Debates of Dec. 10th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague's comments are unclear. Like us, he is opposed to the bombing mission in Iraq against Daesh. However, I do not exactly understand what he would do if he were prime minister today.

What would his position be? Would he commit to having some kind of presence? It is very difficult to follow his reasoning on this issue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I go back again to my speech. I pointed out three places where I think Canada could play a world leadership role, and we are failing to do that.

One is cutting off the flow of foreign fighters, and that means both some attention to domestic radicalization and some attention to international movements of those who are trying to assist ISIS.

I have talked repeatedly about the arms trade treaty and the necessity of cutting off the flow of arms to ISIS. They cannot do what they are doing if they are deprived of arms and ammunition.

The final place is the flow of funds that help support the entire operation. We need to cut off the oil sales. It sounds simple; it is not. It will be difficult, but I would love to see Canada taking an international leadership role in depriving them of the up to $3 million a day they make off oil sales.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my reading of the Conservative motion, asking that the Liberals renege on the air campaign decision and no longer go ahead with withdrawal of the fighter plane bombing, is that it feels like a mischaracterization of what is actually Canada's commitment to its NATO allies.

I wonder if the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke could clarify Canada's commitments in regard to the air strike campaign as it affects our NATO allies.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her question.

First, I would like to take responsibility for the name for my riding. It was my suggestion that it be called Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and I know that is hard for many people in this House to pronounce, but it does represent three of the most important communities, and the names take their roots from the first nations in our area. I appreciate the attempts to get the name right, but there is a little more work to be done.

When the hon. member asks about our commitment to our NATO allies, it is important to remember that the mission against ISIS is not a NATO mission. It is not a UN mission. It is not a multilateral mission. It is a collection of people who have decided on what tactics they will pursue.

If we go back to the multilateral agencies like the United Nations, the UN is suggesting something quite different, and something it believes is a more effective method of responding to the threat that ISIS presents because of the nature of its ideology, as I said in my speech.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the member correcting me on the names of the communities he represents in his riding. Certainly it is a large task, because there are many changes in the riding names and a lot of new faces. I will do my best to make sure I get the names right. I really appreciate members correcting me, subtly.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to you on your new position.

I want to begin by thanking the people of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, and Fort Erie for the trust that they have placed in me. It is certainly much appreciated. Population-wise, I represent the largest riding in Canada. The Niagara Falls riding was created in 1952, the year I was born, and it is my privilege to have been elected for the seventh time.

I am very grateful to the people of Niagara Falls and to my family, who have been so supportive of me, particularly my wife Arlene Nicholson. I have said to people over the years that if their spouses do not support them in this role in public life, do not get into it. We need the support of the spouse, and I have had that over the years. I am very grateful for that.

I am also grateful to all of those who worked so hard to get me re-elected. I will be forever be appreciative of Ron Gibson and all those who worked with him.

We are here to discuss the motion that has been presented by the Conservative Party. The question I think in most people's minds is what exactly are the Liberals doing? What are they up to? What are their motives?

The Liberals' position of pulling out the RCAF is a big disappointment, and their reasons seem to be all over the map. I understand why the NDP would be opposed to a combat mission. That is part of its ideology and it has a long history of not supporting any combat missions, or any wars, for that matter. Therefore, I understand where it is coming from, but I am having difficulty understanding the position of the Liberal Party.

Regarding the Prime Minister's comments about not bringing publicity to ISIS, the whole world has to know about the terrorism of this group. As it was pointed out by my colleague from Surrey, this organization has to be stopped. The whole world has to focus its attention on that. I cannot buy that somehow we should quit talking about it or forget about it, because it is not going to go away.

I am somewhat confused, but maybe there is some illumination as to exactly where the Liberals are coming from. One of their colleagues earlier today, the member for Laval—Les Îles, said:

Mathematically speaking, our CF-18s have flown less than 2% of the missions, but the cost is very high. What is more, we are putting the lives of our pilots at risk.

The fact that the costs are going up is not a good reason to get out of it. That is the first thing. Everybody should be unanimous on that. I also do not like the point that this poses a risk to our pilots. The Royal Canadian Air Force has been in the business of taking risks ever since it was created. That is what this country has been all about, standing up for what is right in this world. Yes, there are risks here, but if that is the reason why the Liberals are getting out of this, it is a terrible decision on their part.

We have seen this continuous rise in terrorism and terrorism activities. We saw it recently.

I would like to note, Madam Speaker, that I have the honour to split my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I would point out for my colleagues the comments of Prime Minister David Cameron. Here is what he had to say. He said:

...we should not be content with outsourcing our security to our allies. If we believe that action can help protect us, then, with our allies, we should be part of that action, not standing aside from it...if we will not act now, when our friend and ally France has been struck in this way, then our allies in the world can be forgiven for asking, “If not now, when?”

When would it be appropriate for Canada to participate, if not now? I agree with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It is exactly what we should be doing.

One of the questions raised here is the effectiveness of the air strikes in which we have participated. The coalition asked for and welcomed Canadian participation right from the start. Our ally, the U.S., and its government were very appreciative of the fact that we stepped up to the plate. This is what I heard consistently as Canada's defence minister and foreign affairs minister.

As Canada's defence minister and foreign minister, I heard consistently from leaders around the world that they were grateful for what Canada was doing. For instance, earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit Iraq, and I saw and heard first hand about the difference Canada was making.

I had the opportunity when I was in the Kurdistan area of Iraq to visit an IDP, an internally displaced person's camp. I wanted to see this. One of the first things I noticed was there were Canadian doctors, nurses and pharmacists who were assisting the people in that camp. I know some members will say that is all we should be doing, that it is a wonderful thing, and it was. I had the opportunity to congratulate them and thank them for the difference that they were making, but it is our air strikes that have helped make this assistance possible.

This is what I heard from the prime minister of Iraq, the foreign minister and all the Iraqi officials. When I met with the Kurdistan officials, it was the same thing. They said that these air strikes were making it possible for them to hang onto the territory they were occupying at the present time and it was helping them to move forward to help eliminate ISIS. They were very clear. They said that the Iraqis had to be the ones on the ground to push ISIS out to win this conflict. However, they were very definite that the air strikes were helping them to do just that.

I was at a conference with the prime minister of Iraq, among others, and afterward a reporter asked me if there was criticism that Canada was not doing enough. I told the reporter that it was just the opposite. I said I had just spoken with the prime minister of Iraq and he had asked me to thank Canadians, to tell them that what we were doing in that country was making a positive difference.

These air strikes are an essential part of the fight against ISIS, and this is completely consistent with the history of our country. We are not a country that stands on the sidelines. We are a country that does not just our share but more than our share. That is what has been consistent about Canada.

When I came out of a meeting with Dutch authorities and ministers, I said to my staff that I would have thought that Canada's liberation of the Netherlands was seven months ago, not 70 years ago, because they were thanking Canadians for stepping up when they needed help most.

This is what is happening right now in Iraq and Syria. They need the help now and I have been very proud that Canada has stepped up to the plate, which is consistent with everything that we have stood for. We stand behind the members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Yes, there is a challenge and yes, there are risks, but I know it is up to the task and we should support it. Everyone in the House should support this motion because it is the right thing to do.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talk about the cost, which is very important for the way we conduct this war. When I hear that the cost is around $16,750 an hour just to maintain these aircraft operable in the air, that is very expensive. In Winnipeg Centre these funds could be used for something far more important, such as ensuring that children have a place to stay at night, keeping children out of the clutches of child and family services.

Even the former MP Laurie Hawn said that the costs of maintaining, including salaries, of these aircraft in the air was around $40,000 an hour. That is very expensive.

There are other ways that we can contribute, ways that are much more effective. Even retired General John Allen said that it would require the Iraqi forces on the ground, including tribal forces, to ensure that we can make a difference.

Do we not agree that there are far more important issues to deal with at home? I hope the other side can agree with me that there are so many other—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. The hon. member for Niagara Falls.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, the member is consistent with the colleague who I quoted, that they are worried about the costs of fighting terrorism in that part of the world. I should point out to him that his Prime Minister has said the Liberals will keep five non-combat aircraft in the region. Guess what? They will be paying for that. They will not be a part of the fight again ISIS, but they will be there. If it is the cost he is worried about, he had better speak to the Prime Minister about that one.

No country has a better record than we do of standing up to terrorism and those who would oppress others. That is exactly what we are doing. Is it worth the money to do it? Yes, of course, it is worth the money to stand up and fight terrorism and not sit on the sidelines and let our allies do everything. Canada is not about that, and that is not what we should be doing.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that the Conservatives' combat mission was never a UN or NATO mission, and that several countries in our coalition are not participating in this combat mission but rather providing humanitarian assistance. Since the member seems so sure that the air strikes worked, I would like to see some proof that the combat mission and air strikes were successful. What proof do the Conservatives have to make such claims?

I would like to know what criteria they are using to say that Canada's current mission is working, when we have concrete examples that show the opposite.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us be frank here with respect to the NDP. If NATO endorsed it and everyone in the United Nations and in the universe supported this combat mission, the NDP would have a problem with it. At least the NDP is consistent with that, and I have always said that. It is true to its ideology on that.

She is asking for proof. I saw proof on the ground. Perhaps she did not hear what I had to say. I spoke with the prime minister of Iraq, the foreign minister and the defence minister of Iraq. I have spoke with all kinds of officials in that country and they have said that the air strikes are making a difference. They are allowing them to hold their territory in Iraq and in the Kurdistan area of that country, as well as it was giving them an opportunity to continue to push back ISIS.

I would ask her to call up the ambassador from Iraq, or something. He will tell her what I am telling her right now. We have made a difference with our coalition partners, and that is why we should stay there.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's comments and I am truly disappointed in the two arguments we heard this morning. The first was that there are excessive costs and that we should bring back the pilots because it is dangerous. I want to restate what my colleague already said: a fighter jet pilot is there to fight. That is to be expected.

As for the other point that the money should be used for other things in our ridings, I want to remind the House that we are at war against ISIS. This is a global war and it is a big one.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard now from a couple of members from the Liberals that it is the cost. That is their problem. That is very disappointing. This is exactly what the Royal Canadian Air Force and our armed forces are for, to defend people who find themselves oppressed, the victims of terrorism. No cost is too great to protect people.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to today's debate, and it is a real honour to be able to contribute to it as well.

I want to outline what I see as the three principle arguments as to why the motion should pass and why our involvement in the bombing mission in particular is important. First of all, we have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable. Second, maintaining our collective security commitments is critical for our security. Third, bombing Daesh is a necessary part of our anti-radicalization efforts. I am going to talk a bit about those three things in the time I have today.

First of all, we have a moral obligation to be part of the bombing mission in order to protect the vulnerable. I spoke about this in some detail in my maiden speech, but I am going to talk again about that briefly before I go on to the other points.

What is happening right now in Syria and Iraq is nothing short of genocide. We have used that word on this side of the House, and certainly that has not been contested by any other parties. Genocide has never been quite so visible, so undeniable. Even the Nazis did not broadcast their atrocities on television. When it came to past atrocities, many of us could have perhaps said, if only we had known, then we would have done more. That cannot be said in this case. We all know what is happening in Syria and Iraq. There is no denying it. If we have not watched the videos, then we know that they exist.

I hear what the other members are saying. They are saying that we should perhaps help the vulnerable but we should do it in a different way. I have a hard time taking those arguments seriously because they do not seem to respect the urgency of the problem. We can educate people to address potential violence. We can train them to address future violence. However, if we want to stop the current violence, then we need to fight as well. It does not mean that there is nothing else we can do to contribute positively at the same time.

The approach we on this side of the House advocate is a multi-pronged approach. We support being involved in education, the humanitarian response, training, as well as fighting. Talking only about those more long-term aspects of bringing about peace and stability in the region, to me sounds a lot like fixing the locks once the thief is already inside the house. Stop the violence; protect the innocent, and then by all means do more. However, there is an imminent threat, a present campaign of violence and genocide, and it will require more than words and social programs to stop it. We need to do something right now. We need to respond right now. We need to protect the innocent. We need to do what we can to stop the violence. We have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable.

Second, I want to talk about maintaining our collective security commitment because this is crucial for our own security. The party opposite has talked about how during the last election it had committed to withdrawing from the fight against Daesh, but surely it can see that things have changed since the Paris attacks. Canada and France are both signatories to the NATO treaty. Article 5 makes it clear that an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all.

Short of the formal invocation of article 5, it is still critically important that NATO members respond together. Russia and other powers are already testing the result of our NATO alliance. When events like the attack on Paris take place, it and others will be watching to see what we do. It is essential for global security, and for our own security, that NATO members stand and respond together to an act of war against a member state. A strong united response from NATO would show our resolve, would deter aggressive behaviour from other actors, and would keep our people safe. A non-response would do the opposite.

Canada has already been attacked, right here in this place, by Daesh inspired terrorists. However, what happens if we are attacked again, in perhaps a more coordinated fashion, and then on the basis of our collective security commitments we ask our NATO allies to be part of a response? What are they going to say to us? Are they going to say that they will send some blankets and do some training behind the lines? I hope not. Collective security is important. It is the basis on which we stand. It is how we protect ourselves in an environment where we do not have the capacity to oppose the world's largest aggressive powers alone. In addition to the other reasons already given, participating in this bomber mission is how we show that we take collective security seriously. I have said that we have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable, that maintaining our collective security commitments is critical for our own security.

Finally, I am going to talk about how bombing Daesh is a necessary part of the anti-radicalization effort. We hear a lot from others in this place about deradicalization. However, strangely, we rarely hear them actually define the radicalization that we face. If we are going to talk about deradicalization, we have to have a good understanding of what kind of radicalization we are up against.

Let us be clear. Daesh is a deeply ideological organization. It is thuggish, violent, and evil. However, we should not infer from these things that it is thoughtless. Its members are thinking about how to enact a very particular and most would agree very misguided version of Islam. Whatever we call it, Daesh is a religious group, with particular beliefs that we would do well to understand if we care about deradicalization.

Daesh is trying to recreate an imagined eighth century caliphate, a caliphate that applies a particular conception of Islamic law, and, necessarily, that caliphate has certain very particular requirements for its existence. A caliphate is a particular form of religious organization, understood in various different forms of Islamic political thought as encompassing both religious and political control. In particular, it ruled by a caliph, thought of to be the successor of the prophet Muhammad. Many different Muslims look in their history to the idea of a caliphate, and there have been different caliphates with different kinds of legacies, most of them, of course, looking nothing like Daesh, the so-called Islamic State.

The last caliphate, the Ottoman Turkish caliphate, was headquartered in Istanbul. It disappeared in 1924, after it was ended by Kemal Ataturk as he turned Turkey into a secular state. For some Muslims, and many of those who are not Daesh supporters, the existence of the caliphate is theologically very important and they look to its eventual re-establishment.

Daesh represents the most serious attempt to resurrect a caliphate in almost 100 years. The particular school of thought that Daesh belongs to would identify a number of key conditions for a caliphate to exist.

First, the caliph must be a Muslim adult male Qureyshi, which means a member of a particular Arabic tribe to which Muhammad also belonged. Second, the caliph must demonstrate good moral character. Of course, many would dispute that the current proclaimed caliph, al-Baghdadi, meets these conditions, and certainly many Muslim theologians have argued persuasively that his actions are essentially anti-Islamic and immoral. However, in the eyes of his followers, he has met these conditions. He certainly is Qureyshi. In any event, there is not very much we can do to convince them that he does not fit conditions one and two. The third, and perhaps most important requirement for a caliph, is that he must have authority. A person who meets conditions one and two but has no army or territory is still disqualified from being a caliph unless and until he acquires territory.

This House needs to understand that Daesh is trying to enact this fantasy. Its members are not just thugs; they are thugs with a particular religious agenda.

This history is important for our motion today because the most important thing we can do to counter radicalization is to take away Daesh's territory. Without territory, even in the eyes of its followers, it will cease to be a caliphate. We need to wreck this fantasy. We need to show vulnerable men and women who might be susceptible to the arguments of the radicals that there is indeed no real caliphate to join. We need to do this, and, frankly, we need to do this right away. The longer the supposed caliphate exists, the more persuasive the arguments of its boosters will sound.

Daesh is not al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a para-state organization that hopes, at best, to pave the way for the emergence of a caliphate. It did not have anything near the ambition of Daesh. However, Daesh is seriously and ambitiously evil. It is playing for keeps, and we do not know what hell we are in for if we do not stop this madness now.

I have two young children. I want to be able to tell them that we got the job done and we did not leave this for generations to come. We have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable. Maintaining our collective security commitment is critical for our own security. Bombing, defeating, and destroying Daesh is the necessary step toward effective anti-radicalization.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his impassioned speech.

I have heard several recitals of the atrocities that are happening and are committed by Daesh. I want to say that everyone in this House can agree that the Daesh atrocities are despicable, deplorable, and inhumane, by every moral standard. I know we all believe that passionately in this House.

Our government has never been opposed to deploying armed forces into combat when it clearly serves Canada's national interests. In this endeavour, success will require highly trained, well-equipped local forces that are invested in the fight for the long term. Our men and women in uniform have years of combat and training experience and can have a major impact on ensuring that local Iraqi and Kurdish forces are well prepared to defeat Daesh once and for all.

Why does the hon. member not recognize the power and the impact of our forces in this form of deployment?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the government are trying to offer us false choices. We, of course, agree that there is an important component of training, but the troops on the ground have said, our Kurdish allies have said, that the firepower we bring to the fight is critically important as well.

I asked this question of an hon. member earlier. If members think that our response in terms of the bombing mission is not effective, and instead we should be doing something else, who are they getting that information from? Our allies on the ground are telling us that not just training but firepower to stop the violence that is happening right now are critically necessary.

I do not dispute that the hon. member is aware of what is happening, but he does not seem to appreciate its imminence. We cannot just hope that training will lead to a better result in the future. We have to respond effectively right now to protect innocent people whose lives are at risk right now.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member what criteria he would use to judge the success of Canada's mission in the Middle East. I think back to George W. Bush's “mission accomplished show” after the American bombardment of Iraq, which did nothing to help the people of Iraq, but served only to severely destabilize the region and essentially give birth to ISIS.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all understand in this place that it is a very complicated region. Certainly, foreign interventions have failed. There are plenty of cases where a western power coming in to help those in need has in fact succeeded in bringing about genuine transformation. There are cases where it works, and cases where it does not, and there are reasons in each individual case that we can talk about.

One of the most important things about this particular mission is that we are working and were working effectively with allies on the ground. There are, of course, ground troops, Kurdish troops and others. We are not just a foreign power trying to do this on our own. We are working with local powers to try to combat this group. We are there in fact at the request of the Iraqi government. That is a reality that makes this situation very much different from the situation that the member alludes to.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government and Liberal members keep referring to the need to have an enhanced training mission, but training coalition partners and allies in general in the Middle East and beyond have not had a good record on training. In fact, in testimony in front of the U.S. armed services committee in September of this year, it was revealed that the United States had spent $500 million on training and trained a total of four or five fighters in northern Syria. In Afghanistan as well, training has not borne the result that coalition partners had hoped.

Therefore, the real solution is to maintain our combat mission against the Islamic State. If members opposite want proof that is working, they just have to talk to the refugees, the Yazidis, who were saved on Mount Sinjar, when they were being pursued. They would have to talk to the Iraqis in Kurdistan about how coalition firepower prevented the Islamic State from attacking them. They have to talk to the people who were liberated from the siege of Kobani about whether combat air power makes a difference.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has some very good points. I come back to the point that we have something happening right now, and training and humanitarian support are important for the long term. Of course, training is important in not just the long term but the medium term, and what our allies need right now is firepower, direct support, so we can stop the violence against the innocent.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kanata—Carleton.

I rise to speak against the Conservative motion which states:

That, given that ISIS has taken responsibility for recent deadly attacks in Paris, Beirut, and Africa, and has declared war on Canada, this House: (a) acknowledge that now is not the time for Canada to step back and force our allies to take on a heavier burden...

We oppose the motion because it has a false premise.

First and foremost, let me reiterate that the Liberal government is acutely aware that ISIS, or Daesh, which is its name, poses a real and serious threat to security. Our government believes that Canada has a role to play in the international effort against ISIL. The Liberal government is not stepping back from its burden in the fight against terrorist groups. Instead, the Liberal government understands its obligations to protect the freedom and security of Canadians. That is why it is taking a very smart approach.

Recent history has shown that bombing alone will not defeat terrorist groups like Daesh, or ISIL, as we call it. We know that to be successful we require highly trained, well-equipped local forces. That is an intelligent thing to do. Why? Because the local forces have not only the linguistic and cultural ability to understand the fight against the terrorist group, they have been the victims of the horrors by this renegade group of terrorists.

People in the countries in which ISIL operates are subjected to the horrors, because ISIL is not a religious group. As a Muslim, I can proudly say it is a renegade group of terrorists. They have nothing to do with Islam, but by us giving them the target of Islamic State, we are giving them credence that they do not deserve.

Let us look at what the Conservatives have done. On October 7, 2014, the previous Conservative government passed a motion in the House to join a coalition air campaign to combat ISIL for six months. In April 2015, the House passed a motion renewing the motion for a year and extending air strikes into Syria.

Liberals did not support the previous Conservative government's efforts, because we do not strike people indiscriminately. By doing that, we basically have created a sort of pseudo attraction for those who are not aware of what ISIL really is. Having watched in horror what bombing has done to the cities in Syria, in Iraq, and surrounding areas and having visited the Middle East on many occasions, I can only imagine the pain and fear that these populations are facing. Daesh is attacking more Muslims than any other communities.

Basically it is a Sunni militant group whose goal is to build a state that people do not understand. A caliphate is only a name allocated to the first four Rashidun caliphs. Those who do not know Islamic history choose to address this issue in ignorance. I think it is high time that we, as Canadians, understand that this is not a clash of civilization; it is basically ignorance that we are not able to make the right decision.

I think the Liberal government has taken the smart approach. It is stopping the air strikes and ensuring that we help to build capacity on the ground. This is an intelligent thing to do, because the forces on the ground are well in tune with the nuances. They are aware of what is going on, on the ground. They are also aware and they have the best network for figuring out where the information is coming from. We do not know it.

It is better for us, as an intelligent move, to help these people. Our men and women in uniform have years of combat and training experience in places like Afghanistan. Our Minister of National Defence is very well aware of what gone on there. We will have a major impact on ensuring that the local Iraqi and Kurdish forces are well prepared to defeat ISIL once and for all.

Our government has never been opposed to deploying our armed forces into combat when it clearly serves Canada's national interest. We feel that Canada's commitment to a non-combat mission focused on training and humanitarian aid is a better approach.

Young people from different parts of the world are getting enticed by ISIL. Why? It projects the image that there is something in west that is attacking their so-called countries and religion. That is far from the truth. By our continuing to attack them unilaterally, not unilaterally but without any thought to collateral damage, we are really playing into ISIL's agenda. Their agenda is to tell these young people that there is a clash of civilization, which is far from the truth. That clash is not there.

We, as Canadians and as western countries, need to understand it. By striking indiscriminately, we have created a greater problem for security. We have given ISIL the weapon it wants, the rhetoric that it is somehow fighting a holy war, which is far from the truth.

I think our government's position in showing the way forward. Its interest in training and equipping Iraqi forces to fight and destroy ISIL is a better approach.

I have heard from other members that we have to stop the outside forces that are supplying arms and the illegal trade in the black market of oil. I think that is another way that we can address it. I have worked with Transparency International and with the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. This is one of the most important weapons that we can use, stopping the flow of funds so that ISIL is cut off at its knees.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about some of the comments she made in her speech about not trying to help the ISIS propaganda machine.

The Prime Minister said earlier this week that he does not want to talk about ISIS, that that is going to help further their cause. The member was sort of echoing that in her speech.

Is the Liberal solution to ISIS just not talking about it and hoping that the problem will go away?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather uneducated question. Sorry about that.

Our Prime Minister has never said such a thing. The real name of this organization is Daesh. Because the Conservative motion said ISIS, I had to use the terminology. They are given credibility when they are called the Islamic State. We do not want to give them credence. They have no credibility. They are attacking Muslims first before anybody else. The Muslim countries surrounding them do not want to call them the Islamic State.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. We cannot take the terrorist threat lightly; it is much too serious.

I was wondering if the Liberal government would commit to joining the UN arms trade treaty, which it promised to do. The Liberals did not mention that in their speeches, so I am left wondering.

Will the Liberals ratify the UN arms trade treaty? Unfortunately, we know that many of the weapons that end up in the hands of terrorists could be taken out of circulation if nations complied with the treaty.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question. I have visited places in Africa, on the west coast and northern parts of Africa. The arms are coming from all over the map. Transparency International is very concerned about this.

The member's question was: Why is this not in the Speech from the Throne?

The Speech from the Throne had its own agenda of tax cuts for the middle class and ensuring that we have a very robust economy. However, I am sure the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety will take that under advisement.