Debates of March 30th, 2015

Government Business Motion No. 17

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to be in the chamber to address these very weighty and important issues for Canada and on behalf of my constituents in Parry Sound—Muskoka.

What I want to do with my brief time standing is try to give my perspective on four basic questions that frame the debate in the way it should be framed. This pertains to the Islamic State, ISIL, ISIS, or whatever moniker one wants to use. First, what is its purpose? Second, how is it doing? Third, how do we respond? Fourth, what if we do not? Answering those questions certainly encapsulates the reason I will be supporting the motion later on this evening.

First, what is its purpose?

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada, its values, its citizens and all westerners.

It is very clear that this international jihadist ideology was the first mover. They were the ones who declared that Canada was an enemy to their purposes and that our values were antagonistic to their purposes. This makes this a matter of national security here as well as of our humanitarian interests in the sphere of their operations in the Middle East.

What is their purpose? Quite frankly, they have stated their purpose quite clearly. They want to establish an international jihadist caliphate. One can only look at the example they are setting in the territory they currently control of beheadings, of murders, and of crushing minorities, particularly Christian minorities, but not exclusively, and other Muslim groupings as well.

We look to not only their words in identifying the national interest but to their deeds. Their deeds are contrary to humanity. They are contrary to our national interests and the safety of our citizens. That is their purpose. Their purpose is clearly enunciated by their leadership and by their ruthless actions to date.

Then we go on to step two. How are they doing? They are recruiting. They have money. They have organization. They have territory. These are things that are helping them in achieving their jihadist terrorist internationalistic goals.

I was here in the chamber when my friend, the hon. Minister of Justice, was explaining that we have had success to date in being part of a 60-member coalition that has had some success in degrading ISIL's ability to achieve their purposes. There is no doubt about that, and nothing I am saying detracts from that record to date. However, I think we all agree, and this is why we are standing in this place debating in favour of the resolution on this side of the House, that those goals are not completely accomplished yet. We have to stick to those goals, because they are still recruiting, they still have the financial means to project their terror, they still have an organization that exists and that in some parts of the region is growing, and of course, they still have their mission, which is not only within the sphere of their current influence but is an internationalist mission.

One hon. member from the Liberal Party mentioned ISIL's control of Mosul. That is the size of Vancouver. These are not individuals in tents in the desert. This is a large city they still control. We can only hope that it will only be for a short time longer. However, that tells us that this mission is still important and that it is yet to be completely accomplished. That is why we have to be part of that mission.

It is also because their mission is international. It extends to disrupting our way of life here in Canada. It is clear that this is not just a local mission in the Middle East. It is clear that part of their ideology extends to projecting their force, projecting their terror, and projecting their violence on our peaceable shores as well.

That leads to the third question: How do we respond?

First of all, I believe that we must respond with moral clarity. The fact of the matter is that because of the purpose this group of international jihadists have, and because of the means by which they are deploying against us and innocent civilians, both in this country and overseas, I believe that the moral argument is that we have to respond. We have to continue with the mission, and I believe that we have to extend the mission.

There is no point in continuing the mission in one region, which is to say within Iraq, and not be part of the mission in Syria. The two are interlinked. Certainly the jihadists, Islamic State, do not see any difference or differentiate between the borders. Therefore, our role and responsibility is to be part of this 60-member coalition in all areas of activity in Syria and Iraq.

The way we contribute is with the Royal Canadian Air Force, with the training we are doing with the peshmerga, and of course, and let me repeat, as has been endlessly repeated, through our humanitarian mission and aid to those who are in distress and are fleeing from these murderous individuals.

We do respond, and we will respond, and that is what this mission is all about.

This leads to me to the fourth and final question that should be on our minds and on our list. What if we did not respond? What if we took the advice of certain members of the opposition in this place and others who are helpfully providing their advice on the other side of this argument throughout the country?

Well, clearly what will happen is that we will not be part of a group of people, a group of nations, that is seeking to end the genocidal violence that is occurring overseas: the beheadings, the persecution of minority groups, such as Christians and other Muslims, and of course, the absolute deprivation that goes along with that. That is clear. However, it also probably means more attacks here. If we fail to degrade the terrorists' ability to project their violence, it means that the national security of our nation, Canada, is compromised. Why do I say that? I say that because they have made it clear that if they have the means, they will continue to attack us at home. That is their goal. That is part of how they see their millenarian mission.

For those who say that we are provoking them with our actions, I would reply that we would actually provoke them more with inaction. That is why it is important that we do something rather than do nothing.

Throughout our nation's history, brave Canadians have fought for what is right despite considerable difficulty. We will not turn our backs on that tradition now.

We should not renounce our enviable and honourable history of working with allies to preserve the values Canadians desire and expect and to preserve the national security of our nation.

For all of these reasons, for the questions I have posed and for the answers I have given, I intend to support the motion.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's learned remarks.

The problem is not with what he is saying, but with what he is not saying. The best way for a coalition to defeat an enemy is to starve it of munitions and money. Turkey is currently providing sanctuary to ISIL. Combatants who want to enter Syria can go through Turkey. Unfortunately, many Canadian citizens are doing just that. Some countries are providing this group with weapons and others are buying its oil.

What is the point in creating a coalition to bomb enemies, when so-called friends are giving them food, weapons and volunteers?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly many challenges. It is important to have a partnership with all the countries in that region in order to win the battle.

However, I would say this to the hon. member at the same time. The hon. member says, why bother. I say, use means that are available to us to degrade their ability to utilize the methodologies they are using to expand the territory they seek to expand into.

When I look at the challenges that the hon. member has raised, I do not say why bother; I say, what if we do nothing? The response to that question is that the situation would be far worse.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember reading something that General Dempsey said, who is a very central figure in Iraq. He was talking about when the offensive on Tikrit would possibly occur, and of course that is already underway. Later on he talked about Mosul. Originally he talked about it being maybe late spring for Mosul, and then in a more recent article he said it might have to be delayed until a little later. Very clearly this is because the Iraqi security forces still require more training before they undertake this enormous challenge.

We in the Liberal Party have proposed that a very constructive and useful contribution that Canada could make would be on the side of training, as we have done in the past in places like Afghanistan. We are talking about soldiers, not special forces, training other soldiers behind the lines.

I would like to hear what the President of the Treasury Board thinks of this idea from the Liberal Party.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in whatever day's evolution of the Liberal position is, so I thank the hon. member for today's position. However, I would say that it is important to understand that training cannot work if the enemy keeps increasing their territory without a degrading of their ability to do so. We cannot train in a highly kinetic situation where the enemy is on the offence and there is no response to that.

I would say to the hon. member that it is very good that we want to train the Iraqi army. I have no difficulty with that, but the Liberals' position is naive if they think that can be accomplished with any degree of success without having the RCAF and other special forces available for the general intent of the mission at hand.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the president's message to the House today. One of the things I find personally alarming about the situation in Iraq and Syria is that not only is ISIL a terrorist-like group, but what it has assembled in almost a quasi-state. It is getting traffic revenues, oil refinery money, selling on the black market. It is pulling money in to buy weapons and to basically advance its aim.

Does the president agree that if we do not deal with this kind of rogue proto-state that not only will it destabilize the whole region but it will inspire similar processes throughout the whole world? To me, that is the most alarming part here. We are not just dealing with one small group; it will have the machinery of government behind it.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's analysis. I would go further to say that through the use of social media and other means, the militant, terrorist, jihadist internationalists are using their propaganda methodology to dupe individuals and to train individuals to be part of this international jihadist movement. This is not only an issue of over there; it is also an issue of here and now as well.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, again today we are debating the Prime Minister's military adventures. The Prime Minister is again preparing to ask our brave troops to risk their lives overseas. This issue has come before the House a number of times already. As the official opposition, we have asked the questions that needed to be asked.

Many of these questions remain unanswered, but others forced the government's hand. They forced the government to do or redo its homework. For example, not six months ago, I specifically asked the Prime Minister whether Canadian soldiers would be involved in directing air strikes in Iraq and painting targets on the ground. Hon. members no doubt remember that.

In fact, I asked him the same question twice. Both times, the Prime Minister answered with a resounding no. Now we know that was simply not true. I also asked the Prime Minister whether Canadian soldiers would be on the front lines. Again, the Prime Minister answered with a resounding no. Unfortunately, again, we know that was simply not true.

The very foundation of this House, the foundation of everything we do here, is prescribed by law, not just the laws of Canada, but international law as well. These laws are put in place precisely to guide us to reason in the face of danger, to protect us not just from those who seek to harm us, but from our own missteps. To abandon the law so recklessly for the sake of political expediency, as the Prime Minister seems eager to do, threatens the very principles we were sent here to defend.

Last week, the Prime Minister stood in the House and sought permission to extend the misguided war in Iraq to a dangerous new phase in Syria, a country already torn apart by years of bloody civil war, ruled by a brutal dictator and war criminal. I asked the Prime Minister repeatedly what his legal basis was for this dangerous new escalation. As members will remember, he thought his lawyer answer was quite clever and funny. I put it to members that was, in fact, his “whip out your CF-18” moment. I can assure the House that the families of the brave women and men whose lives he seeks to put on the line do not find this a laughing matter.

Depending on the day, in fact depending on the time of day, the government gives differing and contradictory legal grounds for expanding the Prime Minister's war: maybe it is criminality; maybe it is the genocide convention; maybe it is section 51 of the UN charter; or maybe, as the Prime Minister suggested, international law does not apply to us at all. That is simply ludicrous.

The Conservatives' propensity for attacking the United Nations has led to extraordinary improvisation by the Prime Minister, his Minister of National Defence— the number of blunders he has made this week is incredible—the Minister of Foreign Affairs and various parliamentary secretaries. The NDP, the official opposition, has had to ask specific questions, and I have had to personally expose the Prime Minister's ridiculous position in order to force the government to do its homework and to inform the UN in writing of its intentions.

Here is what we know. Canada does not have permission to conduct air strikes in Syria, a basic requirement under international law. Let me say that again, because contrary to what the Prime Minister thinks, this is vitally important. Canada does not have the legal grounds to conduct air strikes in Syria, full stop. “But our friends are doing it” is actually not a legal defence. That sort of childish reasoning is more suitable to the schoolyard than it is to the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister should know better.

The fact is that what the government is proposing will put our Canadian Forces in the dubious position of acting outside of international law. The New Democrats will not stand for it.

As I outlined last week, our view is that this is simply not Canada's war to fight. It is not a UN mission. It is not a NATO mission, despite the government's attempts to give it that aura with a visit last week. The United Nations Security Council has passed three resolutions dealing with the situation in Iraq, and not one of those resolutions authorized military action.

The fact is that the Americans have been fighting in Iraq for over a decade with very little success. Canada should have no part in it. We were right to stay out of that fight in 2003, despite the Prime Minister's objections at the time when he was in opposition. He wanted us to be there, and he wrote in United States' newspapers that Canada should have been involved since 2003. He is trying to grant his own wish today.

It did not make sense for Canada then and it does not make sense for Canada today. That does not seem to matter to the government or to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is intent on sleepwalking Canada into this war, and he is misleading Canadians to get his way.

Remember, this operation began as a 30-day mission. That transformed into a 6-month mission. Now we are looking at a year or more. Just last week, officials from the Department of National Defence said that they expected the mission in Iraq and Syria to last for many years, not one year but years. That the Prime Minister has not said a word about that is most troubling.

Members will recall that Canadian forces were only supposed to advising and assisting Iraqi troops, not accompanying them. The Prime Minister said that there would be no combat role for us on the front lines. Now we know that not only are Canadian troops on the front lines, but they are exchanging gunfire with ISIL militants. The death of Sergeant Doiron is a tragic reminder of the kind of danger they are in.

The Prime Minister also said that Canadian forces would not be painting targets for air strikes, something that even the U.S. military is unwilling to do. Of course, we now know that they are doing exactly that.

Military strategists tell us that to be successful a mission requires two specific things: a clear objective and an exit strategy. The Conservatives have neither for the deployment in Iraq and Syria. They simply do not have a plan. They have no strategy other than their domestic political agenda, and everything they say betrays it. This jeopardizes not just Canada's credibility, but also the safety of our troops.

Our soldiers are exchanging gunfire with the Islamic State in the theatre of operations, contrary to what the Prime Minister himself promised here in the House of Commons. The fact that the Prime Minister continues to deny that Canadian soldiers are involved in combat is simply ridiculous. Soldiers deployed to the front are very much at risk. The death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us that the risks are all too real.

At the same time, our allies are not even going near the front lines. Canadian soldiers have to go to the front to identify the targets for air strikes. Americans are not doing that. U.S. headquarters will not allow them to go there.

Why are the Conservatives allowing this, despite all their promises? They have never given a reason.

It is difficult to have faith in anything the government says when everything it has told us so far has been false. When the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Prime Minister contradict each other on an almost daily basis, how is the public to judge?

It is clear that the government has no plan and no long-term strategy, yet it is asking our women and men in uniform to shoulder the burden of its improvisation.

Today, one of Canada's most respected defence journalists, David Pugliese, wrote an extraordinary article in the Ottawa Citizen with the heading, “General Tom Lawson tries to dig” the Minister of National Defence “out of a bomb crater of his own making”. It is quite extraordinary because what he proves black on white is that the Minister of National Defence has made statements to the Canadian people on mainstream television that are demonstrably patently false. Canadians deserve better. Our brave women and men in uniform deserve better.

There is simply too much at stake for this type of utter mismanagement. The decisions we are making here are literally life and death decisions. It is time the government started taking that job seriously.

The fact is that after 12 years of war, more bombs are not the answer. Worse still, going into Syria could backfire. Civilian casualties could be higher because Canadian pilots would not have the ground support to direct precision bombings. ISIL would only use any civilian casualties as another recruitment tool.

Air strikes in Syria implicate Canada in Syria's civil war. Bashar al-Assad has brutally murdered masses of peaceful protesters. He has used chemical weapons against his own people. He has been using snipers against women and children. He deliberately fuelled the rise of violent extremists in order to weaken the moderate Syrian opposition. We know that he co-operated with ISIL. He released its prisoners. We know that he is benefiting from air strikes to seize more territory in Syria. That is why his foreign minister said that Assad and the west are now aligned. Let us not forget that this was a charter member of George W. Bush's axis of evil. Who else is aligning with us other than Syria? Iran, which is another charter member. All we are missing is North Korea.

This is a serious ethical problem for Canada. Dismissing it betrays the government's lack of knowledge about a region that could suck Canada into decades of conflict. The Prime Minister tells Canadians that we can either bomb Iraq and Syria or sit on the sidelines. That is another of his false choices. Over 60 countries are united against ISIL. The vast majority of our allies are not taking part in air strikes. There are only six, the United States and a small group of Arab countries, that are bombing Syria. Surely the Prime Minister would not want to suggest that all other allies are sitting on the sidelines.

Our choice is not between bombing or nothing. The NDP has put forward serious alternatives, a plan that emphasizes what Canada was asked to do, a plan that emphasizes what we can do best and most effectively. Our limited resources can be much more effective in fighting ISIL and its ideology if we avoid sleepwalking into an ever-expanding military conflict and focus on a robust humanitarian mission.

Security Council resolutions on ISIL require action to prevent the flow of foreign fighters, financing and resources to ISIL. Canada can take leadership to meet these international obligations. The government has completely failed to do so. The NDP amendment would change that. Canada should finally sign and ratify the arms trade treaty to help end the flow of weapons to illegal armed groups. Canada remains the only NATO country that refuses to sign this important international agreement. That is a black mark on Canada's record. Canada should also partner with domestic communities to develop a strategy to counter radicalization.

Above all, there is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support. A quarter of Lebanon's population is in fact Syrian refugees. The crisis is pushing an already fragile country to the brink.

A majority of UN humanitarian appeals for Iraq and Syria remain unfunded. The World Food Programme has said that its operations in Iraq are only financially viable until May. The same program had to suspend food aid to 1.7 million Syrian refugees just last December.

On the governance front, Canada can also help build sustainable governance in Iraq. Sunni frustrations with the central government in Baghdad facilitated the rise of ISIL. Iraq needs inclusive and representative governance to remove the conditions for violent extremism to take root.

Local frustrations led to the increase in radicalization. Only a competent, inclusive and representative local government that is in a position to communicate effectively can put an end to the extremist threat in this region. Obviously, a strong campaign is needed to counter the extremist messages, either here at home or over there. However, this will be impossible to achieve with the Prime Minister targeting the Muslim community and using Muslims as scapegoats instead of reaching out to them.

Canada can play a positive role in the region. We can help our Turkish ally, a NATO member, take care of 1.5 million refugees. We can use the diplomatic, humanitarian and financial channels at our disposal to strengthen the political institutions in Iraq and also in Syria. We cannot simply say that we will do something. We must take action. However, it is not a matter of choosing between combat and inaction. That is yet another false choice from the Conservatives.

People are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. We know that children died of cold this winter in refugee camps, which is completely unacceptable. These are Iraqi, Syrian and Kurdish children who had fled the Islamic State. Canada has the expertise and could have helped winterize these camps. We are no strangers to winter. We could have saved these children. It is a matter of priorities. A matter of choice.

Our choice is not between bombing or doing nothing. Our choice is between the Prime Minister's ever expanding war or the New Democrats' focus on a robust and effective humanitarian role. Canadians will have that choice, a new government, a new mandate in October 2015. The New Democrats will immediately end Canada's participation in this war.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed but not surprised by the position just laid out by the leader of the NDP. He talks about doing more humanitarian aid. Canada has already contributed over $700 million in the region during the crisis we have been experiencing over the last four years.

Canada is the fifth largest donor in Iraq and the sixth largest donor in Syria. We have fed 1.7 million refugees, clothed 1.25 million people, given educational opportunities to over half a million students, and we will continue to do more. That is one thing the opposition does not seem to recognize.

We cannot put an end to the humanitarian crisis unless we put an end to ISIL itself. Why do the New Democrats continue to say we will sacrifice ethnic and religious minorities at the hand of ISIL? We witness it all too often on television where Christians are being crucified, the Yazidis are being beheaded, other ethnic and religious minorities are being killed off and shot by firing squad, yet we do not see the New Democrats trying to deal with putting an end to that.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about legality. I will read for him article 51 from the UN charter, which says:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

We are going in there under article 51 with the government of Iraq, with our coalition partners. Why can he not recognize that? We have a right to collective self defence with the Iraqis to protect ethnic minorities, protect religious minorities and protect Canadians at home.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I waited patiently for the question, but I did not hear one. However, I will try to provide some elements of information for the benefit of my esteemed colleague across the way.

We think the government's problem is that since the beginning it has failed to tell the truth to Canadians. In the fall, I asked the Prime Minister, for example, whether our troops would be on the front lines, and he said that they would not. That was false. I asked if they would be painting targets for air strikes, and he said that they would not. That was false.

The parliamentary secretary stands in this House today and tells us that he has certain figures on humanitarian aid. I wonder if he could provide us with the figure that everyone is asking for that the Conservatives will not provide, which is the total cost of this war compared to that humanitarian aid.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Leader of the Opposition.

We in the Liberal Party share the concern that he has expressed with respect to the need for humanitarian assistance. Last September, I had the pleasure of going to Iraq with his foreign affairs critic. Last May, I also went to a camp in northern Jordan which had Syrian refugees. There was no question about that.

Today our party, through our leader, made a commitment, if we are the government, to take 25,000 government-sponsored refugees into Canada.

One additional element that does differentiate our parties is the fact that we have also said it is important to provide a training capability to Iraqi security forces.

I would like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on what he thinks of that idea.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I also want to point out that there is another major difference between our political parties: our statements have been consistent from the beginning. We do not change our minds.

Another fundamental difference between our two political parties is that the NDP has been consistent since day one. The flip-flops we have seen on the Liberal side are enough to give us whiplash.

Since the beginning, the Liberals have been saying that they were in favour of the war as long as it was the ground war, but then they were against the air war. Last Tuesday, March 24, their official spokesperson, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, stood and informed everyone that if the Liberals, in the unlikely event, form government, they were going to keep the war going. Now he is trying to tell us that their leader said on March 25 that they might end the war but they are going to keep the war going for the training part. Honestly.

I cannot make heads or tails of it.

One either has a position of principle or one does not. Our position of principle is that we are against this war.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate we heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that Canadians were under siege by ISIL. We heard the Prime Minister and many others opposite say that ISIL had declared war on Canada. We had the Minister of National Defence actually say that Canada had an independent right of self-defence as one of the justifications for our going into Syria with a bombing campaign.

First, I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition thinks these are reasonable and proportional responses by a G8 country to the actual direct threat to Canadians represented by ISIL.

Second, I wonder what signal the member thinks the Prime Minister was sending in his speech last week when he said we have made some important deployments but we can easily change them. Does that give the member any comfort about the future of this mission?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question. The best way to answer it is to refer to the article today by David Pugliese, which informs everyone in this House that despite the oratorical overreach of the high-school valedictorian Minister of Foreign Affairs, we have a Minister of National Defence who is having his government's classic problem of informing Canadians with any veracity.

This of course is the same person who one day in question period said that there was no 15% rule allowing employers to pay temporary foreign workers 15% less and then an hour and a half later announced that he was putting an end to the same 15% rule that he had just said did not exist. He is of course the same person who said that Gary Freeman had killed an American police officer. He is back in this country, thankfully, despite the best efforts of that minister to keep him out. Of course, he is the same one who told a real whopper with regard to women who were taking part in a religious procession, saying that this was a picture of women who had been enslaved by ISIS.

The best thing to do is to summarize in one sentence the minister's claim that, also repeated on two other occasions on different TV programs, was pretty sweeping. It was also completely false.

That is what we have been getting from the current government. That has been the case from the beginning. This article is from today, March 30, and everything the government has been telling the public about this exercise has proven to be completely false.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that this is a question of principle for the NDP. For organized labour, one of its key principles is solidarity. Why is the NDP so hell-bent on dismissing the concept of standing with our allies and dealing with those threats that not only pose a danger to Iraq and the Iraqi population but also to the West?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bashar al-Assad might be their ally; he is not ours.

More important, as I had occasion to point out during my speech, despite the government's best efforts to portray it as a NATO mission, this is not a NATO mission. NATO has wisely stayed out of this mission. That individual countries that are allied with us and allies are involved in it is a fact. That NATO has refused to take that position and get involved is also a fact that they should finally acknowledge. This is neither a NATO mission nor a United Nations mission. Canada can be playing a robust role to come to the aid of the millions of people affected by the conflict in that region.

No one is trying to understate the horrors that we have seen and we know that it is important to fight terrorism. However, all of the horrors we see now playing out in that region are the direct result of the last misguided war. The Conservatives are dead wrong saying that Canada should get involved in this misguided war.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today to stress the significance of why we are extending and expanding our military mission against the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ISIL is a direct threat not only to Iraq and its surrounding region but also to Canada and our allies worldwide.

The NDP objects to the ISIL mission because NATO is not leading it and the UN never authorized it. This is incomprehensible and completely hypocritical, given that Canada's engagement in Afghanistan was NATO-led and UN-authorized, and the NDP opposed it and instead promoted negotiations with the Taliban.

Nevertheless, for most people the incoherent NDP position was no surprise. The surprise is the Liberal position.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we were quite well behaved when the leader of the NDP was speaking. It would be nice if the behaviour would continue.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The Minister of State has a very valid point about keeping the order and decorum on both sides of the House, but at this point, on the opposition side of the House.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

As recently as March 15, the Liberal leader was assuring the Kurdish community in Toronto of support to end the inhumanities committed by ISIL. The reaction of this same community to the position of the Liberal leader on March 24 when he opposed the Canadian military mission was one of shock, dismay and extreme surprise. The Liberal and NDP positions are considered to be an embarrassment. This community agrees that the military capability of ISIL must be degraded, and the position that the Liberals have taken does not address the profound humanitarian situation, because ISIL must be degraded to successfully deal with the humanitarian needs.

Our principal concern remains the safety and security of all Canadians.

We are proud to be part of the global military alliance committed to degrading ISIL. Violent takeovers of towns and cities in the region by ISIL militants and other armed opposition groups have displaced an estimated two and a half million people since June of last year. The United Nations estimates that more than 840,000 children in the region now face severe deprivation, exposure to violence and abuse, and lost opportunities for education.

Through expanding our mission, we are committed to stabilizing the region and degrading one of the worst threats to human life in the world today. We are not sitting on the sidelines. We must all co-operate to move forward in the most effective manner.

A Global News and Ipsos Reid poll found that by last week, three-quarters of Canadians support our country's participation in the anti-ISIL campaign. Two-thirds of respondents also said they would support a mission extension. In that poll, fewer than half of NDP supporters support the NDP leader's position, and two-thirds of Liberal supporters do not support their leader's position.

Canada is in a unique position to join the military alliance and to provide humanitarian relief simultaneously.

Since 2012, a Canadian initiative headed by a humanitarian group in my riding of Vancouver Island North, called Medical Hope for Syria, has raised over $200,000 to provide medical aid to Syrian refugees. Medical Hope for Syria purchases physician travel packs from Health Partners International of Canada. These packs contain 600 treatments and it figures that each pack saves at least 120 lives.

This group is in a unique position, as in Israel, to deliver medical aid and other aid to refugee camps. It buys its medications for 10% of retail, and that is matched by a donor in Calgary. This group supports the expansion and extension of our mission, because it knows that delivering humanitarian aid requires the degradation of ISIL.

Those who are most affected by ISIL's actions are the most vulnerable, including women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. Ethnic and religious minorities have also been targeted.

There are horrific reports of violence against women and girls. Sexual violence continues to be widespread, particularly among girls and women who are vulnerable because of conflict and displacement. Rape and sexual violence are being used as reprisals and to create fear.

In the face of this ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, we take pride in our commitment to expanding our mission and eradicating ISIL.

We have all seen the reports. Among other acts of brutality, ISIL is carrying out a systematic campaign, one that disproportionately targets ethnic and religious minorities. ISIL rapes women and girls, enslaves them for sexual purposes, sells and traffics them, marries them off to their soldiers, and uses them as a recruiting tool.

We can only imagine the suffering of the women and girls who remain in ISIL hands. We do know of the suffering of the survivors who have escaped and sought refuge in camps and communities outside of ISIL areas.

Such is the magnitude of displacements that survivors often continue to suffer. Families in conflict situations may use child, early and forced marriage as a desperate coping mechanism in an attempt to better provide for and protect their daughters. Others feel pressure to marry off daughters who are survivors of rape in an effort to reduce the social stigma they face.

Recent reports reveal how violent extremist groups like ISIL use sexual violence and the enslavement of women and girls as an integral strategy to pursue their perverse aims. Their abuse of women and girls from religious and ethnic minorities is used to so-called “cleanse” territory that they wish to dominate. They also use the enslaved women and girls to attract recruits and raise revenue through trafficking and ransom.

ISIL actions toward women are an affront to Canada and to the world. Equality between women and men, the empowerment of women and girls, the respect for and promotion of their dignity and human rights, and the prevention and response to sexual violence against them are fundamental Canadian values.

It is my honour to describe some of the actions and policies of the Government of Canada to promote the empowerment, the human rights and the well-being of women and girls in countries of concern. Canada has been instrumental in bringing world attention and action to this issue.

In 2013, Canada played an active role in the development of the first resolution focused on child, early and forced marriage at the UN human rights council. In 2014, we co-led a UN resolution on child, early and forced marriage. We are advocating for a specific target on ending child, early and forced marriage in the post-2015 development agenda. We have intensified our programming efforts to end child, early and forced marriage globally. We are supporting UN efforts to support some 640,000 displaced women and girls, including survivors of sexual violence.

We are committed to supporting survivors of sexual violence in conflict and to holding perpetrators to account. We will continue this important work. Canada will continue to deliver humanitarian aid and join our allies in this essential military mission to degrade the military capability of ISIL to make this all possible.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 8:03 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 17 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.