agencies, the International Red Cross movement and non-government organizations to provide life-saving assistance to those who are most in need. In the last six months, we have helped feed 1.7 million people, provide shelter and relief supplies to 1.25 million people and helped with education for half a million children.

Canada's assistance is also supporting organizations that are responding to incidents of sexual and gender-based violence by establishing safe places, providing psychosocial support, specialized health services, case management, community outreach and other services to up to 35,000 women and children. In addition, Canadian contributions include $10 million to strengthen accountability for sexual and gender-based violence crimes and support victims and additional programming to protect the rights of religious minorities in Iraq and in the region.

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. Through all these actions on the humanitarian front, Canada is showing it stands by the people of Iraq. We will continue to look for more ways to respond to the needs of all Iraqis.

In June, Canada established a bilateral development program to address short-term needs and to support resilience and prosperity in Iraq over the long term. This bilateral program will enable communities to cope with increased demand for basic services including water, sanitation and health services; mitigate the negative economic implications; and sustain institutional capacities through this protracted crisis. Canada recognizes that without resilience and hope for a more prosperous future, Iraqi communities will continue to struggle with instability. However, the world must unite to confront and downgrade the ISIL threat. Canada is contributing to the allied effort in order to do just that and to bring some normalcy and stability back to the lives of Iraqi people.

In summary, the military measures we are taking against ISIL do not in any way preclude humanitarian actions. There is no either/or. Canada is the fifth-largest country donor in the humanitarian response to the crisis in Iraq and the sixth-largest donor in Syria. Security on the ground is absolutely essential to providing humanitarian assistance. Degrading the capabilities of ISIL is key to achieving this, while accessing those most in need.

It is concerning to me that the Liberals and the New Democrats failed to acknowledge the real threat posed to Canada by ISIL and the jihadi terrorism. Both leaders had an opportunity to speak to the threat ISIL poses to Canadians, and they opted for partisan attacks over serious dialogue. As I mentioned earlier, it is often innocent civilians in Iraq who are the victims of ISIL, and the focus of my remarks has dealt with Canada's humanitarian response to the crisis. However, ISIL has made clear that it targets, by name, Canada and Canadians.

We cannot protect Canada by simply choosing to ignore this threat. We will not sit on the sidelines, as the Liberals and the New Democrats would have us do. I will be voting in favour of this motion, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.