Thomas Mulcair

[National Defence, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, ISIL actually started in Syria.

In September, when I explicitly asked the Prime Minister whether our soldiers would be engaging in combat and whether they would be involved in the targeting of air strikes, his answer to Canadians was a resounding no.

Why does the Prime Minister think that Canadians can now trust him, when he betrayed their trust months ago?

[National Defence, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in October, the Prime Minister said in this House that Canadian Forces would participate in bombing “where—and only where—Canada has the clear support of the government of the country...”.

Why has the Prime Minister completely reversed his position? What is it based on?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, when Moammar Gadhafi started dropping bombs on his own civilian population, New Democrats supported the international efforts to protect Libyans. That effort was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Of course, when the mission of protection of the civilian population became one of a so-called regime change, it was New Democrats who asked the right question—to replace it with what? Ask the Americans how that worked out in Benghazi.

Now, years later, with everything we have seen unfold in Libya, it is clear that the NDP was right to ask those questions then. Unlike that original mission in Libya, the war in Iraq does not have the support of the United Nations. Let us be clear about that.

Here it is important to note that the UN Security Council has indeed passed three resolutions dealing with Iraq. None authorizes a military mission. However, the Security Council is requiring action on preventing the flow of foreign fighters and financing of terrorist organizations, including ISIS and ISIL. Pressuring regional governments to prevent financial transfers to them is a real diplomatic effort that Canada can and should prioritize. That would be effective. The truth is that air strikes are being used as an effective recruitment tool for ISIS.

The United States has been mired in Iraq for over a decade, and the Americans see no light at the end of the tunnel. Would the Prime Minister have us believe that he will be able to successfully use military force to impose a solution in Iraq when everyone else has failed in the past 10 years? I do not think so.

Now the Prime Minister wants to move ahead with this plan and help the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, a war criminal who uses chemical weapons against his own people and bombs schools and hospitals with impunity and without reservation.

It is especially disturbing to see the Prime Minister now openly considering an alliance of sorts with the brutal dictator and war criminal Bashar al-Assad. The Prime Minister has already said that any Canadian military involvement in Syria—something the government is now proposing, as members just heard—would require the permission of the Assad regime.

This is a regime that continues to commit the most atrocious war crimes. It is a regime that not only uses chemical weapons on civilians, but it uses snipers against women and children. It is a regime that actually collaborated with ISIS.

It is hard to believe the Prime Minister when he says that the mission is about preventing atrocities when he is willing to work with one of the worst perpetrators of atrocities in the world today.

Paul Heinbecker, Canada's last ambassador to the UN Security Council, said it best. He said:

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.

Simply put, our women and men in uniform have no place being in Iraq and they certainly have no place being in Syria.

Mark my words, when New Democrats form government on October 19, we are going to pull our troops out. We are going to bring them home.

I am sure that everyone in the House only wants what is best for the Iraqi people, but escalating military action is not going to help the people of Iraq. The insurgents, factions and clans feed off these interventions to radicalize the population, recruit militants and undermine local governments. These groups, such as the Islamic State, benefit from the weak Iraqi government and the little support it gets from its own people. Iraq is in no position to maintain peace and security within its own borders. More bombs, more destruction and more deaths are not going to change that.

Canada can play a more positive role in resolving this crisis. We can do that by helping Turkey, our NATO ally, cope with 1.5 million refugees who have poured over its border. We can do that by using every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to strengthen the political institutions in Iraq, and yes, in Syria.

It is simply not enough to say that we have to do something. We need to ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. The question should not be whether it is a combat role or nothing. It is a false choice offered by the Prime Minister. The question should be what is the most effective thing Canada can do.

There is a desperate need for humanitarian support. There were reports from a committee of this Parliament this week of children freezing to death in refugee camps. Canada could have helped with winterizing those camps.

There is also a desperate need for greater diplomacy. Local frustrations and ineffective outreach brought about the rise of ISIS. Only effective, inclusive, and representative governance can end the threat from extremism in the region.

There is a need for a strong campaign to counter extremist messaging, exposing the brutality of ISIS and the lack of religious basis for its atrocities. It starts right here at home with proactive engagement with the communities to prevent radicalization. However, that is something that cannot be achieved when the Prime Minister singles out Canada's Muslim population instead of reaching out to its members.

The motion the government is moving does not do any of that. That is why the official opposition made up of the New Democratic Party of Canada will not support this motion, will not support extending the war in Iraq, and will not support expanding this war to Syria. That is clearly not the right path to take.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a UN mission. It is not even a NATO mission. Despite attempts to give appearances to the contrary, it is not a NATO mission. UN missions and NATO missions are the kinds of internationally sanctioned campaigns that New Democrats can and have been able to get behind.

In 2011—

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, asking our brave Canadian women and men in uniform to risk their lives overseas is the most sacred duty that a prime minister has. Seeking approval from this House makes us all responsible for their lives. Seeking a mandate like this must be undertaken, therefore, with the utmost responsibility.

I listened very carefully as the Prime Minister spoke just now, and nothing I heard today has convinced me that the Conservatives are taking this duty with the seriousness it deserves.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we have had this debate before. On September 30, just six months ago, I stood in this House and asked the Prime Minister specifically whether Canadian troops would be involved in directing air strikes in Iraq, in painting targets. I asked him twice, as a matter of fact, and twice the Prime Minister specifically denied it. We now know that simply was not true. I also asked the Prime Minister if Canadian troops would be accompanying Iraqi forces to the front line. Again, the Prime Minister categorically denied that, and again we now know that simply was not true. They say that truth is the first casualty of war. It has become clear that the current government has taken that saying to heart.

Little by little, without any transparency and with one contradictory statement after another by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Conservatives have pushed Canada into a war in Iraq—a war that is not ours to fight. It is a quagmire that has gone on for over a decade, a conflict that has already cost the life of Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron, as the Prime Minister just said.

Here we are six months later. This Prime Minister and this government are now asking for permission to extend the deployment in Iraq and to specifically add—the Prime Minister just said so—Syria as a new theatre of operations.

The Prime Minister is asking for our trust so that he can put our troops in danger. Frankly, he has not earned that trust.

The Prime Minister has not earned that trust because he misled Canadians from the start. It is simply unconscionable that the current Conservative government would ask for the authority to extend the mission in Iraq when so many things it has told Canadians about the mission up until now have been false.

It begs the question: Do they not know the answers or do they not want Canadians to know the answers? The women and men who put their lives on the line deserve better; Canadians deserve better.

If we all agree that it is the Prime Minister's sacred duty to send our troops into war, then it is the official opposition's sacred duty to scrutinize that decision to make sure it is the right one.

Military planners will tell us that, for a mission to succeed, it must have two things. It must have a well-defined objective and a well-defined exit strategy. This mission has neither. The Conservatives simply have no plan. They have no strategy, other than the obvious political one, and that is putting our troops in danger.

Our brave men and women are involved in fire fights with ISIS on the ground, contrary to their clear undertaking. For the Prime Minister to still deny that Canadian troops are involved in combat is simply ludicrous. The death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us all that the risk of deployment on the front line is real. This House cannot turn a blind eye to this fact, despite the Prime Minister's assertions.

The truth is that our allies, the Americans for instance, do not even get close to the front line. In their role of targeting air strikes, the Canadian soldiers are performing a task that so far even the U.S. military has been unwilling to perform.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly said that the U.S. would consider directing attacks from the ground but that it has not done so yet. Why not, and why are Canadian troops doing it?

Clearly, the lack of clear objectives did not stop this Prime Minister from supporting George W. Bush's war in 2003. However, history shows that Canada was right in choosing not to participate at the time.

However, it is clear today that our Prime Minister is not at all concerned about the lack of clear objectives. He seems to want his war in Iraq, just as he wanted it in 2003, regardless of the consequences. Canada initially joined the war in Iraq for a 30-day mission. Thirty days became six months. Now, six months later, the government wants to add another year. What will happen then? That is the question. The Conservatives do not know. Canadians do not know. What is worse, the Conservatives refuse to say.

We need to remember Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan, a war that, for Canada, also started with our special forces participating in some very limited operations. At the time, facing insults and jeers, Alexa McDonough and the NDP caucus asked the government the necessary questions, tough questions. Then, as now, the initial mission transformed over time, which led us into a quagmire, as we predicted.

The deployment in Afghanistan became the longest military mission in Canada's history: 160 soldiers were killed, more than 1,000 were wounded and thousands of others suffered and still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

It is the height of irresponsibility for a government to decide to enter a war without a clear plan, without a clear beginning and a well-defined end. However, that is exactly what the Conservatives are doing in Iraq. The government is taking Canada from mission creep to mission leap.

New Democrats are proud to have stood up to the Prime Minister's misguided war from the very beginning. The fact is that Canada has no place in this war. This is not—

[Ethics, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, what the evidence actually shows is that Nigel Wright testified before the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He said that the Prime Minister asked him, and I quote from his testimony, to “sort it out”, with respect to the grant for their Conservative friend.

Does the Prime Minister ask his chief of staff to sort out all of the grants his government hands out, or just the ones for good friends of the Conservative Party who take the Prime Minister's private plane?

[Ethics, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let us now look at the facts.

Of the 167 projects submitted, only five were selected. The first four met all of the criteria and the fifth was managed by a good friend of the Conservatives. According to the department's objective evaluation, this project was one of the worst of the 167 projects. Guess which one was chosen. Yes, that is right.

If this was done in good faith, as the Prime Minister just claimed, why is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner blaming his minister for committing an illegal act and failing to co-operate with the investigation?

[Ethics, March 11th, 2015]

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, three Conservative ministers, senior political staffers and the Prime Minister's favourite chief of staff pushed through a grant for a “dear friend” of the Conservatives. It was a $1 million political gift. The Minister of Public Works only dared to go ahead after discussing this with the Prime Minister's own chief of staff.

What was Nigel Wright doing in the approval process in the first place?

[National Defence, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, he is leading us into a quagmire.

Does the Prime Minister have the slightest idea as to when and how he will get our troops out of Iraq?

[National Defence, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister planning an extension or expansion of Canada's role in the war in Iraq?