House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forces.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Edmonton Centre (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Military Contribution Against ISIL March 30th, 2015

Mr. Speaker, in respect to the second question, I just do not know. I am sorry. That answer can come from somebody else.

With respect to the first question about reasons or justification for it, Canada will lead, as Canada has done in the past.

The U.S. is in Syria for a number of reasons: one, the responsibility to protect, which they take seriously and we take seriously; two, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. and their allies for help in Iraq and Syria.

The NATO allies are in fact participating in other areas. When Canada joins the U.S. and the Arab countries in Syria, I would not be surprised at all to see other NATO allies follow.

Military Contribution Against ISIL March 30th, 2015

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I welcome the opportunity to add to the debate on our continuing mission against the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL, or Daesh. One can take one's pick. A lot of ink has been spilled and a lot of emotion has been expended, but I submit that it is not all that complicated. To understand why we are there in the first place, people only have to google images of ISIS, but they should be prepared with a strong stomach.

The list of ISIS atrocities is so long, one barely knows where to begin, whether it is with the beheadings, the crucifixions, the enslavements, or its inspiration of others. It is in the latter that ISIS represents a threat to Canada. The perpetrators of murders against members of the Canadian Armed Forces last October were not members of ISIS per se, but they were ideal recruits.

We know that about 70 Canadians have gone to Iraq and Syria to fight with ISIS, and we know that CSIS is looking closely at about 140 more. We know that if CSIS says 140, the real number is much higher.

The October terrorist-inspired murders were carried out by people who had been radicalized. Some want to chalk it up to simple mental illness. To be sure, they had to be mentally ill to carry out those murders, but they were the type of people who make ideal ISIS hand grenades simply waiting for their pins to be pulled at random.

There are more of them out there, and we simply must remain vigilant and give our security forces the capacity they need to keep us as safe as possible from those threats. ISIS has singled out Canada, and we would be very foolish not to take them at their word. Some have glibly said that there are more people killed by lightning or other causes in Canada than by terrorists. That is true, and I want to keep it that way.

ISIS's crimes are crimes against humanity. This is not any one leader's war; this is humanity's war. There are indeed other movements that may be equally bad but not that approach ISIS's codified evil, made possible by its pretensions to be a state. It is an ideology that can be defeated, but the first step must be to eliminate the state structure that supports the ideology and whose very existence is what draws others to it.

Sixty-two countries are now supporting the U.S.-led operation, including all 26 NATO countries and many in the region. People speak of international law and the United Nations. I would remind members of the responsibility to protect doctrine that was adopted by the United Nations at the urging of Canada, and especially by former Prime Minister Paul Martin. Where a government cannot or will not protect its citizens, the international community has a responsibility to step in. It seems that the current Liberal leadership has lost sight of its past.

Would we be advocating a formal responsibility to protect? No, we would not, because that would subordinate our foreign policy to Russia and China. However, do we stand by the essence of the responsibility to protect? Absolutely, we do. That is one of the reasons we are there.

As well, under article 51, a nation or nations may take action as a right of self-defence. Due to the actions threatened, and in fact carried out by ISIS and its adherents, the coalition was justified in taking action. The U.S. made that clear to the United Nations with respect to operations in Syria, and Canada will do the same.

Operations in Iraq are more straightforward with the invitation from the Government of Iraq to help them in their fight against ISIS. The alternative, if the allied countries had not begun to take action against ISIS, both in Iraq and eastern Syria, is that we would have today an organization in control of most of Iraq and roughly half of Syria, with its own energy revenues and its military expansion unchecked.

Our mission, as originally conducted, and the expansion into air operations in Syria, is not about supporting Bashar al-Assad. It is about saving lives and eliminating a virulent threat to humanity. The threat of ISIS will be eliminated when it can no longer use Syria or Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks directly or by proxy against people around the world. That does not mean that Bashar al-Assad is now our friend. He is still a war criminal, mass murderer, ethnic cleanser, and deadly fanatic. He must be dealt with at a later time, but the most pressing priority is what to do about ISIS.

Benjamin Netanyahu said it well before the U.S. Congress when, in reference to Iran, he said that “the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy”. That applies in spades to Bashar al-Assad.

Let us talk for a few minutes about the mission itself. For the past six months, we have had 69 special forces personnel helping to train Iraqi Kurdish military elements in the conduct of combat operations. We are not there in a ground combat mission of our own. If we were, we would have an awful lot more troops there and an awful lot more equipment.

Iraq is a dangerous place, and there will always be risk in any mission in a hostile environment. Canadian soldiers accept that risk willingly. If we were to use the current verbiage by the opposition and the media to define combat mission, then I would suggest that virtually every one of our peacekeeping missions was, in fact, a combat mission.

Wherever we operate, our soldiers are always prepared to provide self-defence, and that is what they do when they are with the Kurdish forces, away from the garrison.

Our snipers are, arguably, the best in the business. When they use pinpoint fire to provide a safe extraction from a dangerous situation, that is not a real firefight, as much as the media and the opposition love to use exciting language.

The rules are simple. When the bad guys shoot at the good guys, the good guys get to kill the bad guys. Tragically, from time to time, in any war, the good guys occasionally shoot at the good guys. When that happens, thorough investigations will identify causes and corrective action, but wars will always be subject to uncertainties.

That training mission will continue unchanged by this motion. Only two things will change as a result of this motion. Operations will be extended for 12 months, and that is an entirely logical and justified position. The job will be done when the job is done. People need to remember that the enemy has a vote on when that happens. On September 3, 1939, did anyone know that war in Europe would be over in May 1945, or in the Pacific in August 1945?

The only other thing that will change is that six CF-18 Hornets, two CP-140 Auroras surveillance aircraft, and one CC-150 Polaris air refuelling aircraft will support the air operation mission over Syria as well as Iraq. The Iraq-Syria border has been effectively erased by the successes of ISIS' territorial operations. Operations by the forces of Bashar al-Assad are confined to western Syria, and our area of operations will be in the eastern part of the country. All three types of aircraft that the Royal Canadian Air Force has committed are ideally suited to the task.

The CF-18 Hornets are obviously the teeth of the operation, and the level of mission effectiveness with their systems and weapons available make them a key part of a much larger coalition operation. I would remind anyone who still needs to know that the aircraft is 56 feet long, 40 feet wide, 15 feet tall, and weighs 52,000 pounds.

This past weekend, I spent some time with one of the pilots from 409 Tactical Fighter Squadron based at Cold Lake, who had recently returned from his first tour of combat operations in Iraq.

As Canada has done in other conflicts, it can wield a big stick, but it does so with great care and restraint to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties to the maximum extent possible. Throughout the mission planning process, and indeed, throughout the missions, which can last six to eight hours, there is constant contact and verification that an attack is appropriate in all respects. There is a “red card holder” on the ground with all of the electronic and human information who has the final authority to allow a weapons release to proceed. The pilot, of course, has the ultimate final authority when he presses the pickle button. Very often, pilots return with their weapons if there is any doubt at all.

The CC-150 refuellers play a key role with the fighters from Canada and our allies to give our aircraft the legs to conduct all operations. The CP-140 Auroras' capabilities have been, perhaps, the wild card in Canada's contribution. Their capability to provide intelligence gathering, surveillance, and targeting support have been remarkable and highly praised by everyone with whom they operate. To use a common expression, they are magic.

This mission is not just about bringing ISIS to its knees militarily; it is also about bringing relief to the innocent people of the region caught up in the conflict. Just as we are in a kinetic mission, Canada is doing more than its share in the humanitarian mission as well. Canada is the sixth largest contributor to the humanitarian mission in Syria, and the fifth largest contributor in Iraq. Some 1.7 million Iraqis are eating because of Canada. Another 1.2 million have shelter because of Canada. Some 500,000 children are going to school because of Canada. There is much more.

Somebody across the way wanted numbers. Canada has contributed $700 million to humanitarian aid in Syria since 2011. That is not chump change. More recently, Canada has contributed $67.4 million to humanitarian aid in Iraq. They wanted numbers, so they got numbers.

It is not an either/or mission. Canada will continue to exercise its humanitarian and security obligations on the international stage.

I am disappointed but not surprised that the NDP members oppose the motion and the mission. I do not say that unkindly, because that is simply who they are, and that is their right, even as they are offside with the majority of Canadians. I must admit to more disappointment and some surprise at the opposition of the Liberal Party. I believe that people like Mackenzie King may be looking down in dismay at the moment. I believe there are at least a few among the Liberal éminences grises who are shaking their heads today.

Canada has the capacity to exercise strength and compassion, and that is what it has done proudly throughout its history. That is what makes me proud to be a Canadian and proud to support this motion to help bring at least some measure of safety and stability to a very troubled part of our world, and security to Canadians here in the greatest country in the world.

Military Contribution Against ISIL March 30th, 2015

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on a couple of points.

We talked about the mission changing and evolving. In my view, people are making it, and I will ask the minister to comment on this, more complicated than it needs to be.

There are only two changes happening to the mission. First, it is going to be extended for 12 months because the job is not over until the job is over, and the enemy has a vote what goes on. Second, airplanes, instead of operating within Iraq, are going to be operating over Syria. The border between the countries has effectively been erased by ISIS in any event. The actual changes to the mission are not all that complicated and substantive.

The other point is that people are saying it is really a combat mission. The ground mission is in a dangerous place. We have done missions in dangerous places around the world for many years. They were called peacekeeping missions. They were missions in dangerous places. They were missions where Canadian peacekeepers died because they were shot by people who did not like the fact that we were there. By definition, of the verbiage in the media and the opposition, that would suggest that every one of our peacekeeping missions was in fact a combat mission.

There are words here that are being used inappropriately. What is the actual change of the mission, and is it really not all that different other than we will be airborne over one more place?

Rise in anti-Semitism February 24th, 2015

Mr. Chair, we have talked about how well Canada is doing, relatively speaking, and how other countries are doing in this area.

We brought up the United Nations several times in tonight's debate, and a lot of the time it has been about how the UN as a body, in my view, has let the side down, has let the cause of anti-Semitism down, because of all the instances where bodies of the United Nations have voted unanimously, or in a majority fashion, to condemn Israel above all other states combined.

It does not imbue one with a lot of optimism from the point of view of the international community, as embodied by the United Nations, that we in the world writ large are acting to stamp out anti-Semitism.

I know my colleague, the minister, has great experience in those kinds of environments, in the UN, international politics, and international arenas. I wonder if he could comment on the state of the United Nations and the way that body and its member states are collectively approaching this challenge, and what we can perhaps do as a smallish member of that body to help it change the course a little.

Rise in anti-Semitism February 24th, 2015

Mr. Chair, that is kind of what I expected, but I want to go just a little further. I agree on root causes. I agree on education. We all agree on that. How far should the authorities be able to go to detect if someone is about to commit a violent act? We are not talking about root causes now. We are talking about someone being about to commit violence. How far should authorities be able to go to detect that and stop it from happening? That would involve finding out if someone was going to do that, whether it was through the Internet or some other method. How far should authorities be able to go to stop that?

We can work on root causes, absolutely. However, we need to stop violent acts from happening. How far should we go?

Rise in anti-Semitism February 24th, 2015

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's comments and her passionate commitment to the issue. I think we are all passionate and committed to this issue.

We talked about some of the acts that are being played out, whether it is painting swastikas on cars or whatever, but some of them are violent. Some of them are destructive, and some of them hurt people. How far should authorities go in trying to stop those acts if they can see them being talked about or plotted, whether it is on the Internet or through other means where people can be observed?

This is a sensitive issue in the House right now, as I mentioned earlier about some other legislation being debated. How far does my colleague think authorities should be able to go to stop those kinds of acts when they are apparently going to be violent?

Rise in anti-Semitism February 24th, 2015

Mr. Chair, we have said many times tonight that education is the key. To me, that really starts at home with parents.

My hon. colleague just mentioned the apartheid weeks at Canadian universities. How do we educate people if our institutions of supposed higher learning promote and condone things like that, including at McMaster, York, and wherever else it is condoned? It flabbergasts me that administrations of institutions of higher learning would allow that to happen.

I wonder if my colleague has any comment. I know he has ties to McMaster. Has he taken that up with McMaster?

Rise in anti-Semitism February 24th, 2015

Mr. Chair, at the risk of oversimplifying this, which is not what I am trying to do, in the current context of what is going on in the world, is anti-Semitism a subset of broader terrorism and all the targets we have seen for that?

We want to prosecute it whenever we find it, but what do we do? How far do we go to stop it? Education is ultimately one of the keys, but how far do we go to stop it? It is a sensitive topic because of other legislation being debated before the House right now, but how far do we go? How far does my colleague think the authorities should go in monitoring that kind of activity to stop it before it turns to violence?

We cannot stop someone from thinking or saying things they believe, but we certainly should be able to stop them before it is apparent that they are going to commit a violent act. How far should authorities be able to go in that regard to find out who is going to do it and to prevent it from happening in the first place?

Victims Bill of Rights Act February 20th, 2015

Mr. Speaker, again, that is a good question. The member named one of the organizations. I am familiar with a number of them in my own community, and they are across the country. They are things like community programs, sports programs, the YMCA, and YOUCAN. I am not sure if YOUCAN is across the country, but it is certainly very active in my city. That is getting youth off the streets, away from gangs, and giving them alternative activities. There is the youth emergency shelter system, which is another one that brings at-risk youth off the streets and into environments where they can be helped and can participate in programs that keep them away from the kinds of things that we know harm our young people.

There is much being done, and much more can always be done.

Victims Bill of Rights Act February 20th, 2015

Mr. Speaker, again, that is a reasonable question. We all have mixed feelings in this place about just about everything that goes on here.

The question was why we waited so long. All governments have priorities, but no matter what we bring forward and when, somebody is going to ask why we did not bring it forward before. That is also a fair question. Every government is going to attack its agenda. Things will have a higher priority because of certain circumstances that would necessarily put things farther down the list. Those circumstances change. This was deemed to be an appropriate time, with an opportunity to bring this forward.

With regard to resources, the resources are there. They will continue to be there, and they will continue to be improved as this process rolls out and matures and more people begin to take advantage of the four basic areas of rights that will be exercised. I itemized them in a bit of detail. The resources are there. They will be there, and they will continue to be improved as we go along.