Élaine Michaud

[Foreign Affairs, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of basic questions about Canada's military involvement in Iraq remain unanswered.

For example, our soldiers have been in Iraq for nearly 30 days, but we still know nothing about the logistical problems they have faced.

Can the minister tell us whether an agreement on the status of the forces on the ground was in place to ensure legal protection for our soldiers when they arrived in Iraq?

[Social Development, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, for years now, young people in the Portneuf region have always been able to count on l'Autre Cartier, a homelessness prevention organization that does wonders. However, backlogs in the processing of applications to the skills link program have deprived that organization of crucial funding. L'Autre Cartier will soon be forced to shut down, and the youth who live there will be forced onto the streets.

The Minister of Employment and Social Development is responsible for preventing such debacles. Can he explain why his department is putting community organizations like l'Autre Cartier in jeopardy?

[National Defence, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, the Conservatives decided to cancel the contract to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's supply ships.

Because of these delays, in a few months, the navy will find itself without any joint supply ships and may have to stay in port.

Caught off guard, the Conservatives are now going to buy ships that are at the end of their lifespan from the American military. Well done.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us how much the Conservatives' mismanagement of the supply ships is going to cost Canadians?

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep dragging their feet when it comes to their promise to receive more Syrian refugees. Some people have been waiting for two years because of unnecessary red tape. However, Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom and Norway have processed thousands of refugee claims in less than a year. Lives are at stake. Why is Canada refusing to do its part and take in Syrian refugees as it promised?

[Foreign Affairs, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, former prime minister Jean Chrétien has said that the Conservatives' decision to send troops into Iraq will pull Canada into further commitments. Contrary to the government's claims that this will be only a limited 30-day military mission, we are now engaged in what could become a combat mission. We cannot trust the Prime Minister, who wanted to go to war in Iraq in 2003. Can the Minister of National Defence at least tell us whether there will be a vote in the House, before the 30 days are up, to decide what will happen next?

[National Defence, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not believe the Minister of National Defence's vague promises anymore. They need a minister who stands up and takes responsibility for the Conservatives' failure when it comes to the mental health of our soldiers.

With the number of soldiers who have committed suicide now higher than the number of soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan, how does the Minister of National Defence explain that 10% of positions for mental health staff in his department remain vacant?

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my Liberal colleague that as the government, we would never make a unilateral decision like this. We would bring the issue before the House of Commons for debate, which is what should happen, and we would hold a debate among all the parties, which is appropriate, to try and come to the best solution possible.

I am hearing these comments coming from the Liberal Party, which has a tendency to throw its support behind the government and then ask for details. We saw it with the free trade agreement with the European Union, and we are seeing it again with the current situation in Iraq. The Liberals say that it is an excellent idea and they give the government their support, but once they have said yes, then they ask for details and want to be in the know.

The NDP believes that we should have that information beforehand, that we should debate first and then vote, which is what happens in any good parliamentary democracy.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

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

In fact, all of the points he brought up could have been questions raised during a debate in Parliament before a vote on this mission. The points he raised are closely tied to the humanitarian aid that the NDP and the Iraqi government have been calling for. Those aspects were discussed a great deal by my colleagues during previous debates.

What my colleague is trying to do—and we see this all the time with the Conservative government—is obscure the facts and downplay the importance of debate in the House. The fact that the government has a majority does not negate its responsibility to work with other members and bring these issues before Parliament so that we can vote on them and speak to them. The NDP has already called for humanitarian aid. Statements and comments to that effect were made in committee on September 9. My colleagues made the request multiple times.

What I am not hearing from the Conservative members is any objection to the fact that their Prime Minister broke a promise that he made to Canadians in 2009. That is what I would like to debate. If we want to be able to have confidence in this government to conduct foreign operations, we first need to be able to have confidence that it can manage things on home soil.

[Situation in Iraq, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join with my colleagues in this very important debate we are having in the House tonight on Canada's response to the situation currently raging in Iraq.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The debate in the House this evening is of the utmost importance because the situation that the people of Iraq are currently facing is frankly intolerable. That has been mentioned by members of all parties in the House this evening. The terrorist organization known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has committed acts of violence that are absolutely disgusting. Civilian populations are being massacred. Civilians are the targets of extremist strikes. There is sexual violence against women, children and members of Iraq's minority communities. Many thousands of Iraqi citizens have had to flee their homes in the face of the escalation of the violence currently raging in their country.

Each of us in the House agrees on one fact. ISIL represents a humanitarian and security threat and the acts currently being committed in Iraq are likely to destabilize the region. The intensity and the nature of the acts of violence are a direct attack on human rights and the freedoms of religion, belief and association. As well, the humanitarian aid needs in Iraq are staggering. Indeed that was the government of Iraq's request to Canada. The first thing the country needs at the moment is rapid humanitarian aid for the thousands, the millions, of displaced civilians who need material support and other kinds of assistance right away.

All parties agree on those elements. Where we disagree—and this is the crux of tonight's debate—is on the Conservative government's unilateral decision to send Canadian troops to Iraq with no consultation with Parliament or even a vote here in the House. I heard people say that our party had an entire opposition day to discuss the issue and force a vote in Parliament. Beyond that, the government has completely neglected part of its responsibility here. It was the government's obligation to consult members of all parties. Each of us represents Canadians who are concerned by the current situation in Iraq. They are wondering what will be the role assigned to the Canadian troops on the ground. People still remember what happened in Afghanistan. It is very fresh in their memories.

I represent the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which is home to the Valcartier military base. Many of the soldiers from that base were deployed to Afghanistan. Some never made it home, while others came back with physical or psychological injuries that they still have today. Soldiers and their families want details. They want to know what the Canadian government is sending them into, and the place for such a debate is here in the House of Commons, not behind closed doors with a just a few cabinet ministers. We are told that the information was sent to the Leader of the Opposition who was supposed to share it with his MPs. That is not a debate; that is not consulting Parliament; that is simply getting second-hand information. The government only tells us what it wants to tell us, and then it expects that that information will be shared among the members, and we are supposed to believe we were consulted. That is not at all the kind of work the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier sent me to the House of Commons to do.

Once again, the government made a unilateral decision that further undermines the democratic principles that are the very foundation of our country. I heard the Conservatives talking about the importance of sending Canadian troops to spread Canadian values abroad. The current Conservative government is completely incapable of living those values in the day to day. Thus, every day, we see many abuses of the democratic principles that are supposed to be the foundation of our society. Personally, I find it a little hypocritical to hear the Conservatives saying they want to send our soldiers to spread Canadian values and principles, when they themselves are not capable of respecting them.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has broken his promise to consult Parliament before sending Canadian soldiers overseas. When the Conservatives were still campaigning in 2005-06, the Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to ask for Parliament's consent before deploying Canadian troops. It is written in black and white in the Conservative Party election platform at the time. It was an election promise, so it is easy to say that it was just rhetoric.

When he was elected in August 2009, the Prime Minister also stated unequivocally that his government would henceforth demand that any military deployment be supported by the Parliament of Canada. However, this is at least the second time that he has done otherwise.

During the mission in Libya, we saw that the government broke this promise, and now, for the mission in Iraq it is simply forgetting its promise. The government claims that the issue is more critical, that it has a majority and it does not need to consult with the other members of Parliament.

In my view, this is a direct affront to democracy. As an elected representative, am I supposed to read in the papers that the government has decided to send troops to Iraq, including possibly some of my constituents, while I have absolutely no information about where the troops will come from or what their role will be?

On September 9, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade held a special meeting to provide some clarifications. What a surprise. Once again, theMinister of National Defence was unable to answer the questions of the members of the opposition.

Fortunately, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was there and was able to answer some questions. However, the Minister of National Defence was completely lost. He had no details at all and was unable to do his job in the committee and inform the members.

Technically, the purpose of tonight's debate was also supposedly to provide more details to MPs on the current mission in Iraq. However, once again, the government was generous with its rhetoric and obscurantism, but shared no answers. We have many questions, but we still do not know how many troops will be deployed in total. For now, the government is saying 69. The numbers are somewhat vague. We have no concrete idea.

What will they do exactly to advise and help the Kurdish forces? We still have no idea. What is the mandate and objective of this mission for Canada? We still have no idea.

Unfortunately, we are completely missing the point of tonight's debate because we are still in the same spot. We hear the young people talk about key principles, Canadian values and the advisory role that our troops could play. However, other than that, I still have no concrete information to help me take a stand as an MP, which is what the NDP is asking.

I heard people from different sides of the House ask the NDP members what their position would be. First, we need the details; we need to know what is the mission and what are the objectives. There are a multitude of questions to be answered and, for the time being, the information is sorely lacking.

In addition, we are being told that the Conservative government is reserving the right to re-evaluate the mission in 30 days and to determine what it will do next—once again without involving Parliament and MPs.

A little earlier, my Conservative colleague from Yukon said something interesting. He told us just how important it was to arrive at a consensus in the House and to have all parties support a common position. I would really like to know how we can do that if the opposition members do not have a say in debate.

How can my colleague from Yukon think we can achieve consensus and make a decision in the House when the contribution of opposition members is completely ignored by presenting them with a fait accompli and telling them that it is up to their leader to inform them of decisions made by the government? That makes absolutely no sense.

I have not abdicated my responsibilities as an MP. The citizens of my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, expect me to take part in the debate and to represent the civilians and the soldiers who live in my riding because they could be directly involved in this mission. However, no one has more information. We have nothing.

We must remember our soldiers' return from Afghanistan before we possibly engage in a mission that could go on forever and about which we know very little. I heard some of my colleagues talk about mission creep. We are currently facing that situation.

I find it deplorable that no vote is being held in Parliament. It is not the opposition's responsibility to devote an opposition day to this issue. The government promised to consult Parliament before deploying the military and they have broken that promise.

It is the Conservative government, not the opposition, that is responsible for this state of affairs.

[National Defence, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, more soldiers have been lost to suicide since 2002 than died in combat in Afghanistan. According to National Defence statistics, 178 soldiers have committed suicide since 2002.That is right, 178. It is obvious that the Conservative government has abandoned our soldiers, our veterans and their caregivers.

How many more deaths will it take in order for the government to realize that it has a crisis on its hands?