Debates of March 30th, 2015

Government Business Motion No. 17

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from an air force officer to an infantryman, the role of the air force is to support the ground forces, in this case, the Iraqi ground forces, the equipment and the advantages that ISIL currently maintains on the ground, and enable the Iraqi troops to move forward and retake their own territory. The role, quite simply, is to destroy ISIL so it is no longer be effective and pose a threat to Canada.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that even in a debate as divisive as this one, there is one thing that all parties and all members have in common. We are all committed to keeping Canadians safe. It is therefore disappointing, even if predictable, to hear the government suggest that members who disagree with it are failing to uphold Canadian values.

As I said a few weeks ago in Calgary, we can be very critical of each other's policies without debating each other's patriotism.

That is certainly true when it comes to the debate on the motion before us today. We must confront ISIL. We all agree on that. Where we disagree is on the most effective way for Canada to intervene.

The Liberal Party will not support the government's motion to extend Canada's combat role in Iraq and expand it into Syria.

I wish to use my time today to put our opposition into a broader context, to describe what Liberals believe would be a more effective course of action in the region and here at home.

Our approach to this mission, indeed to any military engagement, centres around four core principles.

First, Canada does have a role to play in responding to humanitarian crises and security threats in the world. As I have already stated, there is consensus in the House on that point.

Second, when we deploy the Canadian Forces, especially into combat operations, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada. Here is where our disagreement begins. A full week has passed since the Prime Minister first rose on this issue, and the government still has not clearly articulated this mission's objectives. Indeed, as we saw last week, there is not even consensus as to what the ultimate goal is.

Are we only seeking to degrade ISIL's capabilities, as the Prime Minister stated, or are we attempting to defeat them outright, as the Minister of National Defence suggested? If it is to defeat them, are we willing to admit that it may take more than air strikes? Are we willing to admit that it may well mean bombing in Yemen and other countries? Will our involvement in this mission end next March, or was the Minister of Foreign Affairs being more truthful when he explicitly compared this war to Afghanistan, saying that we were in this for the longer term? Let us remember, in Afghanistan the longer term meant 10 years not 12 months.

We cannot allow rhetorical appeals to moral clarity to disguise the absence of a plan.

Third, the Liberal Party cannot support any military mission when the arguments to support it have not been presented in an open and transparent manner.

When we supported the first phase of the mission, it was with the understanding that the length and scope of the mission would be limited, in other words, that it would end after 30 days and it would be limited to non-combat support.

The Prime Minister told Canadians that the purpose of the mission would be to advise and to assist, and that the Canadian troops were not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat. We now know that Canadian troops have been at the front lines, calling in air strikes and engaging in several direct firefights.

In a matter of months, despite assurances to the contrary, the government steadily and stealthily drew Canada into a deeper ground combat role in Iraq. With this motion, it seeks to deepen our involvement even further.

How can we trust a government that so deliberately misleads Canadians, first on the nature of our role and now on the duration of our commitment?

The government wants to increase Canada's participation in a vague and possibly endless combat mission. We cannot support this proposal.

Finally, we believe that any time Canada engages in a military mission, our role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities and how best we can help, something this motion, with its singular focus on a military solution, fails to do. We know that the men and women who serve in our military are well-trained professionals, deeply committed to our country and very good at what they do.

Canada has a duty to act here at home and around the world. We can provide our police and intelligence services with the resources they need to do their jobs, while ensuring that the appropriate oversight mechanisms are in place, because we all agree that anyone who commits a terrorist act in Canada or conspires to commit such an act should be dealt with by our courts in the toughest possible way.

We can stop shortchanging our armed forces. The government's pattern of demanding more while offering less, of cutting defence spending and allowing billions already budgeted for defence to go unspent must stop. We can work closely with our international partners to starve ISIL of its resources, including by preventing it from using the international financial system.

We can urge the Iraqi government to continue its political reforms and its outreach to the country's Sunni community. We can work with communities in Canada to reduce the risk of radicalization among young people. We can do that without singling out or stigmatizing any one group of Canadians.

The atrocities that Islamic State militants have committed are widely known. They are killing innocent civilians, ethnic and religious minorities, humanitarian workers and journalists. The Assad regime in Syria has committed similar horrific acts. The UN has confirmed numerous incidents where chemical weapons were used against civilians. The acts committed by ISIL and by Assad are horrendous, and we have every reason to be outraged.

However, in a situation as complex and volatile as the one that the world faces in Syria and Iraq, we must not allow our outrage to cloud our judgment. Canada and its allies have learned some important lessons in recent years, at great cost. We have learned about the dangers of drifting into expanded combat roles without a clear idea of how the fighting will eventually end. We have learned that deploying western combat forces in this region can lead to what President Obama has called “unintended consequences”. We have learned that unless we approach a mission like this with a clear understanding of its political and military environment, and unless we match our goals to that reality, we risk making the situation worse, not better.

Responsibility to protect, a doctrine to which the Minister of National Defence has seemingly become a recent convert, spells this out clearly. Intervention must not make matters worse.

In Syria, after four years of all-out war, over 11 million Syrians—over half the population—have been driven from their homes. Syrians have fled their country by the millions, causing a refugee crisis throughout the region. In five years of combat, over 210,000 Syrians have been killed, including over 10,000 children. This is the result of the civil war, a war during which the Syrian people have been terrorized and killed by their own government.

We cannot support a mission that could very well further consolidate Assad's power in Syria.

Rather than continuing to deepen our combat mission in Iraq and Syria, Canada's interests are better served by an approach that combines military training for Iraqi forces fighting ISIL with humanitarian aid and expanded resettlement efforts here in Canada.

Our military training should take place away from the front lines, as our allies have been doing. We did this in Afghanistan and we can do it in Iraq. We should also be realistic about the timelines involved. Training local forces to fight ISIL will take time, not just six months, as we have seen, or even one year.

The government owes it to Canadians to be more honest about how long this mission will truly last. In addition to building on the training we are providing to Iraqi forces, Canada should intensify its support through adequately funded and well-planned humanitarian aid, together with our allies and under the auspices of the United Nations.

Enhancing our humanitarian aid effort will do more than just provide assistance and bring renewed hope to those who desperately need it. Intensifying our effort will also support political and economic security in the neighbouring countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon and our NATO ally, Turkey, countries whose ability to take care of millions of Syrian refugees has already been severely tested.

Here at home, we also have an opportunity to significantly expand our refugee targets and give more victims of war the opportunity to start a new life in Canada. The government's plan to sponsor 4,000 Syrian refugees over three years was a good start, but it follows on a poor track record and does not go nearly far enough.

To quote Britain's former foreign secretary:

Resettlement will not end the war, but it can rescue some of the most vulnerable victims of the fighting — the raped and tortured, at-risk women and children, those with acute medical needs.

Canada has an opportunity to help these victims of war and a moral obligation to do more than token assistance. To that end, we believe that the federal government should immediately expand to 25,000 the number of refugees that it commits to accept, and that it directly sponsor all of those refugees. That target, and the cost associated with it, should be in addition to our existing global refugee intake targets and the resources dedicated to meeting them.

To put that number in context, under the leadership of former prime minister Joe Clark, Canada resettled 60,000 Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian refugees. The target I am suggesting today also reflects the scale of effort that Canada should undertake in a world with the largest number of refugees since the end of the Second World War. Of course, the Canadian refugee system must continue to be secure, and we must take all steps required to verify refugee claims.

Let us always remember that when we open our doors to those who seek refuge, it is not a one-sided deal. Our own Canadian experience is made better by everything they bring with them: their intelligence, their hard work, their resilience, their language, culture, and religion. We know that when we welcome those who have turned to Canada for help in times of desperation, we are strengthened, not in spite of our differences but because of them.

Training, humanitarian aid, and resettlement help for refugees are the elements of a serious, smart, and sustained approach to the crises in Iraq and Syria. We would also encourage the government to take a broader, less reactive approach to security challenges. We need to work on preventing threats before they materialize rather than just reacting to them after the fact.

I am not saying that just because humanitarian crises often occur in fragile countries, but also because the chronic lack of political and economic security in those countries makes it more likely that they will attract transnational militants who may use them as a base from where they can organize, grow and recruit. That is what the Islamic State is doing at present.

When it makes sense to do so, we should help strengthen the security forces in those regions so they can counter such threats. However, history has shown us that military action alone does not create lasting stability because it only deals with the symptoms of the instability and not the root cause.

We will make little headway in ending conflict and radicalization if we do not address the underlying causes of both—the root causes—including more governance and lack of economic opportunity. That is not just my opinion. NATO's supreme commander, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, put the same concerns solidly on the record last December.

I would like to end on something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the House last week. When he stood to introduce this motion, he said something that I do not think we can let stand unchallenged. He said that those who oppose this mission are “dismissing Canadian values”.

I suspect that the government has, and not for the first time, mistaken the values of the Conservative Party of Canada for the values of the people of Canada.

The values of openness and honesty, which the government has failed to demonstrate since the start of this mission last October, are important to Canadians. Canadians like to learn from past experience, something the government has chosen not to do. Canadians cherish our country's longstanding tradition of helping those in need and showing leadership in diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. This government puts military action first and provides much less than what is required to help people in need.

It is not surprising that the government is attempting to shift this to a debate on Canadian values or moral clarity. That is what the current government always does when it knows that its policy cannot bear scrutiny.

Canada has an interest in training and helping Iraqi forces to fight and defeat ISIL, but we should not fight this war for them. We should not drift deeper and deeper into a civil war that may well go on for a very long time. Our position is clear: expanding this mission into Syria, committing our armed forces to the dangers of an ill-defined combat mission, does not serve our national interest. We believe this, come what may.

Canadians did not send us to this House to read polls and to guess at what they want. They did not put us here to stick a finger in the wind and follow whichever way it seems to be blowing. They put us here to stand on principle and lead. That is exactly what we intend to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, that member continues his shambolic, embarrassing, fatuous flip-flopping on this matter of essential international security. This is the member who characterized the policy of the Government of Canada, in responding positively to a request from the Government of Iraq to coordinate with dozens of other nations in a military action against a genocidal terrorist organization, as the Prime Minister wanting to “whip out [his] CF-18s and show [us] how big they are”.

This comes from a leader who is so profoundly unserious on such matters of national security, who ridiculed the equipment of the Royal Canadian Air Force as a bunch of “aging warplanes”. We ought not to be surprised. It is the same leader who said that the country in the world that he most admires is the “basic dictatorship” of China, and who joked about innocent civilians being shot in Kiev because of a hockey game. That is the seriousness of this member for Papineau.

He talks about refugees. He does not acknowledge that the largest refugee resettlement program to this country since the boat people was the 20,000-plus Iraqi refugees resettled by this government. That is a community that I know well. The Assyrians, the Kurds, and all of them, say to us to please continue with the military action.

Why does the member not understand that we cannot stop further humanitarian victims of ISIL's genocide without military action?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and the question at the end of it.

What I would like to highlight is that the Liberal Party has always stood firmly that Canada does have a role to play in combatting ISIL. We believe that is something we need to continue to do. We need to do it in a way that is thoughtful and based on honest, open plans and success.

I find it quite ironic that this is the minister getting up to mention some of my misspeaks, many of which I have fully acknowledged and owned up to, at the same time as he has refused to apologize for completely mischaracterizing a religious ritual as being ISIS enslavement. He has consistently misled in terms of precision bombing, in terms of misspeaking. He is now referred to as more gaff-prone than any other MP in this House.

Quite frankly, that is not the kind of rigour that we need from a defence minister, and it is certainly not the kind of rigour that until now this minister had a reputation for. He is completely out of his depth in this particular portfolio, and I think we all see it.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Papineau for his speech. Obviously he was trying to clarify the Liberal Party's position on the mission in Iraq and Syria.

His efforts are all the more commendable and necessary given that the members of the Liberal caucus have been issuing all sorts of opinions and constantly changing their minds. I hope that we have heard the almost final version today, even though there are still some points that require clarification. That being said, despite the hesitation and confusion, I am pleased to see that the third party has finally gotten on board with some of the positions that we have been defending for months.

I would like to ask the member for Papineau if he is going to support the amendment that we proposed. The amendment suggests that the government end the participation of Canadian Forces troops in combat, boost humanitarian aid in the region, work with our allies in the region to stabilize neighbouring countries, provide assistance to investigations and prosecution of war crimes, increase assistance for refugees and work to prevent the flow of foreign fighters, finances and resources to ISIL.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The Liberal Party's position has been clear from the start. We supported the government when it approached us last August with its proposal to send Canadian troops to Iraq to conduct training. We supported the 30-day mission that was Canada's first commitment to Iraq.

Since then, we have stayed the course. We are saying no to a combat mission. We are saying yes to our soldiers' involvement in a training mission and to increasing humanitarian aid and assistance for refugees. That has always been our position.

The motion, the position and the amendment of our official opposition friends clearly indicate that the Canadian army and our soldiers have no role to play. We do not agree with that. We think that our armed forces have the capacity to provide real training assistance. That is why we are taking the same position we have from the start.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal Party leader and member for Papineau speak about the Canadian national interest and Canadian values, and I note that the mission that has been put forward for discussion has four actions, but those actions do not have a single word about or a single dollar added for humanitarian assistance or assistance with refugees.

I would like to ask the member for his thoughts about how the national interest and Canadian values have been served in the past by welcoming victims of war to Canada.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for her question. I thank her as well for the extraordinary work she has done on this file as the Liberal critic for national defence.

The fact of the matter is that Canada has a long tradition of being a safe haven for people in war-torn parts of the world. It is not just out of the goodness of our hearts. It has also been because it has been tremendously beneficial to have a country built on the hopes and dreams of people trying to create a better future for themselves, their community, and mostly, future generations.

Time and time again, Canada has stepped up and has done way more than its size would mandate in the community of nations, whether it was drawing in the boat people, as I recognized, or whether it was Ismaili Muslims fleeing the ravages of East Africa under Idi Amin, or in more recent times, Tamils fleeing the civil war. More recently it was Iraqis. The fact is, Canada is a country that welcomes people from the world and understands how important it is.

It is unfortunate that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not been able, over the past year, to be very clear about how many Syrian refugees we have accepted and how many more we will accept , which is why Liberals have been unequivocal that we need to accept 25,000 more refugees from this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that the Liberal's position has been clear. Nothing could be further from the truth and the revisionism this afternoon is not going to solve that issue.

I want him to clarify some comments we heard earlier.

At the outset I'd like to make it clear where my party stands on Iraq and ISIS.

...if we don't want these refugee camps to become permanent fixtures on the landscape, then ISIS has to be dislodged and eventually defeated. ISIS is indeed a threat to world security and Canada can't just say it's not our problem, because it is our problem.

Those comments were made by his foreign affairs critic, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

I would like to ask him, if Canadians are not going to solve that problem, who should solve it? When is he going to actually step up and say that we need to actively engage in solving this problem and give up the hopeless naiveté he has displayed this afternoon?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the extraordinary work done by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, our foreign affairs critic, highlighting, indeed, that ISIL needs to be prevented from continuing to destabilize the region, going after civilians, and posing a threat to Canada and countries around the world.

My disagreement with the government is on the way to do it. An ill-defined mission that may well involve reinforcing Bashar al-Assad's bloody hold over Syria is not the best use of Canada's involvement. I have always been unequivocal, as has the Liberal Party, that Canada has a role to play in combatting ISIL, like the 60-some other members of the coalition. We will step up on refugees, on humanitarian, and on significant training, the way we developed capacities to do so in our years in Afghanistan. We can be proud of our strong men and women.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I welcome the opportunity to add to the debate on our continuing mission against the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL, or Daesh. One can take one's pick. A lot of ink has been spilled and a lot of emotion has been expended, but I submit that it is not all that complicated. To understand why we are there in the first place, people only have to google images of ISIS, but they should be prepared with a strong stomach.

The list of ISIS atrocities is so long, one barely knows where to begin, whether it is with the beheadings, the crucifixions, the enslavements, or its inspiration of others. It is in the latter that ISIS represents a threat to Canada. The perpetrators of murders against members of the Canadian Armed Forces last October were not members of ISIS per se, but they were ideal recruits.

We know that about 70 Canadians have gone to Iraq and Syria to fight with ISIS, and we know that CSIS is looking closely at about 140 more. We know that if CSIS says 140, the real number is much higher.

The October terrorist-inspired murders were carried out by people who had been radicalized. Some want to chalk it up to simple mental illness. To be sure, they had to be mentally ill to carry out those murders, but they were the type of people who make ideal ISIS hand grenades simply waiting for their pins to be pulled at random.

There are more of them out there, and we simply must remain vigilant and give our security forces the capacity they need to keep us as safe as possible from those threats. ISIS has singled out Canada, and we would be very foolish not to take them at their word. Some have glibly said that there are more people killed by lightning or other causes in Canada than by terrorists. That is true, and I want to keep it that way.

ISIS's crimes are crimes against humanity. This is not any one leader's war; this is humanity's war. There are indeed other movements that may be equally bad but not that approach ISIS's codified evil, made possible by its pretensions to be a state. It is an ideology that can be defeated, but the first step must be to eliminate the state structure that supports the ideology and whose very existence is what draws others to it.

Sixty-two countries are now supporting the U.S.-led operation, including all 26 NATO countries and many in the region. People speak of international law and the United Nations. I would remind members of the responsibility to protect doctrine that was adopted by the United Nations at the urging of Canada, and especially by former Prime Minister Paul Martin. Where a government cannot or will not protect its citizens, the international community has a responsibility to step in. It seems that the current Liberal leadership has lost sight of its past.

Would we be advocating a formal responsibility to protect? No, we would not, because that would subordinate our foreign policy to Russia and China. However, do we stand by the essence of the responsibility to protect? Absolutely, we do. That is one of the reasons we are there.

As well, under article 51, a nation or nations may take action as a right of self-defence. Due to the actions threatened, and in fact carried out by ISIS and its adherents, the coalition was justified in taking action. The U.S. made that clear to the United Nations with respect to operations in Syria, and Canada will do the same.

Operations in Iraq are more straightforward with the invitation from the Government of Iraq to help them in their fight against ISIS. The alternative, if the allied countries had not begun to take action against ISIS, both in Iraq and eastern Syria, is that we would have today an organization in control of most of Iraq and roughly half of Syria, with its own energy revenues and its military expansion unchecked.

Our mission, as originally conducted, and the expansion into air operations in Syria, is not about supporting Bashar al-Assad. It is about saving lives and eliminating a virulent threat to humanity. The threat of ISIS will be eliminated when it can no longer use Syria or Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks directly or by proxy against people around the world. That does not mean that Bashar al-Assad is now our friend. He is still a war criminal, mass murderer, ethnic cleanser, and deadly fanatic. He must be dealt with at a later time, but the most pressing priority is what to do about ISIS.

Benjamin Netanyahu said it well before the U.S. Congress when, in reference to Iran, he said that “the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy”. That applies in spades to Bashar al-Assad.

Let us talk for a few minutes about the mission itself. For the past six months, we have had 69 special forces personnel helping to train Iraqi Kurdish military elements in the conduct of combat operations. We are not there in a ground combat mission of our own. If we were, we would have an awful lot more troops there and an awful lot more equipment.

Iraq is a dangerous place, and there will always be risk in any mission in a hostile environment. Canadian soldiers accept that risk willingly. If we were to use the current verbiage by the opposition and the media to define combat mission, then I would suggest that virtually every one of our peacekeeping missions was, in fact, a combat mission.

Wherever we operate, our soldiers are always prepared to provide self-defence, and that is what they do when they are with the Kurdish forces, away from the garrison.

Our snipers are, arguably, the best in the business. When they use pinpoint fire to provide a safe extraction from a dangerous situation, that is not a real firefight, as much as the media and the opposition love to use exciting language.

The rules are simple. When the bad guys shoot at the good guys, the good guys get to kill the bad guys. Tragically, from time to time, in any war, the good guys occasionally shoot at the good guys. When that happens, thorough investigations will identify causes and corrective action, but wars will always be subject to uncertainties.

That training mission will continue unchanged by this motion. Only two things will change as a result of this motion. Operations will be extended for 12 months, and that is an entirely logical and justified position. The job will be done when the job is done. People need to remember that the enemy has a vote on when that happens. On September 3, 1939, did anyone know that war in Europe would be over in May 1945, or in the Pacific in August 1945?

The only other thing that will change is that six CF-18 Hornets, two CP-140 Auroras surveillance aircraft, and one CC-150 Polaris air refuelling aircraft will support the air operation mission over Syria as well as Iraq. The Iraq-Syria border has been effectively erased by the successes of ISIS' territorial operations. Operations by the forces of Bashar al-Assad are confined to western Syria, and our area of operations will be in the eastern part of the country. All three types of aircraft that the Royal Canadian Air Force has committed are ideally suited to the task.

The CF-18 Hornets are obviously the teeth of the operation, and the level of mission effectiveness with their systems and weapons available make them a key part of a much larger coalition operation. I would remind anyone who still needs to know that the aircraft is 56 feet long, 40 feet wide, 15 feet tall, and weighs 52,000 pounds.

This past weekend, I spent some time with one of the pilots from 409 Tactical Fighter Squadron based at Cold Lake, who had recently returned from his first tour of combat operations in Iraq.

As Canada has done in other conflicts, it can wield a big stick, but it does so with great care and restraint to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties to the maximum extent possible. Throughout the mission planning process, and indeed, throughout the missions, which can last six to eight hours, there is constant contact and verification that an attack is appropriate in all respects. There is a “red card holder” on the ground with all of the electronic and human information who has the final authority to allow a weapons release to proceed. The pilot, of course, has the ultimate final authority when he presses the pickle button. Very often, pilots return with their weapons if there is any doubt at all.

The CC-150 refuellers play a key role with the fighters from Canada and our allies to give our aircraft the legs to conduct all operations. The CP-140 Auroras' capabilities have been, perhaps, the wild card in Canada's contribution. Their capability to provide intelligence gathering, surveillance, and targeting support have been remarkable and highly praised by everyone with whom they operate. To use a common expression, they are magic.

This mission is not just about bringing ISIS to its knees militarily; it is also about bringing relief to the innocent people of the region caught up in the conflict. Just as we are in a kinetic mission, Canada is doing more than its share in the humanitarian mission as well. Canada is the sixth largest contributor to the humanitarian mission in Syria, and the fifth largest contributor in Iraq. Some 1.7 million Iraqis are eating because of Canada. Another 1.2 million have shelter because of Canada. Some 500,000 children are going to school because of Canada. There is much more.

Somebody across the way wanted numbers. Canada has contributed $700 million to humanitarian aid in Syria since 2011. That is not chump change. More recently, Canada has contributed $67.4 million to humanitarian aid in Iraq. They wanted numbers, so they got numbers.

It is not an either/or mission. Canada will continue to exercise its humanitarian and security obligations on the international stage.

I am disappointed but not surprised that the NDP members oppose the motion and the mission. I do not say that unkindly, because that is simply who they are, and that is their right, even as they are offside with the majority of Canadians. I must admit to more disappointment and some surprise at the opposition of the Liberal Party. I believe that people like Mackenzie King may be looking down in dismay at the moment. I believe there are at least a few among the Liberal éminences grises who are shaking their heads today.

Canada has the capacity to exercise strength and compassion, and that is what it has done proudly throughout its history. That is what makes me proud to be a Canadian and proud to support this motion to help bring at least some measure of safety and stability to a very troubled part of our world, and security to Canadians here in the greatest country in the world.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two very simple questions for my colleague.

First, what is the legal justification for intervening in Syria? How does the member explain the fact that our NATO partners, aside from the United States, will not participate in the mission in Syria? That is the first part of my question.

The second part is also very simple. Who will represent Canada at the pledging conference for Syria, which starts tomorrow in Kuwait?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in respect to the second question, I just do not know. I am sorry. That answer can come from somebody else.

With respect to the first question about reasons or justification for it, Canada will lead, as Canada has done in the past.

The U.S. is in Syria for a number of reasons: one, the responsibility to protect, which they take seriously and we take seriously; two, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. and their allies for help in Iraq and Syria.

The NATO allies are in fact participating in other areas. When Canada joins the U.S. and the Arab countries in Syria, I would not be surprised at all to see other NATO allies follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite define the military scope of this mission in very defined and stark geographic terms, but fighting terrorism is fighting an idea. It is fighting a mindset. No sooner do we bomb one part of the world than the very same idea pops up in another part of the world. In fact, we are seeing this with ISIL and ISIS right now. It claims to have on-the-ground representation in a half dozen countries in the region and across North Africa. In fact, we have seen people take arms up in this country.

If it is an idea we are fighting, how do we bomb an idea out of existence?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we could deal with ideas and ideology and simply solve it by education or pointing out how wrong they are, how evil they are, we would never have gone to war with the Nazis in World War II.

The simple fact is we cannot just fight an idea with words. We have to fight the people who are spreading the ideology with the only thing they understand, and that is military force. It does not mean we ignore root causes, which we are happy to talk about. I agree that there are root causes and we have to deal with those root causes, but in the meantime, there are things that must be done militarily to allow the kind of humanitarian aid and dealing with root causes to actually take effect. We cannot take a Pollyanna attitude that we just yell at them or tell them how wrong they are and somehow they are going to change. ISIS will not change.

I was asked by Julie Van Dusen back in September what to do about ISIS, and my comment was simple: kill them. That is what we have to do with those particular people, not everybody, but those folks, because we cannot negotiate with those kinds of people; we simple cannot.

To defeat an ideology, we also have to defeat the people who are spreading the ideology and will continue to do that regardless of what we do in this part of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague outlined the things that Canada is doing as far as humanitarian assistance is concerned. This is not an either/or mission. We have to do both, and we have to degrade ISIS so that we can continue to get the humanitarian assistance in there. People who live in Iraq want their own country back.

A week ago in The Economist, there was an article under “Leaders”. I want to read a little bit of this paragraph. It says:

Syria will not be pacified soon—possibly not for many years. Until that moment, IS can lurk there, controlling swathes in the east, destabilising Sunni areas of Iraq and biding its time until it has another chance to rise up.

It goes on at the end:

It would still pose a grave threat to the outside world and would need constant watching. But degradation would make it easier to contain than it is today.

I wonder if my colleague has any comments on that paragraph.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the point of dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria is so that they do not have the base from which to launch attacks, either directly or by proxy, on people in that area or people around the world. That is why we went into Afghanistan, frankly, in the first place.

I would repeat one thing I said during my comments. If anybody wants to know why we are in Iraq and now Syria doing that, for goodness' sake, just google images of ISIS. If one can stand it, one will see very clearly why we are there.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my respect for our Canadian soldiers who risk their lives every day on the many missions carried out around the world.

I am pleased to speak today to this government motion to extend the military mission in Iraq. I think that as parliamentarians, we should always ask ourselves what role our country should play in the world in response to conflict and threats. We also have a duty to ask ourselves whether we have the resources to serve our ambitions and, most importantly, whether we are acting in our own best interests or in the best interests of others.

Since this Conservative government was elected in 2006, it has actively worked to redefine Canada as a military country. Is that truly the role we should play in the world, when we have just over 35 million people?

In the recent past, Canadians were known around the world as a country of peacekeepers and peacemakers. Our country was also known for its humanitarian assistance. At the UN, Canada even championed development by calling for an overall contribution equivalent to 0.7% of the GNP of the richest countries in the global fight against poverty.

There are currently only about 300 Canadian peacekeepers left on missions around the world. In 2013, CIDA was absorbed by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Canada's image has been changing bit by bit. When I participated in foreign missions, most of the elected representatives and ministers I met in those countries, particularly in the Middle East, asked me what was going on with Canada. This rebranding of who Canadians are in the eyes of the world must stop.

Here is another question: the Prime Minister wants to get involved in conflicts, but do we have the means to go to war? Do we have the means to fulfill the Prime Minister's ambitions? This March, Canada's remaining troops are coming back from Afghanistan. How much did the mission in Afghanistan cost us? That is a good question. In 2008, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, predicted that the mission would cost $18.1 billion. When I hear that number, I think of everything we could have done with $18 billion. That is incredible. He also said it would take years to get final numbers on what Afghanistan cost us.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's very recent analysis in the report of February 17, 2015, entitled “Cost Estimate of Operation IMPACT in Iraq”, which deals with the Prime Minister's first six-month mission, the estimated incremental cost of Operation IMPACT ranges between a high of $166.4 million and a low of $128.8 million. That is for six months, and furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not have all the figures.

Accordingly, the estimated incremental cost of Operation IMPACT for a 12-month mission, which is what the Prime Minister wants, since the motion calls for extending the mission until March 30, 2016, ranges between a high of $351.2 million and a low of $242.7 million. That is on top of the more than $166.4 million the first six-month mission cost us. It is worth noting that the full costs for Canada’s most recent overseas mission, which was Operation Mobile in Libya, were almost six times the reported incremental costs for the mission.

The actual cost is always greater than the estimated cost. The government can certainly tell us that it will cost x dollars, but we can expect there to be a gap, if not an abyss, between the actual cost and the estimated cost.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for the government to be able to wage its wars, it would have to inject funds into defence or simply reduce its military ambitions. However, that does not fit with its ideology.

All these billions of dollars that the government wasted on useless and ineffective military missions could have been invested in humanitarian aid. Yes, it handed out a few crumbs, we can all agree on that, but it could have given more because those activities work in the long term. It also could have helped lift the local populations out of poverty and injustice. That is what Canada is good at.

Instead of all those nice things, this government chooses to go to war. It wants to be the champion of fighting terrorism, but for now, unfortunately, the people are just being lulled by the government into believing that it is working for their security. It wants to create a sense of security, but this is not security. The government is creating bogus laws to distract people and have them believe that it is protecting them.

If this government invested just 10% of all the billions of dollars it is investing in the war to help prevent violent extremism, a lot fewer young people would leave Canada to join Jihadist groups in Iraq, Syria or even Somalia.

Moreover, whose interests are we defending on these missions? Is it truly the interests of Canadians? Canada belongs to a coalition led by the United States, but what is the goal of the United States, which is in negotiations with Iran?

Last Wednesday, the American-led coalition launched air strikes to officially help the Iraqi forces recapture Tikrit from Daesh. I urge my colleagues to use “Daesh” instead of “Islamic State” because it is not an Islamic state. It is a terrorist group known as Daesh.

The international community knows that the Iraqi offensive in Tikrit, which started on March 2, involves soldiers and police officers, but also paramilitary groups, including the notorious popular mobilization forces, groups essentially made up of Shia militias backed by Iran. The Iranians have provided artillery and advice to these Shia militias.

However, there is an Iranian general, Ghasem Soleimani, on the ground leading the Quds, a unit of the Iranian revolutionary guard. If Canada participates, will the Iranians be our allies?

There are also questions about some coalition allies with respect to porous borders, the acquisition of weapons by Daesh, the sale of oil to Daesh and stolen archeological artifacts.

Members will also recall the al-Nusra jihadists, who have ties to al-Qaeda and who allegedly crossed the Turkish border to attack the Syrian city of Kessab, which has a majority Armenian population, as well as the city of Maaloula, a Christian city.

There is also the issue of the Kurds, not to mention the war in Yemen.

My major question is this: are we going to get involved in these conflicts between the Shia and Sunni Muslims or are we going to help them to sit down at the same table and come to an agreement?

These are very complex conflicts. It is important to have a clear foreign policy to guide our national defence policy, but what is our foreign policy—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I know that she has a keen interest in the safety of the people in the Middle East, but I need to correct what she said.

She said that Shia militias were involved in the counteroffensive in Tikrit, Iraq, but I have good news in that regard. Three or four days ago, Iranian-led Shia militias withdrew from the battle in Tikrit. In addition, the United States said that it refused to continue bombings against Daesh near Tikrit unless these militias pulled back.

Obviously, the current situation in the Middle East is complex. There is a conflict between the Shia and the Sunnis. It is also important to note that the Shia, including Iran, and all of the Sunni Arab nations, including Iraq, are all opposed to Daesh. That is the only thing they can agree on in the face of this serious threat.

Like me, the hon. member knows people from the Assyrian, Chaldean, Kurdish and perhaps even the Yazidi communities. Last week, we met with the leaders of these communities, and they all called for Canada's involvement in the allied military campaign against Daesh because they want to put an end to genocide perpetrated by Daesh.

Does my colleague not agree with the members of the Canadian-Iraqi community?

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. Perhaps we are not meeting the same people.

I have also met people from the Syrian and the Iraqi communities. One thing is certain: Daesh is an entity that elicits strong reactions from everyone. The vast majority of people agree on that, whether they are Muslims or Christians, from the Middle East or elsewhere.

I do not like to use the term “enemy” because I am basically a pacifist. I would prefer to use a criminology term. I would say that it is a criminal group, and we must do everything we can to stop it. That will depend on the strategy we adopt. What I am seeing is that, on the ground, the war unfortunately is pointless and does not solve anything. We fought al-Qaeda, which turned into something else known as Daesh and al-Nusra.

What people want is for Canadians to be agents of peace, to provide humanitarian assistance, to work to unite those people, the Shia and Sunni Muslims who may be in conflict. Most importantly, combatting violent extremism does not mean dropping bombs, but rather working here, in Canada, to combat this ideology. We are not doing that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canada has a clear interest in training Iraqi forces to fight ISIL. We can and should do this training away from the front lines as our allies have been doing in many cases.

The NDP has taken the position that Canada has no role to play, or virtually—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thus transmits misinformation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, Mr. Speaker, they can expand on that. The question I have for the member—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member is going to misrepresent the motion, then he is lying in the House. I do not think he would want to lie, so I would like to actually read the motion.