Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2016

A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting the main estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2017 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Report on Federal Tax Expenditures

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a document on behalf of the Minister of Finance, in both official languages, entitled “Report on Federal Tax Expenditures”, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2).

Criminal Code

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence).

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be standing here today introducing my first private member's bill, the protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, also known as Cassie and Molly's law.

The building of a family and a new generation should be joyful and exciting. The tragedy of Cassie and Molly, along with too many other Canadian women targeted and harmed because of their choice to carry the child to term, affirms that the safety of women remains threatened.

My private member's bill would create a new offence to be applied exclusively against anyone who knowingly commits a criminal offence against a pregnant woman and harms or causes the death of her preborn child. It would also codify pregnancy as an aggravating factor in our criminal laws and so require a judge to always consider this factor in sentencing.

These sentences in Cassie and Molly's law would enhance the safety of Canadian women, protecting a pregnant woman's choice to bring her child to term safely.

Families are the foundation of our country. Canadians deserve a legal system that protects all aspects of a family. The bill is a precise, common sense approach to fixing a gap in our Criminal Code to deter senseless assaults on pregnant women causing death or injury to their preborn children.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this House to make Cassie and Molly's law a reality for Canadian women and their families.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Impaired Driving Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences in relation to conveyances) and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

Today, seconded by my colleague from British Columbia, I am proud to introduce a bill on impaired driving, a constructive and consensus-based bill to keep repeat offenders off our roads so they can never again take the lives of innocent victims like those whose families are with us today and who are mourning the loss of a loved one.

This bill includes measures to relieve pressure on the courts and speed up the process, as well as preventive measures to save people's lives.

I encourage my fellow parliamentarians to review the provisions in the bill and to vote unanimously to save lives and put an end to the scourge of impaired driving.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the parties, and if you seek it I think you will find consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, Government Orders shall be extended beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the sole purpose of considering Government Business No. 2 and, at 8:00 p.m. or when no Member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, recorded divisions deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 8th, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

Democratic Reform

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of residents of Vancouver Island who have presented me with a petition to ensure that Canadians have a fair electoral system.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act so that all can cast an equal and effective vote to be fairly represented in Parliament, regardless of political belief or place of residence; that we are governed by a fairly elected Parliament where the share of seats by each political party closely reflects the popular vote; that we live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing a majority of voters; and that we introduce a suitable form of proportional representation after these public consultations.

Impaired Driving

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition this morning.

The petition sadly informs the House that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver; a person who chose to drive while impaired. Kassandra's family is devastated.

Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime called what it is: vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by a drunk driver.

The petitioners are calling for mandatory sentencing in legislation, similar to what has just been presented in a private member's bill, which the petitioners call upon Canadians to support.

Democratic Reform

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by residents of Kitchener—Conestoga and the greater region of Waterloo.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that voters can cast an equal and effective vote to be represented fairly in Parliament, regardless of political belief or place of residence, and then to introduce a suitable form of proportional representation after these public consultations.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, please excuse my raspy voice for the next 10 minutes, but I was not about to let a nasty cold sideline me during this very important debate on Canada's mission, this patch-up operation, which is the exact opposite of what the Liberals suggested they would do during the election campaign. I want to put you at ease right away and let you know that I will not make you listen to my raspy voice for 20 minutes. I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

It is especially important for me to rise and address the House given that the New Democrats are probably the only ones who are speaking in a single, united voice day in and day out, delivering a message that differs from that of the Conservatives and Liberals. During the last election campaign, I repeatedly found myself having discussions with people who did not necessarily agree with my stance on withdrawing Canada from the combat mission. In the course of our discussions, based on arguments and common sense on all sides, everyone would readily agree that there is no simple solution to a problem as complex as the fight against ISIL.

What was the best position Canada could take to be a major, effective partner and to truly address the root of the problem instead of putting a band-aid on a wooden leg, as the saying goes? That is what is happening with this new mission, and although the Liberals dare not utter the words “combat mission,” it certainly looks like one. This government's attitude is no different than that of the previous government. I do not think we are going to get the best results.

What should we have done?

We know that there is no sense in claiming that there is an easy solution to such a complex problem. However, trying to have us believe that extending the military mission is the only solution to the conflict that pits the world against ISIL is misleading.

The conversation gets tougher when it comes to clearly defining the objectives of the Canadian mission, the criteria that will allow us to measure our progress or to determine whether we succeeded or need to extend our mission after a set deadline. The deadline is two years, which seems like a long time before conducting a study or a targeted and ongoing follow-up of the situation.

There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered by the very people trying to convince us that we need to broaden the scope of the Canadian military mission, because that is what we are talking about. Although six CF-18s are being withdrawn, more soldiers will be deployed and they will be at greater risk than they were before. This is an extension of the combat mission Canada was already committed to.

When we study the government motion and the resulting plan, it becomes clear that the Liberals have broken an election promise. Although they promised to end the combat mission, the Liberals are extending the military mission and broadening its scope. This will not be the first broken promise or at least the first promise to be interpreted differently than when it was announced.

Quite frankly, with respect to lower taxes for the middle class, had someone asked people in my riding what is meant by middle class, they probably would not have expected that anyone earning $45,000 or less would not get a tax cut. They also would probably not have expected a modest deficit to be in the order of $18 billion. At every turn the Liberals misrepresent reality.

The former Conservative government dragged our Armed Forces into a military conflict with no clear objectives and no exit strategy. Instead of rectifying the situation, the government is continuing an ill-defined mission that has an uncertain outcome. You do not have to be a five-star general to understand that a military mission without objectives generally ends in failure.

The conflict we are facing today is the result of just such an approach, where, under false pretenses, the United States invaded Iraq and dismantled it. The country the Americans left behind needed to be reorganized. In addition to numerous tensions, there was no balance of power, and the governance structure was in disarray.

It should also be said that this combat mission is in no way justified by a UN or NATO mandate. Here again, despite the Prime Minister's rapprochement with Ban Ki-moon, the government continues to advocate the same approach as the Conservatives, an approach that disregards the traditional institutions under which Canada operated.

Does that mean that we should do nothing and that Canada should remain unmoved by the atrocities committed by the so-called Islamic State? Of course not. The NDP is not saying that Canada should sit idly by and do nothing. On the contrary, we are saying that Canada's contribution to the fight against this terrorist group must involve the use of our internationally recognized expertise in providing humanitarian aid.

The humanitarian aid we provide must be separate from the political action being taken. By way of evidence, Doctors Without Borders has said that trying to coordinate humanitarian aid and military efforts is counterproductive.

In order for humanitarian aid to be effective on the ground, NGOs have to be able to earn the trust of local populations. Problems arise when local communities are suspicious of the work NGOs are doing because of the unholy alliance between military and humanitarian efforts, which can jeopardize the lives of aid workers.

In 2004, Doctors Without Borders withdrew from Afghanistan following the brutal killing of five of its aid workers. Some of the reasons why the organization had to withdraw were the population's lack of trust in its workers and the insecurity caused by the military operations. In the end, the most vulnerable individuals are the first to pay the price when front-line workers leave.

Governments often use humanitarian aid to seek public support and justify their political and military ambitions. This type of confusion is detrimental to the work of NGOs and prevents them from saving lives.

I am strongly opposed to extending the military mission, and that is why I would like to talk about three very important policies in which we believe Canada could have been a leader. Since my time is quickly running out, I will summarize the three points. First, we must develop a deradicalization strategy here in Canada. Foreign fighters are a major problem. Every country, starting with Canada, needs to bring in measures to prevent foreign fighters from joining the so-called Islamic State.

We also need measures to cut off this terrorist group's funding, something else that is completely missing from the motion. Lastly, Canada must sign the arms trade treaty. Those are the three issues at the heart of the problem: the influx of arms, financing, and foreign fighters. The motion does not address a single one of these three issues.

Obviously, I could have gone on about the work Canada could do to decrease or eliminate cases of sexual violence in conflict. With the help of some NGOs, Canada has some extraordinary expertise that it could be put to good use.

I repeat, I am not saying that Canada should not be involved in the international community's efforts to eliminate ISIL fighters, but we need to see how Canada can bring a different kind of expertise that complements that of other countries and that addresses the root causes of the problem instead of the consequences.

I will stop here, and I am happy to take questions from my colleagues.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that our training mission is actually a combat mission. We are obviously sending people over to train those who will fight against ISIL.

Could the member give us a real example of a training mission if he does not consider this one to be a training mission?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Where I come from, we say that if people rob a bank, the person holding the bag is just as involved as the person who puts the money in it. It may not be the most elegant analogy, but I wanted to share it anyway.

Withdrawing the CF-18s but supplying refuelling aircraft amounts to the same thing. We are no less involved. When we triple the number of troops on the ground for so-called training missions, we are not talking about university training. They are not teaching theoretical courses in a university setting.

During training missions, our soldiers are on the front lines helping to target the enemy. Our soldiers could also be targeted by enemy fire or even friendly fire if there is a communication problem. They are in the thick of the action. Sure, they are training people, but they are also taking on the risks associated with combat missions because they are on the ground all day, every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, some people say that the plan and the objectives are not clear.

Does the member agree? Has he found a single quantifiable, measurable objective with precise evaluation criteria that would enable us to determine whether the mission has been successfully accomplished?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her question, to which the simple answer is “no”.

As I said in my speech, the motion contains no criteria for evaluating the success or failure of the mission. There will be no evaluation for two years, which is a long time from now. That kind of approach is tailor-made to enable them to keep doing whatever they want. Without objectives, they cannot fall short.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to many of the NDP MPs talk about the Liberal motion that is before us, the Government of Canada's motion. There is a great deal of substance, and a lot of answers to the questions that they often pose, within the motion itself. If the global coalition were to adopt the NDP approach for dealing with terrorism abroad, I am concerned that terrorism would be expanding, and at a huge cost to civil society.

My question to the member is similar to the question my colleague posed about the importance of international skills and experience. Canadian forces have learned a great deal with what took place in Afghanistan. Taking that knowledge and experience and bringing it over to northern Iraq could be beneficial in providing stability to the region by better educating and training the Iraqi forces.

Would the member not at the very least acknowledge that Canada does have a role to try to make the world a safer place by using the expertise we gained in Afghanistan?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question.

We are talking about an international coalition. I think the definition provides the beginnings of a response. When we talk about a coalition, it is not just a group of countries that all agree to do the same thing. Rather, it is a certain number of countries that get together and agree to pool as much expertise as possible, in order to achieve a positive outcome.

What I expected from the Canadian government is this: that within the coalition, it could offer something different in order to tackle the root of the problem, not the consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak once again in this House on our current combat mission in Iraq. This is one of the most important issues of our times, so it is crucial that we debate it here. I thank the government for moving this motion so that we can talk about extending this mission. At least it had the decency to allow us this debate.

Unfortunately, many problems with this mission have not been rectified over time. We still have no plan and no clear objectives to define the mission. The member for Outremont asked the previous prime minister many questions, but he was unable to provide basic answers, for instance, on the cost and the length of the mission. Many basic questions remain unanswered.

We still have no idea what it is going to cost to transform the mission, and we still do not know how long the mission is going to last. We are told that we will debate the extension again in two years' time. There are too many unknowns, which is extremely unfortunate.

Without clear objectives, we risk once again getting mired down in a mission with no real direction. Perhaps a specific plan is hard to define because the mission is not under the auspices of the UN or NATO and no one is responsible for measuring the success of the mission. There is also no exit plan. The government says we will talk about that in two years, which shows it is not taking this type of military mission seriously.

Our resources will be used for training and arming Kurdish militias. We might be arming people who, years from now, could potentially turn around and become new enemies. Who knows? There is no plan to address that. Unfortunately, that is what tends to happen in the Middle East. There is a focus on one terrorist group while the rest fall off the radar, which creates a sort of rotation of terrorist groups.

For example, during our intervention in Libya, we armed rebels, some of whom later turned to ISIL. No comprehensive plan is in place for the Middle East to prevent a rotation of terrorist groups from taking control of the region and to achieve true stability in the Middle East.

In Iraq, we are seeing some of the same ineffective methods that were used in Afghanistan. At first, the mission in Afghanistan was supposed to be a short mission with a small contingent of soldiers, but it wound up being the longest mission with the most soldiers deployed. The mission produced over 40,000 veterans, 160 fatalities, thousands of injured, and thousands more with post-traumatic stress disorder. That is a major impact.

We also note in this case that no adjustment has been made to the Canadian Armed Forces medical personnel to treat physical or psychological injuries. It seems clear to me that the government is making decisions on the direction and impact of the mission as it goes along. It has no plan and no clear objectives.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised that they would put an end to the combat mission in Iraq. Unfortunately, our forces are training people who are truly on the front lines. Therefore, we cannot say that it is simply a training mission. We are not talking about Iraqi soldiers being taught theory by Canadian soldiers in a classroom. Canadian soldiers accompany Iraqi soldiers directly to the front lines, where they are in danger and under enemy fire.

Moreover, unfortunately, we mourn the death of Sergeant Doiron. I would like to extend my sincere condolences to his family once again. This is a specific example that shows that the training we provide is not without risks. Our soldiers are in a combat situation and are risking their lives. We must call a spade a spade. When you are on the front lines, you are in a combat mission.

Had I participated in this type of mission when I was in the armed forces and had the government opposite told me that it was not a combat mission, I would probably have been insulted. I would have been fired on, people would have fired shots around me, and the government would have told me that it was not a combat mission. I probably would have been extremely offended because I would have risked my life and then I would have been told that it was not a combat mission.

Let us call a spade a spade. This is a combat mission, and it is not true that there is any classroom training being provided. The fact is that soldiers are accompanying people to the front lines. There are real risks. I would like to thank all the soldiers who are prepared to do this work. However, we are duty bound to be honest with Canadians and tell them exactly what our mission entails.

There are a number of important measures that should be included in this mission, for example, deradicalization efforts. It is extremely important to ensure that our soldiers are not fighting forever. There was a great deal of confusion at the beginning of the mission. When the Conservatives first undertook the mission, they were talking about eradicating ISIL. Then, they talked about slowing it down and then about undermining it. There is confusion in that respect as well.

The best way to put an end to this situation, so to speak, is to prevent the radicalization of people throughout the world, but particularly in Canada. We need to stem the flow of fighters and have serious discussions with certain countries that tend to propagate extremist ideologies that are seriously undermining the stability in this area.

We need to do better, particularly when it comes to deradicalization. We need to make sure that we can have intelligent discussions about this situation and that no more fighters join ISIL. There is a lot we can do using information technology to find these people in time to prevent them from joining ISIL and terminate the radicalization process.

When it comes to weapons, we need a tracking system so that we can ensure that weapons sold by Canada do not end up, through devious means, in the hands of the terrorists we are fighting. That is another extremely important measure. We need create stability in the Middle East in general, and to do that, we need to look at the bigger picture. Canada and its allies need to look at the overall situation. We must not fight only in the short term. We need to have more than just a short-term vision.

There is a lot of work to be done, and I believe that right now, the mission does not address the issue intelligently. The direction the government is planning to take will not help to resolve the conflict.