Hélène Laverdière

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about carrying out air strikes in Syria. Civilians will be affected. Even so, it is refusing to work faster to help refugees. The minister is fiddling with the numbers to cover up his failure to take action.

The government has not yet welcomed the 1,300 Syrian refugees that it promised to bring to Canada. Refugees are waiting months because of administrative issues. Why is the government abandoning Syrian refugees to their fate?

[National Defence, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have explicitly ruled out the idea of going to Syria, and said that they would return before their parliaments for authorization if they had to carry out a military operation there.

That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who refuse to tell us whether Canada will conduct operations in Syria and what measures will be taken to protect civilians during air strikes in Iraq. Why is the government rushing to proceed with such a poorly defined combat mission?

[International Development, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD report is clear: Canada is giving less and less development assistance, while the entire international community is giving more and more. In New York, the Prime Minister acknowledged that underdevelopment could create a breeding ground for conflict.

Does the minister agree that now is not the time for cuts, but for additional investments?

[International Development, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning in the Toronto Star that a report from the OECD says that in 2013 Canada was among the countries that reduced its foreign aid budget the most. During that same period, the international community globally increased its development assistance budget. In New York, the Prime Minister acknowledged that poverty and underdevelopment can foster conflict.

Does the minister agree? Why not invest more?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the file on Syrian refugees currently awaiting entry into Canada is surely the best example of this government's inability to acknowledge the real needs of the victims of the many ongoing conflicts in the region.

Instead of fiddling with the numbers to make his performance look good, will the minister try to solve the problem of delays that are preventing the sponsorship of Syrian refugees?

[Foreign Affairs, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in its motion on the crisis in Iraq and Syria, the government is proposing a poorly defined plan with no exit strategy. Meanwhile, the need for humanitarian aid on the ground continues to grow.

Will the government agree to include humanitarian aid in its main motion on the mission in Iraq, as proposed in the NDP's amendments?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not really mention the al-Nusra Front in my speech. I think that clearly shows the ambiguities we are dealing with. We are striking groups that are fighting against the Islamic State armed group and against the al-Assad regime as well. At the same time, it seems that the Canadian government is prepared to work with the al-Assad regime in order to fight the Islamic State armed group. There are many ambiguities and contradictions in this situation. That is definitely one of the concerns.

With respect to visas for Canadian children in Syria who could return to Canada, I share my colleague's concerns. Unfortunately, Syrian refugees are not coming to Canada, and young Canadians are not getting their visas to enter the country. We know that there have been cuts at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Furthermore, I believe that the government has a very negative approach to this issue. That is truly deplorable.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

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

I think that the United Nations established a very clear mandate to help. This help may be defined in different ways. It may involve helping the countries involved defend their borders and preventing extremist militants from leaving our respective countries to join in the abuses being committed in the region. That is essentially our guideline.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we need to start on those long-term things because what the government is proposing right now might not only not achieve its aim but make it worse.

I think I heard a very strange expression here, which I am not sure is parliamentary, but anyway, doctors have a saying “do no harm”, and what people are very worried about is that what is being proposed will do harm. If my colleague across the aisle thinks that we come with some magic bullet to stop the killings tomorrow morning, I am afraid he is very mistaken. We just have to find the best way to answer this crisis.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I know that this is not the time for presenting petitions, but I would like to begin by reading a large section of a petition that is currently being circulated by Artistes pour la paix, a group that does wonderful things and that I admire greatly. The petition says:

We, the citizens, are calling on elected officials to hear our collective voice, which is speaking out in strong opposition to waging war. We believe that the Prime Minister's plan to conduct air strikes against the Islamic State, in absurd alliance with countries that have sowed the seeds of fanaticism, will only serve to harm world security. War NEVER results in a satisfying, sustainable solution. Since 2003, half a million deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria have proven that point time and time again. We believe that violence begets violence. We want a peaceful country, one that is held up as an example by the United Nations.

Certain elements of that may well be debatable, but Artistes pour la paix raises some very legitimate questions that this government cannot answer. It is clear that what is happening in Iraq and Syria right now is absolutely horrible. No one would deny that. However, that is no reason to rush headlong into an undertaking that may not resolve the situation we are hoping to resolve. Rushing in may, in fact, make it worse. We cannot do that without looking at the consequences of the proposed action and assessing what we hope to accomplish. We also have to consider whether what is being proposed will actually resolve the situation.

Let us start with the air strikes. That is today's focus. Many experts, including military experts, have serious doubts about the value of air strikes. We know that the Islamic State has already adjusted to cope with these air strikes and has changed how it operates. The air strikes are therefore of limited value. They are also less useful in densely populated areas, which is the case in Mosul. Numerous experts are saying that it will not be long before this coalition runs out of viable targets.

We should also be concerned about the consequences of the proposed air strikes. I mentioned that these regions are densely populated. This means there is a greater risk of civilian casualties. The United States has lowered its criteria for avoiding civilian casualties. We are wondering if Canada will do the same.

Recruitment is another risk, and more than just a risk, I am afraid. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the Islamic State armed group has recruited over 6,000 new recruits, so over 6,000 new fighters, since the American air strikes began last month. Rebel commanders opposing the Islamic State armed group continue to fight, particularly in Syria, but they are warning that air strikes are merely boosting support for the jihadists. Some small towns and villages have 20 new recruits a day, and this is being fueled largely by those air strikes.

I would also like to read some comments made by a number of highly experienced individuals who are part of the Group of 78 and Project Ploughshares, a well-known organization. These individuals include people like Roy Culpeper and Peggy Mason, a former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations for disarmament.

They say they have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign and deep concerns about its negative consequences for innocent civilians, and that the “use of force is far more likely to fuel conflict and the extremism underpinning it, rather than defeat it”. If the intervention nonetheless proceeds as proposed, they demand full transparency by the government before, during and after the mission. They also say that the military mission may help reduce the atrocities committed by the IS in the short term but recent experience in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq itself suggests that in the longer term it may only make the situation worse.

I think we should pay attention to comments like that before rushing blindly into something that could have more negative effects than positive ones.

As I said at the outset, we need clear objectives. Lately, however, the Canadian government's objectives have changed almost every day.

As some of the people I quoted said, we have to take a longer view. We need to start with diplomacy. Sunni Iraqi groups managed to contain the armed Islamic State group, known by that name and other names, for years. Eventually, they began to feel excluded and did not fight as hard against the extremist group. We have to bring them back to the table and offer them a political solution because this situation can only be resolved for the long term with the help of the people on the ground and in the region. We have to suffocate the extremists, not feed them. We have to stop them from recruiting in the region and elsewhere.

It is also important to help investigate crimes against humanity. There has to be humanitarian aid on the ground too because there are desperate needs that are likely to get even worse in the months to come.

Nearly 2 million people have been displaced internally. This includes families fleeing from very difficult circumstances, forced to travel in extreme heat, with temperatures often reaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit, living in camps, churches, tents or with host families. They need food, water, items for personal hygiene, blankets and shelter. There are over 200,000 Syrian refugees in Iraq right now who will have to move for a second, third or fourth time. Life for these displaced families is incredibly desperate. As I was saying, they take shelter in abandoned buildings, schools and churches, and they desperately need food, as well as medicine and medical care, because many are injured as a result of the violence around them. Helping them is absolutely crucial.

I would like to take a moment to commend the work being done by the aid workers who are currently on the ground, especially the thousands of Iraqi and Syrian Red Crescent volunteers. They often put their own safety and their own lives at risk in order to do this work.

Earlier I heard a member across the aisle say, if I understood correctly, that the army is needed to ensure the safety of aid workers. I am sorry, but humanitarian work is based on neutrality, impartiality and independence. The last thing that our aid workers want is to be accompanied by armed forces from any country, because that would destroy their credibility and prevent them from working on the ground. That is what they always say. We need to support aid workers, and especially people who are suffering on the ground.