Debates of March 26th, 2015

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. This is only the first question in our five-minute round, so we need to give some time to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the member to understand or agree with very much of what I said because the NDP have been voting against us all along. The only thing that is thin and non-existent is the NDP support for keeping Canadians safe.

The New Democrats do not seem to believe that jihadists are terrorists and that these jihadist activities of ISIL are connected to what exactly happened in this very building. Therefore, I do not know how much of a realistic example they need to make sure that we are defending ourselves from this group that has declared war on Canada and Canadian citizens. As has been said many times in this House, and I think they have even heard some New Democrat members say so themselves, this is the opportunity we have as a government. The most responsible issue that a government can handle is keeping its citizens safe.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been exchanging a lot of information about the scale of humanitarian aid. It is clear from my comments that I am pleased that Canada is contributing humanitarian assistance. However, at this point we are really contributing a drop in the bucket in relation to the need.

The UN has said that this Syrian conflict and the humanitarian crisis in 2014 required $5.9 billion in response. The world community collectively came up with 60% against that need. We are talking about four million refugees found in camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. We are talking about an extensive humanitarian crisis where at this point the world community is failing the people of Syria. Therefore, while we are debating military action, I think it behooves us that we look at the scale and the scope of the need before we pat ourselves on the back for having done enough.

I ask my hon. colleague if he would not agree.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we started out in this process the opposition said that we had no humanitarian aid. I just talked about $67 million that we have committed to respond to the humanitarian needs of just the Iraqis affected by the violence. My colleague from Simcoe—Grey has just indicated the millions of citizens there who we have helped with food, education and a number of other supports with respect to humanitarian aid, so when is it enough? Certainly, we would always like to do more, as the member has indicated, but first we must ensure that the people we are getting the humanitarian aid to are safe, that the people who are delivering it are safe, and that they feel comfortable knowing that we can direct this humanitarian aid to where it is needed the most.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we carry on, I would just comment, more than anything, that obviously with the debate this evening and through the course of this day there is great interest in participating by hon. members, not only of their remarks but also through the five minute question period. We only have five minutes for questions and comments after each ten minute speech. The Chairs will do the very best we can to try to get all of those involved.

Hon. members should know that the time they take—extra time perhaps with their preamble and/or remarks—is taking away time that might be available to other hon. members. We do our best to be judicious to ensure all hon. members have the opportunity to participate and do the best to share that out in the way we typically do. However, we beg the hon. members' indulgence in keeping their interventions at least concise enough so other hon. members will have the opportunity to participate. Of course, it is always a good idea for members to watch the Chair from time in the course of their remarks so they can see how they are doing time wise.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of us are rising this evening to take part in the debate on the most important decision we have to make as parliamentarians. We must decide whether to send our armed forces personnel into combat.

I am so tired of hearing the Conservatives' rhetoric in this House. If any other party takes a more pacifist position, they equate that with contempt for our armed forces.

We need to be careful and think long and hard about where we send our armed forces, why we are sending them and the possibility of success, and we must have an exit strategy. These are important fundamentals and a way to demonstrate our profound respect for our armed forces.

Through all these months of debate, we have heard so many childish comments from across the aisle that one would think this is high school. I am sick of hearing them. I must reiterate, we need to be very careful about our decision. Our positions must show our profound respect for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

We must therefore rise and decide whether to vote for or against the motion to extend Canada's combat mission in Iraq. The organization that prompted this evening's debate, and indeed a host of other problems around the world for months now, is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a terrorist organization. I will also refer to it as ISIL and the Islamic State. Although I hate to admit it, there is a certain poetry to its name, but let us stick to the basics.

What is the Islamic State, exactly? It is an organization that has displaced 2.5 million civilians in Iraq by conducting military operations that are completely barbaric. Because of that organization, another 5.2 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. It has killed at least 5,000 people. That is one number I came across, but I think it actually is much higher.

Another troubling thing about the activities of the Islamic State is that it finances its activities in large part by exporting oil from the lands it conquers and charging the residents arbitrary taxes. It simply kills a woman's husband, then taxes her and tells her she has no say in the matter. It also collects ransom from kidnappings. While they are at it, why not take barbarism to the extreme? My colleagues all agree: the extreme barbarism displayed by the Islamic State has to stop.

As always, the Conservatives start with a consensus and then brag about taking action. That is where the problems begin. On the basic issue there is consensus, but when it comes to how to approach the issue, once again, we are headed for a frigging mess. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that is considered unparliamentary language.

We cannot vote in favour of the motion on extending the mission in Iraq for two fundamental reasons. The first reason is the lies. For months we have a heard a litany of lies. When the government asks the public to accept major expenditures because we are engaged in a conflict and asks members of our armed forces to risk their lives, then it has to be transparent.

The Prime Minister lied. He is miring Canada in a conflict without being accountable and without having an exit strategy. The U.S. Army was the last major army to go to Iraq without an exit strategy. For nearly two decades, it sent troops there and bombed the country and so forth, all without an exit strategy. Two decades later, what is the result? Have things calmed down in the MIddle East, Iraq and Syria? Are these people building co-operatives and voting freely? No.

The situation now is even worse than it was 20 years ago. We are having another go at it without an exit strategy.

We went from a mission that was supposed to be an advise and assist mission to a six-month bombing mission, and then to a combat mission on the front lines. Unfortunately, the death of Sergeant Doiron, killed by friendly fire, is proof of that. Canadians at home understand that you cannot be involved in a friendly fire incident if you are not at the front. That is impossible. If you are behind the front lines, allies will not turn around and fire on you. If such situations arise, it is because you are at the front. I am pleased that one of my colleagues who was in the army told me that my analysis is correct.

On September 30, the Prime Minister said “there is not a direct combat role”. A few months later, in January, Canadian soldiers who were providing ground support for air strikes exchanged gunfire with Islamic State forces. There were at least three such exchanges between late January and mid-February.

Another aspect of the motion that is really worrisome is that it allows us to now take action in Syria. People at home need to know that. Syria is led by Bashar al-Assad. He is running a monstrous regime in an extremely complex situation involving rebel clans and unclear affiliations.

Bashar al-Assad is responsible for over 220,000 civilian deaths and 4 million refugees in just four years. This regime's armed force is made up of about 50,000 people, but these rebels are sometimes a bit disorganized.

I want to ask the House a fundamental question. In such a complex environment, with a tyrant in power, with rebels who, while somewhat disorganized, are fairly well armed and more or less radicalized, and with refugees scattered all over, where should the bomb be dropped? Where are they going to drop this magical bomb that will improve the situation? Can they show us on a map? I would like the Minister of National Defence to show me an exact point on the map where he wants to drop bombs in order to improve the situation.

The situation is so complex, he would not be able to point to a single location on the map. Dropping bombs is not a magic solution. It is absolutely not.

Worse still, under lies and arguments that make it impossible for us to support this motion because we cannot trust the government, information was hidden from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

On February 16, the Minister of National Defence announced that so far, Canada had spent $122 million on the combat mission in Iraq. The next day, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his estimates, which were on the order of $166 million. We have barely entered the conflict, and we are already in an F-35 situation, and we are wondering if there will be any transparency about the costs.

I do not always agree with how our neighbours to the south decide to intervene, but at least they have the advantage of being very transparent about reporting their expenditures to the American people. I gather that costs are updated publicly every 48 hours. That is not at all the case here. We cannot trust a government that cannot even be honest about the costs stemming from its own decision to enter a conflict.

The government has also awkwardly offered up a whole series of false arguments, including false claims about the coalition.

Most of the nations that make up the coalition, including Norway, South Korea and New Zealand, are not participating in combat. They are giving tens of millions of dollars to address humanitarian needs.

There have been lies about the effectiveness of the mission. When we started bombing ISIL forces, which I am loathe to give any credit to, as everyone can understand, they moved and hid among civilians. We have serious doubts about whether this plan can even be effective.

Small advances were the result of the courage of the Kurds, who were engaged in dangerous combat on the ground.

In conclusion, the government also lied about the UN. The UN did indeed put forward a resolution, but it said that what was important was to target sources of funding for the Islamic State and cut them off as quickly as possible. The UN never said to send in soldiers or put boots on the ground. That is not true.

If at least our Prime Minister thought we needed to take military action and he had panache, courage and a good sense of his office, and he met with world leaders to convince them that NATO and the UN should take action, I might not agree, but I could respect him. That is nothing like what we are seeing here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite. He lauded the involvement of Norway and New Zealand, but does he know that Canada is the fifth-largest donor of humanitarian aid in Iraq and the sixth-largest in Syria?

If he is lauding the involvement of New Zealand, Norway and other countries, he should also laud Canada's involvement on the humanitarian front. He could at least give us that. The military coalition has some 60 members. It includes countries like Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Qatar. These are countries in the region that know there is a serious threat to public safety. The coalition also includes countries like the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Australia. These are countries that know threats have been made against them. Canada is participating in this coalition.

Does the member think that participation in this coalition is misguided? After all, this coalition is made up of 60 countries that are focused on humanitarian assistance and military services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it was my NDP colleague from St. John's East who set the record straight earlier because the members opposite kept saying that Canada was the country that had invested the most in humanitarian aid. Now suddenly we are in fifth place. Good work. We are finally getting a little bit of transparency. I want to thank my NDP colleague for setting the record straight. We are in fifth place.

I have the numbers here. There are crying needs. As a result of what is happening, there are hundreds of thousands of new refugees every day. There is an urgent need for aid with respect to water, sanitation, hygiene and food security. Shelter and health care are lacking. Canada has contributed nearly $67 million in this regard. That is good, but we have contributed over $160 million to the military effort. We are putting three times more resources into sending military jets over there than we are into meeting the humanitarian needs of these people. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that Norway, South Korea and other countries are doing the opposite. Some countries have contributed to the transportation of weapons and things like that, but they have put most of their resources into responding to the huge humanitarian crisis caused by the Islamic State's barbaric actions.

I would like to come back to the last comment that I made in my speech, because my colleague spoke about the coalition. If the current Prime Minister of Canada said that he thought we needed to take military action, I still would not agree with him. However, if he did a world tour, showed the kind of leadership that one would expect from a real leader, spoke to the leaders of NATO, the UN, Germany and China, and sought support, then I could at least respect him, but that is not at all what he is doing right now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Liberal caucus will be voting against the motion. However, Canada has a clear interest in training Iraqi forces to fight and destroy ISIL. We can and should do this training away from the front lines. What is the position of NDP on that issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, I missed the beginning of my colleague's remarks. There was something wrong with the interpretation.

When we supported the first motion, for example, we supported the notion of helping with the transport of weapons, which logistically speaking could help the Kurds. The Kurds are having a very difficult time because they really are on the front lines.

Consequently, we are not saying that there is nothing we can do to help in terms of the logistics. What we are saying is that boots on the ground and air strikes have absolutely not been effective and will solve nothing. We were not completely against the idea of logistical support, for example. I remember that it was in the motion.

This resonates with me. When the Conservatives have an easy solution to a complex issue, most of the time the fundamental problem is that it is the wrong solution. We are dealing with a complex problem. We are not against a nuanced position, but we are not going to play the Conservatives' games. The Liberals are going to vote for this motion. For three months they said that is not a good idea, but now they will support it. That is really so absurd.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this very important motion.

The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, and jihadi terrorists have declared war on us and pose a real threat. They have targeted Canada specifically, are urging supporters to attack disbelieving Canadians in any manner, vowing that we should not feel secure, even in our own homes.

As a government, we know that our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians from those who would do us and our families harm. That is why Canada is not and will not sit on the sidelines. ISIL has committed heinous acts of brutality against religious minority communities in Iraq and the region. The world watched in shock and horror as tens of thousands of Yazidis were stranded on Mount Sinjar last August after fleeing ISIL en masse under threat of torture, enslavement and death. While many of those Yazidis have since been relocated to safety, ISIL continues to seek out and violently persecute the region's diverse and ancient minority religious communities.

Just recently, ISIL abducted over 220 Assyrian Christians in eastern Syria. Their fate is still unknown and their disappearance, coupled with the worsening state of safety and security in the region, has forced over 1,000 Assyrian Christian families to vacate their homes in fear. This is part of a much wider campaign by ISIL to expel or destroy all those who oppose its warped ideology of division and hate, including Shia and moderate Sunni Muslims.

This extends into ISIL's destruction of Iraq's religious and cultural heritage, where it has targeted sites of shared significance to the Christian, Muslim and broader Arab communities in Iraq. ISIL has sought to destroy the inherent religious diversity Iraq has maintained for hundreds of years and to erase the history of a region known as the cradle of civilization.

Earlier this year, ISIL desecrated the ancient city of Hatra, a UNESCO world heritage site. It ransacked and vandalized the Mosul Museum, destroying hundreds of irreplaceable Assyrian artifacts. Last July, it demolished Jonah's Tomb in Mosul, a site revered by both the local Christians and Muslim communities.

The realities faced by Iraqi Christians epitomizes the severity of ISIL's brutal campaign of persecution. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled their homes, joining an estimated 2.4 million now displaced by the violence. By some estimates, the near total disappearance of Christians from the region is unfolding. Should ISIL's campaign against Iraq's religious minorities continue unencumbered, the fate of the Christian population in Iraq could mirror that of the Jewish community in Iraq, which dwindled from approximately 135,000 in 1948 to less than 100 today.

From an estimated population of 1.3 million Christians in Iraq in 2003, some estimates now put the number of Christians remaining in Iraq at approximately 130,000. ISIL threatens to wipe out the region's pluralism, rooted in the presence of faith communities of diverse creeds living together side by side for millennia. The maintaining of such diversity is crucial for lasting stability.

Without tolerance and respect for religious diversity in Iraq, the chance of building a democratic country grounded in the rule of law is greatly diminished. Iraq's religious minorities have also been targeted under a horrific campaign of sexual and gender-based violence. Unspeakable acts of rape, sexual enslavement and forced marriage against women, girls and boys have been perpetrated by ISIL in the territories it holds.

Canada has been a strong supporter of international efforts to end sexual violence and conflict. Such barbaric acts are an affront to human dignity and Canadian values, and add to the urgency of the call to stop ISIL and re-establish peace and security in the region. The twisted, hateful ideology that motivates ISIL is spreading like a cancer. It is fuelling violence in East Africa, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and throughout the Middle East.

While our government has rightly directed the Canadian military to support our friends and allies in stopping ISIL's advance on the ground, military force alone cannot root out the long-term threat posed by jihadi extremism. Extremism flourishes in an environment without respect and tolerance for religious diversity and religious difference. Legal and social restrictions on religious freedoms, including the prohibitions against blasphemy and apostasy that we have been seeing elsewhere in Muslim-majority countries cannot be allowed to take hold in Iraq; not just because they infringe on the rights of Christians and other minorities to practise their faith, but because they discourage the liberalizing voices within Islam that are crucial to countering the influence of the extremists in the long term.

This is precisely why the government has committed to advancing freedom of religion as a central component of our response to the situation in Iraq. Through the Office of Religious Freedoms, we will be working over the medium and long term to promote interfaith dialogue, to encourage understanding and respect among Iraq's religious communities, and to help build a political and social framework that allows all Iraqis to express their faith freely and without fear.

To that end, the Office of Religious Freedoms has been working diligently to identify and implement initiatives to assist in these efforts. Through the religious freedom fund, the office is supporting a two-year project with minority rights groups internationally that will increase the capacity of local Iraqi civil society organizations to monitor and respond to violations of religious freedom, as well as assist religious communities of all faiths to access vital services.

We will also continue reaching out to our friends and allies to build recognition for the important role religious freedom will play in ensuring long-term sustainable peace in Iraq. Our Ambassador for Religious Freedom, Dr. Andrew Bennett, continues to conduct outreach with Canadian Iraqi religious leaders to identify how best to help Iraq's religious communities under threat and support longer-term religious tolerance and freedom. Ambassador Bennett has also held fruitful discussions in the region with a number of faith-based organizations to explore opportunities for partnership with Canada on the ground.

As a multicultural and multi-faith society, Canada is uniquely qualified to promote the peaceful coexistence of Iraq's various religious and ethnic communities. We have a rich and proud tradition of diversity, respect, and tolerance, a tradition that has yielded peace and prosperity for Canadians. Through our engagement in Iraq, we will honour this tradition by acting against hate and persecution, by championing the values of pluralism and religious freedom and ultimately keeping Canadians safer here at home.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and noted his deep compassion and concern for ethnic and religious minorities.

However, in my opinion, there was a problem. Does he really believe that by bombing left, right and centre we will truly be able to engender tolerance and diversity? Is that how we want to go about it? Or will this only give rise to further intolerance?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is kind of the main difference between the opposition side and the government side in this case. We on the government side believe that we can do both, that we can secure security and still work on humanitarian issues that continue, after there is security in the region, to then work and develop the nation further, and to help the nation further.

At this point, with the security there in Iraq and the movement of ISIL, where it has gone now into Syria, we need to first move in with our military, our air forces, and support our allies to ensure the security of the region, and then we can move on with humanitarian assistance. Even right now, we are supporting with humanitarian assistance where we can. We are providing emergency shelters and medical assistance to thousands of Iraqi civilians in addition to large-scale financial assistance to other governments in the region impacted by the crisis in Syria.

We have the ability to do both things: create security and help in the humanitarian way as well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks from my hon. colleague. I have been hoping for an opportunity to put to him some of the briefing notes that were prepared for our former minister of foreign affairs who has now left the House, John Baird. Over a period of time from 2012 forward, the briefing notes to the minister warned that Syria is not Libya, that getting involved in Syria had different risks. I will quote from them:

There is no Security Council mandate for international military intervention. The Arab League has not called for intervention nor has the Syrian opposition....

...military option not viable, would likely worsen situation.

All of the above factors remain true. There is no UN Security Council resolution. There is no request from the Arab League. There is no request from the Syrian opposition. Could the hon. minister tell us why the government currently believes that a military operation is viable when it had been warned for many years by the Department of Foreign Affairs that it is not?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at no time have we ever said that we were going to get involved in the Syrian civil war. That war would require a much different approach.

What we are dealing with in the motion in front of us today is the expansion and extension of our mission against ISIL. Whereas ISIL was in Iraq, it has moved some of its assets and bases farther into Syria, so we are joining our allies to also move into Syria. There are more than 60 partners with whom we are working. We are joining the U.S., Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already conducting strikes in Syria. It is important that we join those partners in fighting against ISIL.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the member would elaborate quickly on this. If ISIS is able to establish its caliphate in eastern Syria and Iraq, not only what type of situation that would bring to peace and security in the region but also how it might affect us here in Canada?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, allowing ISIL to create a strong base in that region would obviously affect that region in such a brutal manner. We have already seen what it is doing now, and it can only get worse, also for us here at home in Canada where ISIL has directly asked Canadians to attack non-believers within our country. We see situations where we have Canadians who have gone over and trained with ISIL and are trying to come back to Canada. We have the mission against ISIL, which is important. We also have legislation being brought forward in the House now to help us protect Canada before terrorist attacks happen. This is a multi-pronged approach and it is very important to keep Canadians safe.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are six months later, once again talking about extending the mission. What has happened in the past six months? One outcome has been clear: the progress of Daesh has been slowed.

In all honesty, however, in six months and with 60 countries involved, there has not been much progress on the ground. The Kurds won the battle for Kobani. For the first time since June 2014, when the Iraqis fled Mosul, Iraqi forces engaged in attacking Tikrit. However, as we speak, they have decided to stop their advance.

If we look at what is happening right now with the government motion, the strategy seems simple: charge in and see what happens later. There does not appear to be a long-term vision here.

One of the things we have heard over and over, but bears repeating, is the question of whether air strikes in Syria are lawful. When our military allies are not at risk—and for Canada, that means NATO—we cannot go into a country unless it invites us to do so, or a resolution is adopted by the United Nations Security Council. At this time, of course, those criteria do not apply. In fact, despite the fancy footwork of the Minister of National Defence regarding section 51, everyone recognizes that we are not in a situation of legitimate defence, but rather in a pre-emptive war, which is quite different. In his speech, even the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that the tragic attacks against Canada, which we deplore, were inspired by Daesh. They were not perpetrated by Daesh, but inspired by that group, which is an important distinction.

As for the mission itself, the mandate before us is not clear. We have a mission, but we know nothing about the objectives or the strategies. However, we do know the Conservative government's strategy at home in Canada, namely to twist Canadians' arms. The government presents something small, plays with words and then things escalate. That is the government's technique. That is a problem because we do not really know where this is leading us. I would remind the House that this is not the first time the West is intervening in that part of the world. There is a risk of getting stuck there.

What has happened in Iraq since 2003? Of course, Saddam Hussein left, as everyone remembers. I am not saying I would have wanted someone like him to come back, that is not the issue, but what followed his departure was chaos and violence. In fact, the Americans and a coalition went to Iraq to take down a dictator. They stayed there for almost 10 years and after all that, the situation is worse than ever. Are we to believe that using the same recipe is going to lead us to a different outcome?

I have not heard much about what we are going to do once we take care of the Islamic State. History tells us that time and again, violence escalates. Everyone is thinking about ways to thwart the Islamic State's plans, to get rid of all this, but no one is thinking about how to bring stability back to that region.

I would now like to talk about geopolitics in that corner of the world. A few days ago, former general Petraeus, who commanded the American forces in 2007-08, called the conflict zone in Iraq and Syria a geopolitical Chernobyl. That is what he called it. We need to look at what we are getting into. We are talking about Iraq and Syria here, but we cannot forget neighbouring Turkey or, obviously, Iran.

There is also the religion aspect, which we do not hear much about, but it must be taken into account when we look at the different forces at play, whether we are talking about the Sunni, the Shia or the various religious minorities like Christians. There are also the Azerbaijanis. A religious war is not that far off in that part of the world, which could be even more damaging, if that were even possible.

There are also armed groups. Obviously, there are the Kurds. In Syria there is also Hezbollah, which is on the government list of terrorist organizations. It is funny to see that the government and Hezbollah currently have the same objectives in Syria. It is rather bizarre. I know it is hard to swallow, but it is the truth. It is a question of opportunity, is it not?

There are also small ethnic groups we do not hear much about. These are the victims we do not hear about. For example, there are the Bedouin tribes. In the early days of Daesh, 500 Bedouins from one tribe were massacred in just one or two days. Did that make international headlines? No. Did anyone care about what had happened to them? No, of course not, because they are herders. No one took an interest in them, but they paid a very high price in blood.

We are also seeing something else going on. I am referring to what is going on in Yemen. People forget to connect things. Right now, major cities in Yemen are under siege by a minority Shia group called the Houthis.

There is a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, our ally in Iraq and Syria. It is currently bringing some unusual pressure tactics to bear. Saudi Arabia has 150,000 troops at the moment in an operation with 100 fighter jets. The United Arab Emirates have 30 planes. Bahrain and Kuwait have 15 each, and Qatar has 10. The other countries in the coalition are Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan and Morocco. There is a religious context to this because behind the Houthi minority are the Iranians, who themselves also support Shia militias in Iraq as well as Hezbollah and the Syrian government.

With all of those ingredients in the mix, we are approaching something truly catastrophic on a planetary scale. Given the number of Muslims on the planet, the context is very difficult. Has the government taken all of that into account? Absolutely not.

Bombs cannot resolve such a complicated conflict. I do not believe they can. To ease its conscience, the government has been talking more and more about humanitarian aid. What that means is that the Conservatives are not very comfortable with their own position.

Let us think about this. Right now, are we really protecting a religious ethnic minority that has found refuge in Iraq? Not really. Have we created safe places to protect them? Not really.

If the government had chosen the NDP's approach six months ago, would things be any different on the ground? Would minorities be better protected? I think so.

In conclusion, I think that the government's approach—embarking on a crusade—is juvenile, immoral, dangerous and irresponsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, I think the member used the word “crusade”. If that is the case, I hope that, as a reasonable member, he will withdraw it. It is very delicate and irresponsible to use such a word in this context.

The member asked if we have created safe places for religious or ethnic minorities in Iraq. The answer of course is no, because Daesh still controls the Nineveh Plains, the central region of northern Iraq, which is the historic home of the Christians, Assyrians, Yazidis and all those small minority groups.

Furthermore, I am very familiar with that diaspora in Canada. There representatives were here this week. All of those communities and minorities being persecuted by Daesh in Iraq support the use of military force against Daesh, because they understand that there is no other way to win back their historic territories and create a safe place for those communities.

Why does the member not agree with the victims of Daesh?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in two parts. First, considering that this is a very sensitive issue, I have no problem withdrawing the word “crusade”.

As far as the hon. member's other question is concerned, everyone agrees that the Islamic State is evil. However, what we are saying is that there are enough members in our coalition to share the tasks. Canada, whose citizens are more sensitive, should do more in terms of providing humanitarian assistance. We have always said that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech the hon. member just delivered. He really understands the issues.

I would like to come back to the humanitarian aid issue. This evening, the Conservatives bragged about giving large sums of money, when they are giving only 5¢ a day to the 2.5 million refugees living in abject poverty.

What does my colleague think people can do with that 5¢ a day, when they need schools, hospitals, housing, tents, shelters and so forth? Is that enough money?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. No matter where in the world you live, 5¢ a day does not go very far. You cannot buy what you want.

You have to start with the basics in order to combat radicalization and eventually achieve peace. You must first meet people's basic needs. As I was saying earlier in response to the previous question, it is important to enhance this aspect of the international collective effort.

It seems easy to invest in bombs and much more difficult to invest in humanitarian aid. When the immediate crisis has been resolved, everyone will forget the ongoing humanitarian crisis. At that point, new hotbeds of radicalization will be created and we must avoid that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, which addresses the Prime Minister's announcement of a motion to debate an extension and expansion of Canada's military mission against ISIL.

Earlier today, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness explained in detail to the House that ISIL has indeed targeted Canada and Canadians by name. Just a few hours ago, we heard from Canada's Minister of National Defence about the devastation ISIL has caused in the Middle East and the magnitude of the problem if we permit ISIL to continue to perpetuate such atrocities not only in the Middle East but around the world. He explained the threat it poses right here at home in Canada to all of us as Canadians.

As the Prime Minister said, we cannot protect Canada and our communities by simply choosing to ignore this threat. I was concerned by the remarks of both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party. While the Prime Minister outlined the grave threat ISIL poses to Canada and the international community as a whole, both leaders of the opposition parties refused to even acknowledge it. It is evident that they do not take the threat of jihadist terrorism against Canadians seriously, even when it has already struck us at the very core of our democratic institution, right here in Canada's Parliament.

Both opposition leaders and their parties are woefully unprepared to take the steps necessary to protect Canadians. On this side of the House, we will fight to thwart this threat against us and will help in the protection of millions of innocent lives caught on the front lines of this conflict.

It is important to note that while our government is contributing to the military mission against ISIL, Canada is also among the top humanitarian and development assistance donors in both Iraq and Syria.

As we consider Canada's involvement in the international mission against the Islamic extremist jihadist group known as ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, it is important that we take into account its effect on our government's efforts to resettle refugees. Indeed, the ongoing violence in the region has led to a high number of refugees and forcibly displaced persons, not to mention indiscriminate, shocking, and horrific brutality toward civilians. Our government has been, and will continue to be, a world leader in permanently resettling refugees.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Refugee Agency have described the ongoing catastrophe as the largest humanitarian crisis in a generation. Both the violence in the region and its accompanying refugee crisis are utterly tragic situations.

Our country has a long history and a great humanitarian tradition of providing protection for those who have been persecuted on the basis of their religion, their ethnicity, their group identity, or their political beliefs and have had to flee their homelands.

This tradition of refugee protection predates Confederation. Canada was a place of refuge for slaves fleeing the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, and later for Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, among others, fleeing oppression in eastern Europe in the late 1800s. In the second half of the 20th century, Canada welcomed thousands of Hungarians and Czechs who had escaped Soviet tyranny. More recently, we have brought in refugees from Africa and the Middle East. Now, we have been called upon to help with the ongoing crisis in Syria and Iraq.

It is because of this crisis that the world is now witnessing a level of forced displacement that we have not seen in decades. Canada is answering that call.

Earlier this year my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, announced that Canada would resettle an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next three years on top of our 2013 commitment of 1,300 resettled spaces for Syrian refugees. This new commitment represents 10% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' appeal to help resettle 100,000 Syrian refugees, and it is in keeping with Canada's record of resettling one in ten of the world's resettled refugees.

The minister also announced that Canada would resettle an additional 3,000 Iraqi refugees, bringing our total Iraqi resettlement commitment to 23,000 Iraqi refugees resettled in Canada since 2009.

We have met this commitment by already resettling more than 20,000 Iraqi refugees since 2009, the vast majority of these refugees have been resettled out of Syria. We have also committed to resettle 5,000 additional refugees from Turkey, a commitment that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made in his visit to Turkey a couple of years ago.

This morning I heard the member for Vancouver Quadra speak, and I was troubled to hear her say that we had not provided any new humanitarian aid. As I previously mentioned, on January 7, the Minister of International Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced increased humanitarian effort and that Canada would accept additional refugees from the region. I have also heard in this debate that we need to give more humanitarian aid, not military intervention.

The military actions our government is proposing today do not preclude humanitarian action. This is not a case of either/or. It is a case, indeed, of both, and Canada, this government, is stepping up to the plate.

These commitments are in keeping with Canada's long-standing and well-respected international reputation for generosity, for humanitarianism and leadership in providing protection to the world's most vulnerable people. Indeed, since the Second World War, Canadians have provided refuge to more than one million people.

Given our relatively small population, we have reason to be proud of Canada's record in resettling displaced and vulnerable people around the world, and we are pleased to be able to continue to do that with the support of the Canadian people.

Today, we maintain one of the world's largest and most generous resettlement programs, welcoming one in ten refugees resettled worldwide, more than almost any other industrialized nation in the world.

I would like to take a moment to talk about my personal experience that occurred last year. I had the opportunity to travel with our Prime Minister to Israel and Jordan. When we arrived in Jordan, a number of colleagues and I had the opportunity to visit a crossing point from Syria into Jordan. As it happened, we were there no more than 20 minutes when the sirens went off. We looked out into the desert. We were right on the line there, and sure enough, about 150 people were walking across the desert after having walked three days through the desert to find Jordan, to find a place of refuge.

I had the opportunity to speak with some of these people, to hug them, to aid them and to see how much humanitarian aid we did provide, through different programs through international aid in Canada and through out partners in Jordan, to those people, and the importance of that assistance to them.

I was moved to know that our government permanently resettles and assists the world's most vulnerable individuals, as the refugees I witnessed crossing into Jordan.

As a Canadian, I am very proud of our compassionate traditions. I am glad I have had the opportunity to discuss Canada's remarkable efforts to resettle in the context of today's important debate. I am proud to stand in support of our government's extended military effort against ISIL, and infinitely proud to stand in support of our brave men and women in our armed forces who serve our country today.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my colleague's speech.

First, he began by saying that the Leader of the Opposition did not even recognize the threat posed by the Islamic State. To say such a thing is tantamount to admitting that he has not followed the debate in the House or that he only hears what he wants to hear. The Leader of the Opposition has recognized the threat that this group represents on several occasions. Not only has he recognized the threat to Canada and Canadians, but he has also recognized the government's duty to protect the people and help achieve international peace and security. That has to be said.

Second, the parliamentary secretary spoke about the aid provided by Canada to Syria. Since we are talking about it, we should point out that it was not until this week that the government honoured its two-year-old pledge to take in 1,000 Syrian refugees. We should also point that out.

The question I have for my colleague is this: what responsibility does he believe the UN has and what international rights are involved in Canada's participation in a war? Is the UN just a nice symbol that serves only to protect national monuments or does it also have a role and a say in a country's decision as to whether or not to participate in an armed conflict as significant as the one we are facing?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member came in defence of her leader, the leader of the official opposition. On CBC, he said all that was asked of Canada by the Iraqis was help with the humanitarian crisis. It is totally and clearly a false statement. How a leader of a political party in Canada, who was here the day we had that intrusion by a terrorist who killed a very bright, young soldier with a future, Corporal Nathan Cirillo, not a stone's throw away from Parliament Hill, could make a comment like that is beyond logic.

It is important that all members of the House set aside their partisan lines and party positions. It is important for us to realize what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a jihadist movement that has declared war on our country and on Canadians. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to do something about that. The members of the opposition need to reflect on their actions because, truthfully, I believe it is shameful.