By Alan Mercer
Just following up on this vote. I was just looking for some kind of glimmer of hope.
That this House (i) recognise that the leadership of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has called on its members to target Canada and Canadians at home and abroad, (ii) further recognise the clear and direct threat that ISIL poses to the people of the region, including members of vulnerable religious and ethnic minority groups who have been subjected to a sustained campaign of brutal sexual violence, murder, and barbaric intimidation by ISIL, (iii) accept that, unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow, (iv) affirm Canada’s desire, consistent with Canadian values and interests, to protect the vulnerable and innocent civilians of the region, including through urgent humanitarian assistance, (v) acknowledge the request from the Government of Iraq for military support against ISIL from members of the international community, including from the Government of Canada, (vi) further acknowledge the participation of Canada’s friends and allies, including numerous countries of the Middle East, in the broad international coalition committed to the fight against ISIL, (vii) note that the United Nations Security Council has become seized of the threat posed by international terrorism with the unanimous passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178, and, accordingly: (a) support the Government’s decision to contribute Canadian military assets to the fight against ISIL, and terrorists allied with ISIL, including air strike capability for a period of up to six months; (b) note that the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations; and (c) continue to offer its resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us.
Results of Vote
ISIS mission: MPs approve Canada’s air combat role
By Aleksandra Sagan, Kady O’Malley, CBC News, www.cbc.ca, 8 October 2014
Just a constant barrage of propaganda stories. As far as the major “opposition” parties are concerned, they’re not really against war at all. They just want to have the Conservatives play the tough guy or bad cop this time. If they’re not repeating the sensationalist propaganda about ISIL, they’re repeating the made-up propaganda about the Syrian government and worshiping the United Nations’ “right” to go to war.
The same propaganda, whether there is some partial truth to it or not, is repeated constantly by the media and government in order to justify aggressive acts of war on behalf of globalist interests. It’s not going to benefit Canadians at all. You think there aren’t going to be worse atrocities committed by all sides as war escalates? Also against our rights and freedoms.
In any case, the worst atrocity is the destruction of our sense of empathy. The entertainment industry has been a factor in this. It seems that most people don’t know their right hand from their left, especially if they take these political party labels seriously. It’s all socialism, it’s all fascism, it’s all communitarianism.
The Conservatives all voted in lock step with their party, and the other MPs voted in lock step with their leaders also (except for the two Greens).
So these private organizations actually determine votes in Parliament–as usual. Nothing new about that. But it should be eye-opening if you never considered the contradiction in that. Are MPs elected to represent what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents? I think that’s how it should be, but they’re not.
When elections are held, the party is always emphasized by the media. The leader is emphasized, and the MPs in the same party are portrayed as hangers-on. So if some topic is not covered in the campaign policies, which most people don’t read anyway, the voters just have some vague generalizations and assumptions about what this corporate institution called a political party “believes” in–based on this artificial left-right paradigm that supposedly divides people, which isn’t understood properly.
It’s obvious to me that each of the political parties stands for globalism. It just comes in slightly different flavors. It’s never about Canada minding our own business, never about Canada being independent, and never about Canada putting the best interests of Canadians first. If governments–provincial or federal–aren’t running over the public with environmentalist measures (or threatening new carbon taxes), they’re running over them with new social engineering agendas, new trade agreements and new wars. All of these are internationalist agendas.
You can read the full transcript for the House of Commons for October 7, including all discussions about the ISIS vote (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6720661).
CLOSURE AND MPs NOT EVEN BEING ABLE TO SPEAK ON IMPORTANT ISSUES
The following is an excerpt from Tuesday’s discussions. Are most MPs treated like children? Are they talked down to? Do most of them get a chance to speak on major issues?
Ms. Elizabeth May:
Mr. Speaker, it is a rare opportunity to follow up with the minister. I do apologize to the minister if he interpreted anything I said as partisan, as that was his response. However, I do want to ask him once again if he does not think it would be fairer, in the interest of a full debate, if there were not closure, so that those of us who actually have original points can put them forward. I asked him before the mace came in this morning, when we were able to consult informally, if there would not be an opportunity to explore other ideas that could actually make a difference on the ground.
We have heard from very knowledgeable foreign affairs experts—such as former ambassador Peggy Mason and foreign affairs expert Robert Fowler, who himself has had tragic and terrifying exposure to a terrorist organization, being held hostage in Mali—that the mission as proposed could do more harm than good. Therefore, without trying to adequately explore what could do more good than harm and what other opportunities are out there, this debate becomes foreshortened into a false choice between doing something that could be stupid and doing something else. I think we need more time.
Hon. John Baird:
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands, to whom I made complimentary remarks yesterday, while I do not agree with her, while I think she is wrong, I think she is principled in her position on this issue.
She did say that members on one side of the House just make repetitive speeches, but only apparently she is able to give good speeches. I think there are rules that allow parliamentarians to speak. Not every parliamentarian can speak to every issue. That is a reality we all have to come to understand in a Parliament of 308 members.
As do many Canadians, the government sees evil people doing very bad things and we want to help stop it. We can look at additional measures, as we have, whether humanitarian support or something I am very passionate about, tackling rape as a weapon of war and sexual violence in conflict. Whether we do this through diplomatic efforts to ensure there is an inclusive program with the new government in Iraq, whether it is ongoing efforts at deradicalization, stopping foreign fighters, there are many other things we could do beyond this resolution, on which the government will continue to work.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the minister say that there are rules in this House to ensure that members have the right to speak. He said that not every member can speak to every issue, and I understand completely. However, if the government would stop limiting debate, more members would have a chance to speak, express themselves and share their constituents’ concerns with the government. The Conservatives have very few representatives in certain regions, so they have very little opportunity to find out what people in those regions are thinking. They should welcome the opportunity to hear about it in the House.
I would therefore like to know why, for the 79th time, the government is playing fast and loose with the rules of the House, rules that are there to ensure that all parliamentarians can represent their constituents properly?