Debates of March 30th, 2015

Government Business Motion No. 17

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It clearly is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

We will return to the member for Winnipeg North. Perhaps he could wrap up his question quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, who claims to have experience, stood on a point of order. Another member could ultimately have risen on a point of order given the language he just used. That is a classic example of the type of language he has used in the past.

Does the member believe that Canada has any role in fighting ISIL?

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe that we have a role to play in Iraq and that our role should be humanitarian, as I have said. Our role should be as agents of peace who can enable different groups to speak to each other.

Most importantly, we have to help our allies on the ground, especially in terms of providing weapons. That might seem like military action, but it is not really. Still, that is also something we really have to think about. I recently read a statement by a UN mediator:

Everyone says there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict, but the fact is that everyone is working toward a military solution. Everyone is supplying weapons and training someone or other. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the only one asking countries to stop sending arms to Syria.

Will having more weapons serve any purpose whatsoever? Will more war solve the problem? I do not think so. There are things we must do, but not that kind of thing.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to address the House on the extension of Canada's contribution to the multinational effort against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL. Canadian Forces Base Petawawa is in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I take my duty to represent the interests of the women and men in uniform as a serious moral obligation, just as this debate is a serious moral debate.

It is always an honour to contribute to any discussion as their member of Parliament. With the significant Canadian Forces presence in my riding, I, perhaps better than many of my colleagues participating in this event, understand the human dimension when we commit fellow citizens to go into harm's way for their country and the effect it has on their families. However, until I walk in their shoes, I will never fully appreciate the angst that families feel every time a loved one is called to arms.

ISIL is a dangerous, organized, armed death cult, with radical jihadist and expansionist aims. It has demonstrated time and time again its willingness, even eagerness, to use extreme violence for political and economic gain. Let me give a few examples of this appalling brutality. I know it is not pleasant to discuss these things, but I think we all need to understand the reality of the situation.

ISIL has arbitrarily detained, tortured, and executed thousands of innocent civilians, displacing millions, and creating a massive humanitarian crisis. Anyone, including the Sunni Muslims, who is perceived as contradicting its twisted version of Islam is subjected to horrific treatment.

There have been savage drawn-out beheadings using blunt knives. There have been crucifixions, including of rebel fighters perceived as being too moderate. There have been mass executions, such as the shooting of 600 Shia, Christian, and Yazidi prisoners near Mosul last October, and the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt in February. There have been reports of torture by electric shock and lashings with generator cables.

It saddens me to report that children are also suffering abhorrent treatment under ISIL's reign of terror. There have been reports of young people being buried alive, and others used as suicide bombers and bomb makers. The children of minority groups are being sold into sex slavery to service ISIL soldiers. They are being auctioned at the market like animals.

I think most of us have a hard time even imagining such a base level of depravity. Yet, ISIL not only commits these acts but revels in its own evil by filming and publishing them on the Internet, as though such unbearable cruelty and wanton destruction of human life is nothing more than an entertaining joke.

It is difficult to believe that such barbarity exists in the modern world, yet it does. It constitutes a major threat not only to Iraq and the Middle East, but also to other countries around the world, including Canada. Indeed, ISIL has been actively recruiting in the west through the Internet and the social media. It has called on sympathizers around the globe to carry out attacks, including against Canadians whom it deems as unbelievers.

It is inciting other groups and individuals with similar inclinations, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has purportedly pledged its allegiance to ISIL. The global reach and impact of terrorist organizations like these in today's interconnected world, combined with a fanatical intolerance and rampant use of horrific violence, are what make them so utterly corrosive to our way of life, hinging as it does on respect for human rights and the rule of law, the democratic resolution of differences, and the peaceful co-existence of various religious and ethnic groups.

We cannot be complacent or naive in the face of this terrorist threat. This is a direct threat to Canada and to Canadians, despite the opposition's unwillingness to accept the truth.

Our armed forces possess unique capabilities that can be used to counter the terrorist threat, for example, domestically, by conducting domestic patrol and air surveillance of Canada's sea and air approach, and assisting civilian authorities with emergency response and security; as well as internationally, by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating defence intelligence, engaging in counter-proliferation and arms control efforts, and contributing to lateral efforts, such as the Middle East Stabilization Force.

In addition to these broad capabilities, the Canadian Armed Forces also offer a dedicated counter-terrorism capability through its Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, or CANSOFCOM.

I am proud of the role I played to stand up the Canadian Special Operations Regiment situated in base Petawawa, the first new unit since the politically motivated, bad decision by the old Chrétien regime to disband the Canadian airborne regiment, and the decade of darkness of cutbacks for Canada's military that followed. CSOR is not the Canadian airborne; it did, however, fill some of the operational gaps that Canada faced after the airborne regiment was disbanded.

CANSOFCOM maintains a very high readiness special operations forces that can respond to domestic and global terrorism on a moment's notice by conducting rapid and effective operations in specialized areas such as hostage rescue and direct action.

The troops at CANSOFCOM's disposal include Joint Task Force 2, the highest readiness and most precise combat unit in Canada and arguably the world; the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, which combines mobility, fire power, and special operations capabilities; the 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron based in Petawawa, which provides aerospace effects; and the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, which provides rapid response to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear events.

The personnel who form these units are highly educated, highly skilled, and battle-tested in some of the most dangerous environments in the world. They are trained and equipped to operate in small teams without large, logistical chains, and to respond quickly to evolving needs on the ground. At the same time, they are experienced in coordinating their efforts seamlessly with those of other special operations forces. Most importantly, they know their basics inside out, enabling them to go into even the most unfamiliar and unstable areas and get the job done fast.

CANSOFCOM has earned international respect for its skills and its professionalism, particularly for the key role it played in fighting insurgence in Afghanistan, and training and mentoring the Afghan National Army special forces. In 2008, the command began to expand its international training to meet the demand for the developing world, as well as to support broader Canadian and global counterterrorism initiatives.

To date, CANSOFCOM has instructed personnel from Jamaica, Niger, Kenya, Mali, Belize, Afghanistan, and Iraq on various aspects of counterterrorism, from intelligence to planning, staff training, command and control, communications, battle skills, equipment use, maintenance and repair, ground navigation, and combat medical care.

The military expertise, training, experience, grit, and tenacity of our special forces personnel are what make them so invaluable in the fight against ISIL.

As members know, we have had some 69 members on the ground in Iraq since last fall in an advisory-and-assistance capacity, helping the Iraqi security forces to conduct strategic and tactical planning, and to adapt to the modern coalition warfare so they can win the type of battles they are now engaged in against ISIL.

By all accounts, our people are making a huge difference in this role, contributing in a meaningful way to the coalition success on the ground. That success is considerable. ISIL's advance has been halted and pushed back. It is no longer able to operate freely in around 20% to 25% of the populated areas where it once held the initiative.

We can not falter at this stage, or everything we have gained will be lost. ISIL will be free to terrorize and murder the local population at will and continue to pose a threat to Canadians. That is why I strongly encourage the House to support the government's decision to extend and expand Canada's military contribution to the multinational coalition's fight against ISIL.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone in the House agrees that the crimes of ISIS are absolutely appalling and horrific. There would certainly be unanimity on that. However, let us remember that the Assad regime in Syria has cost more than a hundred times the loss of life than ISIS. There is, nevertheless, a crying need for much greater humanitarian aid. There are more than five million people today in desperate need of humanitarian aid.

I want to ask the member about the responsibility to protect. Several of her colleagues on the Conservative side over the course of the day have mentioned the responsibility to protect. I am sure she knows that the authority for intervening in another country under the responsibility to protect rests solely with the UN, through a UN Security Council resolution. Is the member aware that there is no UN Security Council resolution for this mission and therefore there is no legal authority for Canada to intervene in Syria? Can she answer that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is concerned regarding the inaction from the UN Security Council. However, China and Russia do not hold a veto over Canada's foreign policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard at times to listen to the member comment about former Liberal days. I should remind her that the jets we are flying today, the F-18s, were purchased by Pierre Trudeau's government. This government has not been able to acquire a new replacement for the F-18 due to pure incompetence.

I do have a question. The government has failed to demonstrate to Canadians that there is any sort of clear objective here. The Minister of Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister and his office are all saying different things in terms of the objectives, how long our forces will be engaged, and what sort of role they will potentially be playing. Does she believe that Canadians do not deserve a clear picture from the government, as opposed to getting different answers depending on who one talks to?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as far as procurement goes, we will all remember who put the hell in helicopters, with the cancellation of the EH101 during the 1993 election. One of the versions included the heavy lift, and once we got the heavy-lift helicopter in Afghanistan, many lives were spared. Had we had that capability beforehand, there is no telling what number of casualties we would not have suffered.

Insofar as when we would know that we have succeeded in overcoming ISIL, we will continue to work until we degrade them so they no longer have the capacity to attack other countries, including Canada.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is a very passionate supporter of our brave women and men who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces, and she represents a riding where one of our strongest bases is located.

I have had an opportunity to speak to some of the Canadian Forces members who are passionate about the work they do for Canadian interests. I would like to ask the hon. member to take an opportunity to share with the House what she is hearing from the men and women she represents, on why it is important that Canada play a role in this effort to make sure that Iraq, Syria, and other parts of the Middle East are safe from the efforts of ISIL trying to destroy these countries and people's lives. I would like to give her an opportunity to share her views from the men and women she meets with on a regular basis.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last summer, before Canada became engaged in this conflict, I was speaking to members from legions and Armed Forces personnel. In the fall, before we got involved in this, I gathered the ecumenical communities together and asked them what their opinion was and what they thought Canada should do about it. Without question, the decision was that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. With that, I had the moral authority from the ecumenical community to go forward. There is no question in both the minds of civilians and our military personnel: they know we have to go there, attack ISIL at its point where it is, and prevent it from coming to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we have been concerned about the mission proposed by the Conservatives. We are afraid of getting dragged into a quagmire similar to the one in Afghanistan. Indeed, this really reminds us of that mission. We were right.

I will give an example. The Prime Minister told us that there would be no ground combat, and yet Canadians have been involved in firefights and one Canadian soldier has even died. Now he wants our soldiers to go into Syria. Many experts are already beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of air strikes in Syria. On top of that, this also raises some very important ethical questions. Our actions in Syria could actually benefit the Bashar al-Assad regime, which, as we know, has committed its own share of terrible atrocities. We might think we are helping, but we could end up doing things that are extremely harmful. I would like to quote our former ambassador to the United Nations Security Council, Paul Heinbecker, who had this to say about intervention in Syria:

If out of fear of Islamic State and of a desire to stop them, the Coalition were to ally itself, de facto or de jure, with Bashar al-Assad for fleeting tactical advantage, it would be the ultimate betrayal of the Syrian innocents. And of our own values.

Our men and women in uniform simply do not belong in Iraq and they certainly do not belong in Syria.

The intervention in Syria also raises very important legal questions. I must say that one of the worst moments I have experienced since I became a member of the House of Commons was when the Prime Minister joked about a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the legal basis for the intervention in Syria. I found that really shameful. This is not something to joke about. The issues are very real and that is why our NATO partners—other than the United States, obviously—are not intervening in Syria and are not helping the Americans.

During debate, the Conservatives have often talked about the responsibility to protect. We have to be careful: the responsibility to protect is a very clear and well-established doctrine. To be put into action, we need a UN Security Council resolution, which we do not have. When it comes to the entire legal basis for intervening in Syria, the government has shown its complete lack of knowledge of and total disregard for international law, which is terrible. International law is the best guarantee of our collective security.

We obviously all want to combat the Islamic State. There is no doubt about that. However, we must ask ourselves what is the best way to do that and where Canada could be the most useful and truly bring about change. Obviously, we could work through diplomatic channels to try to resolve impasses in the region. Unfortunately we have lost so much credibility in the Middle East that we are no longer in a position to contribute to these efforts. We also need to actively implement the United Nations resolutions and push very hard to advance them in order to combat the Islamic State, prevent funding for this group and prevent it from recruiting fighters all over the world and in Canada. We have proposed very concrete measures to achieve this.

Lastly, we must provide humanitarian assistance. Yes, Canada was fairly generous last year, but we could do more. We could encourage other countries to give and to give more, and we could continue to give and expedite that assistance. I want to share a quote from the humanitarian manager of Oxfam, who said this today:

Our leaders have been focused on the military mission in the region debating what role Canada should play. The humanitarian crisis has not been given the vital importance needed in this debate. Ensuring that human needs are met should be the top priority for Canada in the international community.

We are also wondering—I asked the question today but I did not get an answer— whether Canada will attend the donor conference tomorrow in Kuwait. We know that the United Kingdom and Sweden have already made commitments and we are wondering what Canada is waiting for. This is extremely important because there is so much that needs to be done.

A few weeks ago, I was in Turkey and I had the opportunity to visit a refugee camp where the World Food Programme sometimes gives out food vouchers. However, it is also sometimes forced to suspend the program because of a lack of funding.

I met with the authorities from the City of Gaziantep, which is the size of Montreal and currently houses 300,000 refugees. They shared with me their concerns about the mounting tension and instability in the region. We can help these people.

In that regard, Jordan and Lebanon have received a staggering number of refugees and could very well also become destabilized. If we want to prevent even greater destabilization in the region, we need to provide a lot more humanitarian aid.

In that respect, the Conservatives and the Minister of National Defence initially told us that their air strikes are actually a means of providing humanitarian aid because humanitarian aid and military involvement go hand in hand. Either the Conservatives do not understand anything or they are once again trying to create a smokescreen at the expense of the safety and lives of humanitarian workers.

I would like to read what Conrad Sauvé, the Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Red Cross, and Yves Daccord, the Director General of the International Committee of the Red Cross, have been saying, even today, I believe. They said, and I quote:

As Canada debates military action in the region, the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross...call for a debate that clearly separates political and military issues from humanitarian aid. For us, it is a matter of life or death.

Blurring the lines around aid and military action threatens the lives and safety of all humanitarian workers currently working around the clock to provide relief in an already volatile environment. Humanitarian workers can not afford to be linked to any military effort. If humanitarian aid is perceived to be aligned to a military agenda, humanitarian workers become targets and there will be further unnecessary casualties of war....

Humanitarian aid must be delivered solely for the purpose of helping those who are in need, and the Red Cross Movement cannot be a part of efforts that attempt to provide humanitarian aid in conjunction with any military agenda....

We urge leaders to help address the humanitarian needs by first and foremost understanding the utmost importance of keeping humanitarian aid independent and neutral.

I have quoted these people extensively because so many humanitarian workers and organizations have said the same thing in recent days. People are terrified. The lives of humanitarian workers are in danger. I solemnly ask the government to try to stop blurring the line between these two issues, as it has been doing recently.

In closing, I would like to quote Ban Ki-moon, whom we should listen to carefully: “Over the longer-term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not the power of missiles—it is the politics of inclusion.”

That should be the focus of Canada's efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her speech, the hon. member suggested that the government has blurred the line between humanitarian aid and military action. That is not at all true. What I said was that we have a humanitarian and thus a moral obligation to stop genocide, sexual slavery, the murder of homosexuals and genocide against ethnic and religious minorities.

Without military action, without concrete efforts to stop Daesh's campaign of violence and genocide, there will be more victims and a humanitarian disaster. That means that the two cannot be completely separated. The humanitarian crisis is caused by the violent, terrorist, paramilitary action of Daesh.

Does the NDP not understand, does the member not understand that we must take action to stop Daesh's campaign of genocide? Does she not agree that if we do not there will be more victims of Daesh in the Middle East?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very short. We have to deal with this crisis, this situation. The big question is: how? Not only is the government's proposal not clear, but it is unlikely to achieve the government's objectives. We have to think of an intelligent response to the problem.

In answer to his other point, I am saying that the minister is not connecting humanitarian aid and military assistance. I have received countless messages from people working in humanitarian aid who are really very concerned about statements made by several members of the Conservative caucus, several members of government and most importantly the minister himself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide the House with some clarity in regard to the NDP positioning? First let me clearly indicate, as I did in a previous question, that we in the Liberal Party believe 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 many of our allies have been doing.

Could the member provide clarity to the House and to Canadians whether the New Democrats believe Canadian Forces have any role whatsoever in regard to the training of Iraqi forces to fight ISIL?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is fatigue or whatever, but it is always ironic to hear a member of the Liberal Party talk about clarity in connection with our position on this mission, considering that the Liberals wavered for weeks and months. Nevertheless, if my colleague has not already done so, I would encourage him to read the amendment we proposed, particularly point d.: “contribute to the fight against ISIL, including military support for the transportation of weapons”.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, in this instance, to speak about our government's motion seeking the extension and expansion of Canada's military contribution to Operation Impact, the global fight against ISIL, and the defence of those whom ISIL would behead, enslave, rape, torture and murder. This decision is a clear repudiation of that barbaric behaviour and a stoic rejection of the nihilism it represents.

Truly, there is no debate that in recent times, certainly in my generation, we have not seen this type of wanton violence against individuals. As it was stated in the House many times, and by the Prime Minister recently, to have much of this uploaded to the Internet and made available for all to see is truly a shock to our senses and sensibilities. Some of the stories of ISIL are almost too gruesome to even repeat, however, we cannot turn a blind eye to these atrocities, their inhumanity and amorality.

ISIL is a truly detestable group with deplorable ambitions to ruthlessly continue oppressing those who do not have the same values that it espouses, if we can even call them values. They are values of destroying democracy and crushing freedom. It really signals a respect for nothing. It is pure evil and godless.

Not engaging in this fight against these psychotic killers would be cowardly on our part, and it would put this country and our allies in further danger. We need to join our allies. We need to fight for our freedoms and theirs, freedoms that we have always stood for in our history since Confederation, freedoms that so many of our veterans and current serving members of the armed forces have honourably stood for. Throughout our storied history as a nation, we have never expected others to do the heavy lifting for us, while we have stood idly by.

If people know the lyrics of our national anthem, which I know everyone in the House does, they know what we are fighting for when we signal our desire to join this global struggle. It is a desire to protect Canadians and the democratic, glorious and free country in which we live and love so much.

There are instances in history when countries had the freedoms that we enjoy in Canada and lost them to the destruction of attacks of force. I just met members of the Ukrainian community who are joining us on Parliament Hill. Theirs is a perfect example of a country that was sovereign and moving in the direction of greater freedoms and transparency, free of corruption and oppression from external forces, yet we know what has happened and transpired there. We know that it makes a difference for countries like Ukraine and many around the world when they have a country like Canada come to their aid and speak out openly about protecting their rights and freedoms.

Why would we have the temerity to think that if we did not participate in this fight against ISIL that other countries should come to our rescue when we become a target, as we have recently, when our two brave soldiers and this very House of Parliament came under terrorist attack? Members on all sides of the House will remember and will have lived the terror of that day. We were terrified because it was very deliberate and murderous in its intent, yet how soon we forget. How quickly we can slide back to complacency, careless bliss and wilful blindness.

We can never forget that ISIL cannot have safe haven to wage continuous attacks against women, children, refugees, minorities and all of us. It has, in fact, sought greater cover in Syria, a place where it emerged. We know that it has wreaked havoc on Iraq from that region, from a strong point there. It has moved equipment into Syria and sought safe haven.

Operation Impact is part of the United States led international coalition against ISIL, composed of over 60 countries. Out of those 60 countries, many have been directly threatened by ISIL. Most, if not all, have been. Canada has certainly repeatedly stood up and partnered with these nations, while ISIL has called for, encouraged and helped orchestrate violence in countries like ours.

This is our mission. There is no denying it. For our families, for our communities and for all of humanity, Canada is part of this fight.

As Canadians, we believe in the rule of law and religious freedoms. The values are fundamental to our identity, and we will continue to protect and promote them around the world. We will not shy away from that duty; we will do what is right. Honouring our Canadian history is about preserving our future.

What would opting out of this fight against ISIL say to Canadians and like-minded nations about what we value in our country, what we value of security, of freedom, if we were to say we did not care, we were not willing to fight to protect it? Clearly we do care. Innocent people are being subjected to a campaign of murder, sexual violence and intimidation. It is a return to the dark ages. That is why, under this proposal, Operation Impact would be extended by up to 12 months and remain a counterterrorism operation, exclusively targeting ISIL.

Coalition military efforts to date have succeeded in blunting ISIL's capacity. Our Royal Canadian Air Force is weakening ISIL's operations as we gather in the safety of this chamber, and ISIL continues to present a serious threat to global and regional security.

Our proposed mandate would also authorize Canada's CF-18 fighter aircraft to join coalition partners in attacking ISIL targets within Syrian territory. ISIL fighters and equipment have been moving freely across the Iraqi-Syrian border without interference for some time, so our allies have been attacking ISIL in Syria without resistance from the Syrian government for over six months. We propose similarly to conduct air strikes against ISIL in that region on the same legal and operational basis as our allies.

As the United States has reported to the United Nations, it is taking necessary and proportionate military action in Syria to eliminate the ongoing threat to Iraq.

It should not be interpreted in any way as support for the illegitimate regime of Basher al-Assad. It is not. Taking part in armed conflict is perhaps the most serious decision for any government to take. It involves careful consideration of all matters, including the legal basis for action, and know this, we have been considering this carefully for some time.

In Canada, decisions as to the use of force are never taken lightly. We carefully consider what international law requires and how we can best support our partners in maintaining international peace and security. The government of Iraq, which has a legal right to self defence under international law and article 51 of the United Nations charter, has officially requested international military assistance in its fight against ISIL. It said in its request to the United Nations that it requested assistance from the UN and said that it believed ISIL must be completely eradicated, an optimistic goal to say the least. ISIL has shown no shred of conscience and has waged a brutal, inhumane war.

Canada will support Iraq's right to collective self defence and as members of the global community, we have a broader responsibility. An expansion into Syria where ISIL has moved, moved equipment and taken safe haven, is part of that action, which is critical.

Canada's humanitarian assistance, and there has been important discussion on this subject, goes hand in hand with that military mission. We will fight ISIL and help its victims. We will continue to provide much needed relief to millions of vulnerable and innocent civilians affected by ISIL's expansion and barbarity.

We are among the top five donors when it comes to food, shelter, education, essentials for refugees displaced by the millions, and we will also continue to assist through accelerated immigration. Almost $68 million has been committed to this cause. In fact, we are working closely with the United Nations and the Red Cross.

Our government is deeply grateful for the incredible support of the Canadian Armed Forces in Iraq and our allies, those who have served and continue to combat or work in peacekeeping efforts. This is among our greatest effort and among our greatest citizens when it comes in this regard.

To conclude, the highest priority of any government must be to protect its citizens from harm. Canadians expect no less. That is a commitment we have made to all Canadians. We are also continuing that important Canadian tradition of compassion and care for those less fortunate who find themselves in harm's way.

The motion is to expand and extend the mission to fight ISIL, sponsored by our esteemed Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is debated and voted in a democratic way here. I would encourage everyone in the House to put aside political and other ambitions and support Canada's interests first, and those of the people of Iraq and Syria.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do not understand because we are already seeing the results of that tactic in Libya and Yemen, and the cause is always the same. What started in Iraq has spread throughout the region and contaminated it.

The Conservatives need to realize that the movie Top Gun was not based on historical fact, and that if they want to find the real causes of the situation, they should watch Lawrence of Arabia instead. That would help them understand how the artificial borders that were created led to chaos throughout the 20th century.

We cannot wage war without a contingency plan. If we do not know what we are going to do after the war, the inevitable result will be even more chaos without end.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the relevance of the film references.

I can tell my hon. colleague that to suggest somehow that because there is no end in sight in this conflict, when clearly we are seeing improvements on the ground, certain improvements in terms of the ability of the Iraqi forces, their army, the peshmerga, those who are benefiting from the training of which Canada is a part in hopes that they will have the capacity in the future to do more to protect their own people, their own sovereignty, to suggest that somehow the continued cover provided by military efforts to deliver humanitarian aid is not worthwhile, to suggest that somehow because we cannot say with precision when this effort will end, that that is somehow an excuse to stay on the sidelines, to stay out of the fight, to put our heads in the sand and hope that terrorism will not come here, well, it is too late. It has come here. We know that the recruiting of Canadian citizens is ongoing. The radicalization and recruitment is a serious problem.

The legislative efforts in addition to our humanitarian and military efforts are part and parcel of what is expected of a government when it comes to the protection they are promoting and projecting outwards in the world, and certainly that which covers our entire country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that ultimately, with respect to Iraq, ISIS will only be defeated if it is defeated on the ground by Iraqi forces, and I include peshmerga in that.

The training role is an extremely important one. When we talk about them doing the defeating, and at this point we do not know about Shiite tribal militia, with the help of Iranian Quds forces, as they have certainly played a role in Amerli and they have certainly played a role in the outskirts of Tikrit, but we will see what happens there. Ultimately, it is Iraqi ground forces and peshmerga that will have to do the job. We have trained 650 so far. It seems to me that with what lies ahead in Iraq, for example, the re-taking of Mosul, their second largest city, there is an enormous task ahead. We know that Americans and other allies have been training Iraqi forces.

The government, in its extension, has not decided to put a greater emphasis on a role that Canada could play in terms of training, such as it did in Afghanistan. Could the minister tell us what sort of thinking the government went through to make the decision that that was not something it would put an emphasis on?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has a demonstrated knowledge of military matters and had a distinguished military career himself, so I say this with great respect. The member is certainly correct in suggesting that continued efforts by the Americans and others, including Canada, to raise the capacity of the Iraqi forces, including peshmerga and Kurdish forces, really is one of the ultimate end goals, to raise their capacity and ability to conduct ground operations and repel ISIL attacks on many communities.

The difficulty, of course, is that they are not respecting orders. They are moving quite freely in certain areas between Syria and Iraq. They have obviously been able to in many ways wreak havoc on many of those communities, because there is not sufficient ground force.

Like Afghanistan, this is an enormous task. We are starting behind the eight ball and trying to bring these forces to a level of professionalism. We have special operation forces there, some with Afghan experience, so that they can impart the type of skills that are necessary. Equipment is obviously going to be part of that equation going forward.

We know there are other countries in the region that are contributing mightily to this training effort, but also to the supply that will be necessary to repel ISIL as we continue this global struggle.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion to extend and expand the mission in Iraq and, now, into Syria. The Islamic State terrorist organization has committed atrocious acts of violence in Iraq and Syria. The violence has displaced 2.5 million civilians in Iraq alone, and 5.2 million people require humanitarian assistance. Over 5,000 people have been killed by ISIL.

Needless to say, the official opposition acknowledges that ISIL is committing unprecedented atrocities. We find them extremely upsetting. Of course, that organization has demonstrated the kind of cruelty it is capable of on many occasions.

With respect to this mission, we have gone from a mission focused on advice and support to a six-month bombing mission, and now, a front-line combat mission. The Conservatives can have fun playing their word games, but when one of our soldiers is 200 metres from the front lines, that means that he is within range of the basic weapons of any soldier. Any soldier is capable of hitting a target that is 200 metres away with a basic weapon, which, for the Canadian Forces is the C7 rifle. When our soldiers are 200 metres from the front lines, that looks very much like a combat mission. We are now entering a conflict that will last a year and a half, without any specific or clearly defined plan or objective and with no exit strategy.

By choosing to bomb Iraq, and now Syria, I unfortunately get the feeling that we are just playing into ISIL's hands. They would not just brazenly provoke the enemy by showing the beheadings of Canadians or citizens of allied countries without hoping for retaliation. No one can tell me that ISIL did these things thinking there would be no retaliation. On top of that, they send out messages calling on members of ISIL who are abroad to carry out attacks against those who would fight this group. Clearly, Canada is already on ISIL's list of enemies and, unfortunately, it is clear that ISIL wanted retaliation, that it wanted to provoke something by committing such atrocities in such a brazen way.

Another thing that seems clear to me is that ISIL wanted there to be air strikes. It knew full well that we would not attack them on the ground and that an attack from the air is much easier to manage. This allows them to adjust their strategy, continue to advance and make gains if they are patient enough and, while the air strikes are being conducted, plan overseas operations.

ISIL reacted to the air campaign by dispersing its troops, sheltering in civilian areas and frequently changing location. While the first air strikes targeted ISIL's bases and camps, more recent efforts targeted vehicles and the industrial infrastructure controlled by the militants.

From the beginning of the conflict, several Canadian and American veterans made it clear that air strikes have their limitations and that at some point it would become increasingly difficult to conduct air strikes on targets without running the risk of causing collateral damage that would obviously have a very negative impact on the local population.

We have to understand that the Islamic State realizes full well that the Iraqi and Syrian people would be very averse to the presence of foreign troops on their soil. When the enemy only carries out air strikes, it is easy to use that against us with the civilian population. The enemy tells the local people to look at what the coalition is doing: destroying their institutions and attacking them. The enemy tries to manipulate the local population in order to win it over. Unfortunately, when the local population is sleep-deprived, cold and hungry, it is much easier to manipulate, especially if, at the same time, some help is offered.

We have to understand that the more we bomb, the more innocent civilians risk being killed or injured and the more we risk helping the Islamic State obtain recruits or convince people to join its cause. Every bomb could aggravate the problem we are trying to solve.

What is worse is that, even if we succeed in completely eliminating the Islamic Sate, there is a high risk that we will have helped one of our enemies who is also an enemy of our enemy, the Islamic State. Right now, we are fighting the Islamic State with countries such as Iran, for example. Most members and I can easily see that Canada and Iran have very different views on human rights. Is it really a good idea to fight the enemies of our enemies? Is that our strategy in the Middle East, to ensure that only the least offensive of our enemies remains? If we think we are going to solve the problem in the Middle East with violence, then we may as well announce the beginning of the third world war. Do I have to remind members why they need to remember World War II? It is precisely because when that war ended, humanity realized that, if there were a third world war one day, it was quite likely that the human race would not survive it.

If we want to eliminate the problem in the Middle East through violence then we will have to eliminate nearly all of the terrorist organizations there. However, as soon as we eliminate one group, another one rises up to take its place. When will it end? When we find the perfect recipe for self-destruction?

There are other ways of engaging in war that do not necessarily include bombs. Those ways would not make us play into the hands of ISIL. To wage any war, there needs to be money, resources, weapons and support, or at least public disengagement. There has to be some means of communication, fighters, an organization and an enemy. To eliminate the conflict, or at least work on it, there has to be a strategy to prevent these groups from obtaining the funding they need.

The vast majority of these groups raise money by selling resources such as oil and conflict stones, as well as growing and producing drugs. Currently, in the case of ISIL, we are also seeing the sale of historical artifacts. Of course, these groups have no regard for environmental principles when conducting these activities.

ISIL is currently still able to sell oil to fund itself. Imagine if we managed to stop them from getting money. No organization can survive when its soldiers have nothing to eat.

There are many other things we could be doing, including blocking access to weapons and supporting the local population. Imagine if we could help all of the refugees by getting all of them to NATO countries, and just think what could happen if Turkey could control its border and prevent radicalized people from entering Syria. There is so much we could do. We could fight, disrupt the organization and prevent it from communicating.

In closing, as long as the coalition is considered an enemy, ISIL will be able to continue recruiting more fighters. In contrast, if we could be perceived as a potential partner for peace, that would strike a much harder blow against ISIL than the bombs we are dropping. That strategy has its limits.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the wishful thinking contained in her remarks. They remind me of what we have heard from the opposition benches today: the excuses, the justification, to look the other way with regard to the threat against Iraq and Syria, the other countries of the Levant, our coalition partners, and indeed Canada itself. I must say that these excuses simply do not cover the stench of isolationism wafting across the chamber today.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would recognize and accept why action is required, with regard to Iraq's plea, under article 51 of the United Nations charter and why we must recognize why the United Nations Security Council is incapable of taking the action the New Democrats and the Liberals seem so fixated upon.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many other things we could be doing besides dropping bombs. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to explain all of them. However, I can assure the House that there are many such things.

Does the member opposite believe that in order to take action against ISIL, we must close our eyes to those we are taking action against and the people we could be helping?

Is it right that the member wants to send our soldiers into combat alongside Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, when their policies fly in the face of what Canada has always stood for?

Is it right that the government is sticking its head in the sand, rather than thinking about what other terrorist groups could be next to replace this one?

Is it right that the government is sticking its head in the sand, knowing that it will be fighting alongside Bashar al-Assad, even though he has killed thousands of people?

The government is sticking its head in the sand. It refuses to see that this is a quagmire, that the situation in Iraq and Syria is far from being simple and the solution is nowhere near as simple as dropping bombs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party was on CTV, and he stated, and it was really clear: “We think it's wrong for Canada to be involved”. That is what he said. He has indicated that we should pull the troops out of Iraq.

I have asked members of the NDP caucus, and I would ask this member. We believe that Canada has a clear interest in training Iraqi forces to fight ISIL. I am interested in what the NDP position is on that particular issue. Do the New Democrats believe that there is a role for Canada in fighting ISIL, in particular in training Iraqi forces?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my leader said. We should not be in Iraq, let alone in Syria. We have no business there.

Is dropping bombs and training soldiers on site the only way to fight ISIL? I hardly think so.

Unfortunately, government members and, it would seem, the Liberal Party, believe that the only way to fight a scourge such as ISIL is by dropping bombs. I do not believe that. I believe that there are many diplomatic and humanitarian options available, and that is a much more appropriate role for us.

Several countries in the coalition have chosen to play that kind of role. One example is Norway, which is limiting its involvement to humanitarian work.

Fighting ISIL is not just about dropping bombs and training soldiers. This is a much more complex matter that needs to be seen from a big-picture perspective.