Mr. Speaker, there were more than a few disappointing passages in that speech.
First, there was the implication that humanitarian and refugee work could not proceed alongside a combat contribution.
Second, there was the declaration of the Libyan mission as a failure, a mission that the hon. member's party, albeit under a different leader, had been prepared to support at several points.
There is a mark in that speech of just how far the Liberal Party has fallen away from its own traditions of supporting combat when necessary.
My question for the hon. member is about the rationale for combat. There is an obvious rationale in the fact that ISIL has declared its intention to attack Canada. It has declared its intention to train people to bring terrorism within our borders. It has declared its intention to establish training camps should it consolidate support over parts of Iraq and ultimately Syria well beyond the Middle East, in Europe and North America. ISIL has taken pride in the fact that its agenda, in pursuing it, is more radical than that of al Qaeda, the group that brought 9/11 the most dramatic and devastating terrorist attack in history.
When a group has declared its intention to enter into combat with us to bring terrorism to our shores to compromise our security, why should our response not include a willingness to engage in combat?