Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after the events of 9/11, we stood shoulder to shoulder with our American friends as a country united. I remember the day when there was a caravan of Canadians citizens who came to New York City for a celebration around Times Square.

I also stood, much like we did today and these last couple of weeks, shoulder to shoulder with past prime ministers in our negotiations under NAFTA.

With respect to this issue of terrorism, there is no grey. We are all standing together. There is no black and white, if we want to use those two terms. There is just us coming together and ensuring we remain a country that is based on the rule of law and holds Canadians accountable for their actions.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. I look forward to hearing her thoughts on this motion.

I want to start by acknowledging the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for their excellent work on this motion, and for closely monitoring this issue that is important to Canadians.

This motion is an emotional one. It reminds us of just how insignificant people can feel in the world as victims of terrorism, caught up in a conflict they did not create, terrorized by groups using others to achieve their goals.

We fortunately do not have to live these experiences in Canada and Quebec, but this is the reality elsewhere in the world. It is important to remember this and tell our constituents about the horrors perpetrated around the world and the role Canada can play in such situations.

I will read out the motion again, because it says a lot:

That the House support the sentiments expressed by Nadia Murad, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who in her book entitled The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State, stated: “I dream about one day bringing all the militants to justice, not just the leaders like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but all the guards and slave owners, every man who pulled a trigger and pushed my brothers’ bodies into their mass grave, every fighter who tried to brainwash young boys into hating their mothers for being Yazidi, every Iraqi who welcomed the terrorists into their cities and helped them, thinking to themselves, Finally we can be rid of those nonbelievers. They should all be put on trial before the entire world, like the Nazi leaders after World War II, and not given the chance to hide.”; and call on the government to: (a) refrain from repeating the past mistakes of paying terrorists with taxpayers’ dollars or trying to reintegrate returning terrorists back into Canadian society; and (b) table within 45 days after the adoption of this motion a plan to immediately bring to justice anyone who has fought as an ISIS terrorist or participated in any terrorist activity, including those who are in Canada or have Canadian citizenship.

Many Quebeckers watching us right now know little to nothing about the tragic story of Nadia Murad, a story that has had little coverage in the media, especially French-language media. I believe this story needs to be repeated and told in such a way that it goes across borders. No woman or any other person should ever have to experience the repulsive acts that were committed against Nadia Murad.

Nadia Murad is a 25-year old woman who lived in a poor family in northern Iraq. She was part of a religious minority, the Yazidis—Yazidism is an ancestral monotheistic religion—who first fell victim to the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein.

To share a bit of what happened to Nadia Murad, I will cite an excerpt from an article in National Geographic that summarizes an interview that Ms. Murad gave in September 2017:

In August 2014, ISIS jihadists attacked Sinjar, the largest Yazidi town in Iraq, which was defended by Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. When the Peshmerga withdrew to the mountains, the Yazidis were at the mercy of jihadists who told them they would have to convert to Islam to save their lives. During 12 days, a mullah tried in vain to convince them to convert; most Yazidis refused.

That is when the horror took place: the village inhabitants were summoned, and women, girls, and children were separated from men. Brought to the local school, Murad watched helpless as six of her brothers were shot dead or decapitated.

Murad was abducted, taken to ISIS headquarters in Mosul, and sexually enslaved. For months, she was beaten and raped several times daily by at least one guard. Her last master wanted to sell her on the women's market and left to buy her an abaya, a traditional hijab. She took advantage of his absence to escape and took refuge in a neighbouring house. There, an Iraqi Sunni family agreed to provide her with Islamic identification papers in the name of one of the women in their family and helped smuggle her to the Iraqi Kurdistan border where she joined her brother.

I do not have the words to express how this story makes me feel.

The worst part is that there are many more stories like Nadia's. Hundreds of thousands of Yazidi women have suffered this same kind of awful treatment during the conflicts provoked by the Islamic terrorists of Daesh.

Rereading these stories made me very emotional. I felt angry and sad as I described these barbaric acts and injustices. No woman or human being deserves to be treated so cruelly. I think that people are touched by this story, like I am, and they want our country to make real changes in these countries to combat these terrorists and put an end to their brutal regime.

As a country, we must take immediate action to give justice to the Yazidi and other ethnic or religious minorities that are being persecuted by ISIS, including women, like Nadia Murad, whose bodies are abused by these terrorists who use rape and sexual slavery as weapons of war.

The Liberals say that they will support this motion, but I want to tell the Canadians watching us that they should be cautious. This government talks a good talk, but the motion is clear. We want a real plan, within a reasonable period of time, in less than 45 days. It is all well and good to support a motion, but without any meaningful action, this will all be pointless and no one will be helped. The Liberals have one chance. Since they have decided to vote with us on this motion, they must now take action and live up to the expectations.

Considering the Liberal government's track record since it took office, we have reason to be concerned. The Liberal government literally abandoned the fight against terrorists with its lax approach to dealing with ISIS. The Liberals decided to stop the strikes against ISIS and chose to live in a fantasy world, believing that all of these situations would magically take care of themselves.

The Liberal government's record of failure continues at the expense of Canadians and of those living in other parts of the world. There are Canadians who have left the country to join these terrorists and commit barbaric acts against women. Today, we are debating a motion that calls on the government to table a real plan to bring to justice the Canadians who acted as ISIS terrorists.

Let's imagine for a second that, at the end of the Second World War, we decided to stop going after Nazi criminals because the war was over. Imagine if we had not hunted them down the world over, leaving no stone unturned to find them and get the evidence to bring them to justice. Had that been the case, some of those Nazi criminals would still be among us. They would be citizens of various countries around the world, and they might have done more of the terrible things they did during the Second World War.

This situation is much like that. Some Canadians participated in atrocities. They went to those places to take part in genocide and barbaric acts. Whether they were just there to demonstrate support for those committing the acts, whether they participated in the acts themselves, or whether they witnessed acts that they did not report, those Canadians are guilty of not taking action to defend people who needed help and support. They did not act like Canadians; they acted like barbarians. Unfortunately, that is how they must be treated should they decide to return to Canada one day. They must dealt with to the full extent of the law.

The migrant crisis offers up daily proof that border security is not one of the government's priorities. We want the government to use the most effective tools available to make sure that, if these people come back, they are monitored very closely, required to abide by strict rules, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Canada should immediately set major reforms in motion and take concrete action to ensure justice for women like Nadia Murad, who, tragically, was raped and used as a weapon of war. As Canadians and as parliamentarians, we cannot stand for that. I expect the government to take action.

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the government's position in respect to today's motion. It is hard to disagree with much of his speech. I think everyone in the House, regardless of their partisan affiliation, detests the scourge of terrorism equally. I do not think one party or another has a monopoly on that.

In particular, I would like to direct my question to the efforts of returning ISIS fighters before the last election. I note some 60 individuals returned to Canada prior to our government coming into force. Why was the number of prosecutions for those terrorists who returned to Canada before we came into power zero?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things the Liberal government did was put an end to the air strikes, the very purpose of which was to combat those terrorists, those monsters, who are committing vile offences.

Now the Liberals want to preach to us. We are talking about terrorists who want to come back to Canada. These are things that affect us all directly.

I want to know what the Liberal government is going to do. The Liberals support the motion we are debating today. The motion calls for a plan to be tabled within 45 days.

What is the plan?

Will the Liberals finally keep their promise?

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer the question on why there were no prosecutions of the terrorists who returned to Canada. When the Conservatives were in power, they completely overlooked and ignored the whole issue. Would he answer that question this time?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to an article published this morning in Le Devoir, Kyle Matthews, the executive director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, deplores the fact that the Trudeau government appears to lack the political will to prosecute fighters who return to Canada.

We are here to talk about serious matters. We are here to talk about the future of individuals who want to come back to Canada. We are here to find out what the government plans to do.

The Liberals wanted to be elected. They wanted to sit on that side of the House. Now it is their duty to keep their promises and tell us what they plan to do. They will vote in favour of the motion, but that is just an image thing. They will not follow it with any action. They will vote in favour in order to look good, but they will not come up with a plan in 45 days.

What is their plan?

I very much look forward to seeing it.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the House of Commons interpreters. However, I believe that they missed something when interpreting the last two questions. Therefore, I will ask the question in French.

Why did the previous government never indict any of the terrorists who returned to Canada?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate that my colleague is trying to blame the interpreters. They work hard and do a good job when the interpret what I say.

I did not answer the question. The Liberals must stop trying to pin the blame on others. I did not answer the question because the answer is not what he wants to hear. We want to know what the government will do. It has 45 days to come up with a plan. The Liberals are the ones in government, so they are the ones who need to answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly straightforward question, whether in French or English. Canadians want to have a better understanding why the Conservatives, now that they are in opposition, want charges and convictions. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, to be very clear to those who might be following this debate, his government had zero charges and convictions for those who returned.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things the Liberals did was to throw out Bill C-51. The bill would have provided the tools to take action in such cases.

My colleague would like me to talk about the past but instead I will ask him what the Liberals will do today and in the future.

In English or in French, what is the government's plan? How will the Liberals act on this?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a month ago I stood in the House deeply concerned for the future of our country and today I rise again to speak on the government's failure to address the priorities of our time.

Canada is a nation of peace. After two devastating world wars, we committed to concrete actions to achieve global peace and security. We were a founding member of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

When we signed the Washington treaty that established NATO in 1949, we reaffirmed our faith in the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and our desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

Canada and our NATO allies committed to safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilization of our people founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. We committed to promoting stability and united our efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.

That was almost 70 years ago and since then we have enjoyed a long period of peace, but not all points in history are equal, and once again we find ourselves at a tipping point.

The world has dramatically changed in the last few years and we now find ourselves in a time of unprecedented global instability. The world is the most unstable it has been, both from an economic and defence and security perspective since the end of World War II. We are seeing fundamental shifts in the global economy while trade relationships, international agreements and defence structures are under threat.

We are experiencing a substantive increase in threats from nation-states and also from non-state actors. These threats are not only through conventional military means such as occupying forces or missiles, but also are materializing from asymmetric threats such as economic and cybersecurity destabilizing measures and even more alarming, from radicalized individuals in our own backyard.

As a former air force officer, I swore an oath to serve and defend this country and the values for which it stands. I prioritized Canada's defence and security.

The Liberal government is not prioritizing the commitments made in the 1949 Washington treaty. The government is not ensuring the security of Canadians. Canada made a commitment to our allies and our international partners to contribute to global security, but the Liberal government is failing Canadians and our allies. Our allies are questioning whether or not they can count on us. They are questioning our resolve.

Actions speak louder than words and the government may say it is committed to our national security, but where is the evidence?

In June 2017, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced her foreign policy and defence priorities. She said that turning aside from our responsibilities is not an option, that Canada can and must step up to play an active role in the preservation and strengthening of the global order from which we have benefited. It has been over a year since that statement but the government has not delivered. Canada has not stepped up.

The government has failed to define a plan to meet our commitment to spend 2% of our GDP on our military. It has failed our military by leaving one-third of the defence budget unspent this year alone. The government failed by purchasing used, 40-year-old F-18s from Australia, and now it is failing Canadians by allowing terrorists to escape justice.

That is why today's motion is of critical importance. Canada has 60 terrorists walking its streets that we know of and there are even more around the world. By not taking swift action to hold these terrorists accountable for their actions, Canada is not part of the solution but instead is part of the problem.

The government's failure to bring terrorists to justice has consequences. It is possible that the government through social assistance is paying these Canadian terrorists to sit at home, radicalize other people and plan their next attack, which could be right here at home. These terrorists are emboldened to continue to commit atrocious acts, knowing that the Canadian government will not bring them to justice.

In addition to allowing terrorists to continue unchecked, there are consequences to our international relations.

The United States, our single greatest ally, has labelled Canada a national security threat and imposed punitive and costly tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.

The U.S. has claimed that we are enjoying a free ride in defence and has even gone as far as to imply that we and our other NATO allies are foes rather than friends. Now, with the new NAFTA and section 232 of the American trade law, it is even easier for the United States to impose tariffs on Canada if they deem us a further national security threat. Two U.S. senators have even gone further to connect national security concerns with Five Eyes joint intelligence-sharing and co-operation. Does that mean that if Canada does not improve its national security, the U.S. might restrict intelligence it shares with Canada?

If the U.S. has labelled Canada a national security threat and the Liberal government allows terrorists to roam free, then what arguments does the government have to say that Canada is not a national security threat? Failure to bring terrorists to justice puts Canadians in grave danger, compromises our relations internationally, undermines our global security and puts the world at risk. We can no longer turn a blind eye or downplay the severity of the government's inaction. These are terrorists and we have a responsibility to protect our citizens at home and safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of our allies.

That is why we are calling on the government to immediately acknowledge the gravity of this issue. The government must commit to developing a plan to bring justice to anyone, including those in Canada or have Canadian citizenship and have fought as an ISIS terrorist or participated in any terrorist activity. This plan should acknowledge the severity of the problem, outline action to support international laws, review and reinforce Canadian law and demonstrate how we can use existing legal tools to bring terrorists to justice.

The plan must be substantive and include, but not be limited to, demonstrating how Canada will support the laws of foreign countries and international law to ensure that individuals who commit terrorist acts are brought to justice, provide support for the investigators and prosecutors of ISIS terrorists mandated through UN Security Council resolution 2379, identify reforms to Canadian law to ensure that the perpetrators of terrorist acts will be brought to justice, identify reforms to the Canadian criminal justice system to ensure that courts have access to all the evidence and place conditions such as peace bonds on suspected terrorists to restrict their movements and social interactions.

If there is no action to bring terrorists to justice, is Canada carrying its weight for national and global security? If terrorists escape justice and are free to commit future acts of terrorism, then the answer is clearly no. Canada's national security is compromised and Canadians are at risk. The government must act now to protect Canadians. The government must act now to regain the confidence of our allies and demonstrate we are not a national security threat. The government must prioritize and develop a plan to bring terrorists to justice. The Liberals must not only support this motion but follow through with concrete actions. Our national security and the safety of Canadians are at stake.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that if the member opposite knows of 60, not 59 or 61 but 60, known terrorists in this country who she says have committed actual crimes, why has she not reported those people to the police if she knows there are exactly 60 people walking around contemplating terrorist acts? I know she is making that number up and guessing. The only way that number is known to anybody in this House is because the party she chose to join let 60 people leave this country, fight as terrorists in another country and did absolutely nothing about it when people were leaving this country to do just that.

The question I have for the member opposite is even more precise than that. After joining a party that has zero convictions and brought zero people to court on these charges, why did she leave a party that brought forward justice and is cleaning up the mess of the party she joined? Why has she now joined a party that has never brought a single terrorist to trial for leaving?

If that cannot be answered, maybe she could try answering this. Why did she choose to join a party that has landed zero new or used jets on military tarmacs in this country instead of one that has brought 40?

The real question I have for her is this. Has she been radicalized by extremists on that side of the House, because, boy, she has changed her tune?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is utterly disgusting of that member to accuse a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, someone who has served our country honourably, of being radicalized. That member needs to stand and apologize for unparliamentary language—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disconcerting that the hon. member of the government would want to change the conversation so the Liberals do not have to assume responsibility and accountability for what they are not doing.

This is where we are today. This is the information we have. This is the problem in front of us. That is why this opposition is calling on the government to do what needs to be done today.

Do not let the government obfuscate the real issue which is this. How do we address the national security threat that these terrorists, who are not brought to justice, are imposing on Canada?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not aware that I had not been recognized on my point of order previously when I was speaking. I was raising a point of order. The parliamentary secretary very clearly used unparliamentary language in suggesting that my colleague, who has served honourably in the Canadian Armed Forces, had somehow been radicalized. When we are having a debate about the terrible crimes done by ISIS or Daesh, for members to accuse each other of being radicalized in the same context is disgusting and beyond the pale.

I think the member, whom I am sure would be happy to rise in his place and apologize, should be called upon to do exactly that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park for his intervention. Certainly members are always cautioned about avoiding language that could be considered unparliamentary. As members know, in deciding these matters, chair occupants have to take into account a number of different factors, one of them being whether the remark in fact caused disorder. It would be fair to say that in this particular case it did.

In the initial comment that the parliamentary secretary made, I did not detect anything, from my point of view, as being unparliamentary. However, it did cross a line with respect to causing disorder that perhaps may or may not have been intended. We will give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to perhaps comment on the issue at a later time. We will leave it pending for the time being.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Sometimes in the heat of debate, we make claims and say things that we might not fully or necessarily believe.

I want to reflect on something the member said regarding the reason for section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. She tied that to the U.S. maybe feeling that Canada was a national security threat because of our policies as it related to terrorists and the actions we were taking in the world to combat terror.

As the former chair of the subcommittee on international human rights and the current chair of the House foreign affairs committee, I have had the opportunity to spend a fair bit of time with our colleagues down in the U.S., speaking on issues of national security, international relations and human rights. There is always a lot of agreement and appreciation for the role Canada plays in the world.

I would like the member to please clarify whether she is saying she believes the inputting of section 232 tariffs under national security terms had to do with Canada's position as it relates to terror and our foreign policy.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an incredibly important question, one that we should be asking the government.

We do not know exactly what the nature of the national security threat is that has caused the U.S. to put these punitive and costly tariffs on us. The fact remains that the United States has put punitive and costly tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel and it has made it easier to put additional tariffs on in the future as a result of us being a national security threat.

We absolutely need to understand the contributing elements that are causing our ally, the United States, to believe us to be a national security threat. Then we need to know what the government is doing to ensure that it addresses it so we are no longer a national security threat and can have those punitive tariffs lifted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to refer to Donald Trump's tweets which suggested that we had burned down the White House in the War of 1812. The notion that Canada's imports of steel and aluminum to the United States represented a genuine national security threat is the stuff of fantasy and paranoia in the White House and should never extend to this place.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very deeply distressed by that comment. Ultimately, they have imposed on us tariffs related to national security.

To argue that there is no reason for them and they are baseless, we do that at our peril. If our closest ally believes that we are a national security threat, then we have to ensure that we do everything to demonstrate that we are not.

We are not meeting our commitments to NORAD. We are not meeting our commitments to NATO. We are not delivering on national security for our own Canadian citizens, but obviously now we have lost the confidence of our allies. To belittle and pooh-pooh it and say that we are not a national security threat is to mean that we take no action to ensure that we become secure.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see the hon. parliamentary secretary rising, perhaps on the point of order that was before the House earlier.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on reflection I recognize that my comments did cause a bit of a stir on the other side of the House and they mistakenly think that I accused the member opposite of being radicalized by extremists of the Daesh. I assure my colleagues that was not what my comment meant and I wish to correct the record.

What my comment meant was that the anti-Canadian language being expressed by the member opposite that we would constitute a national security threat to the United States is clearly a radical position within any Canadian context, certainly within any context to this House of Parliament.

I will not apologize for the phraseology but if the member opposite believes that I was accusing her—

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. The hon. parliamentary secretary is up on a point of order. I have to say that I was unable to hear the last sentence. I would ask him to maybe go back and I would ask for a little bit of order until we can perhaps resolve this issue and carry on.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.