House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was allies.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, I am concerned about a number of things that were in the throne speech, which was only 1,700 words long, and not one of those words was “ISIS“.

There was also a commitment to a leaner military, which we all know are code words for cuts. The member for Orléans, who was speaking earlier, wrote a report on transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces and suggested that we decrease the size of our reserve force by 50%.

I hope that the Minister of National Defence, who was a reservist, will not let that happen.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan LiberalMinister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, the motion by the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, as well as the current member opposite, raised a number of points regarding our ongoing commitment to the fight against ISIL. I thank the member for the opportunity to speak about this important issue.

First, I would like to thank my constituents of Vancouver South for electing me as their member of Parliament. I am proud to be their representative in these chambers.

On October 19, following the longest electoral campaign in the history of our country, Canadians elected a government committed to standing up for both our security and their values. This government will live up to that commitment.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast are in agreement that the twisted behaviour of this so-called state is contrary to the democratic principles that are the foundation of our great country. We are united in this regard with our international allies.

The attacks we have seen most recently in Beirut and Paris demand a unified response, and Canada will play a role in this fight. The question is how we will confront this challenge. I am pleased to offer a summary of the government's point of view on this matter.

There is an ongoing and serious security threat in the Middle East posed by ISIL. It has claimed responsibility for horrific attacks on innocent civilians around the world, and it must be stopped. However, ISIL is not only a threat to innocent victims in this war-torn part of the world. It represents a clear and present danger to international security and stability to our allies and to Canada as it has called for direct attacks against Canadian citizens on Canadian soil.

As we saw last year, this twisted ideology infected a few individuals leading to the brutal murders of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo. This is why the Canadian Armed Forces must continue to be flexible, agile, and ready to defend our interests.

This government is committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the support they need to do that job. This is why we have made significant commitments to predictable and consistent funding for our military.

We know this is a long-term fight that must be fought on many fronts. We know that to defeat this menace, we must continually assess our contribution and apply a multi-layered approach, utilizing the Canadian Armed Forces, which has a wide array of capabilities, and bringing our military member skills and battle-honed experience to bear against this cold-blooded enemy.

However, it is important to remember that we are not fighting alone. We have allies and partners that are in this fight with us, that face the same challenges that we do, and that are equally determined to combatting the twisted goals of this so-called caliphate. It is the sum of these parts, not each individual component, that we have brought to bear against ISIL.

Canada will continue to contribute to this important fight and fulfill its commitment to work shoulder to shoulder with our coalition partners. We will continue to engage with those partners, most notably our closest ally, the United States, to ensure our contribution is one that can make a difference.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is calling upon the government to maintain the air combat mission of our CF-18 fight jets. However, this government believes that Canada can make a long-term contribution that addresses more than one aspect of the fight against terror in that region.

When planning a fight, we have to look at the entire picture, not each individual piece of the puzzle. We have to look at what we are bringing to the table, what our allies are also bringing to the table, and how the enemy is evolving. If we focus too closely on a singular, short-term option, we loose sight of what is needed to win the fight in the long run.

As career warriors moulded by training, exercises and deployments, our military members are adept in helping other nations build capacity and enabling them to defend themselves. Having spoken with many of our key allies on this matter, it is this strength that is most needed right now. Therefore, this fight continues, and we will continue to take on a different burden.

Canada has an outstanding military, one in which I had the honour to serve. We routinely provide a meaningful and effective contribution to international engagements. Our approach is always to tailor our response to the specific situations at hand, while working in concert with our government partners and maintaining a high level of readiness and flexibility.

This change in approach is no different from the decision our country faced in 2011 when we shifted from our combat mission in Afghanistan to one where we focused on training. That mission was known as Operation Attention. It was a successful one for both Canada and Afghanistan.

Over three years, our soldiers trained 116 Kandaks or battalions in everything from basic military skills to advanced techniques. The expertise we acquired during that mission, not only in the skills that we were passing on but in how best to teach them to others, is exactly what is needed in the fight against ISIL right now. Our special forces are more than capable of carrying on this mission. They are some of the most highly trained and knowledgeable soldiers in the world.

By increasing the number of advisers, which is one option that has been suggested, we will help turn citizens bravely fighting to protect their loved ones into professional soldiers, people expelling this cancer from their midst and preventing it from returning.

However, there are many other options on the table and we are examining all of these possibilities in consultation with our allies and partners to determine how we can help to establish long-term security for the people of Iraq and Syria.

The respect for Canada's military cannot be understated. We are well-known for punching above our weight. We continue to bring incredible military acumen to the table with highly trained personnel that contribute in a tangible way because they know what to do and how to get the job done.

In his motion, the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka has specifically expressed his appreciation to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces for their participation in the fight against terror, so I would like to address that for a moment.

The Royal Canadian Air Force has performed outstandingly as part of the air task force in Iraq, and this is nothing new for it. Indeed, the Royal Canadian Air Force has a proud history that is steeped in tradition, dating back to First World War flying aces like Billy Bishop, through the Battle of Britain, and in its daily operations in support of NORAD, protecting North American airspace. The air crew, aircraft maintenance crews, weapon systems teams, and support personnel involved in these missions embody the fighting spirit of their predecessors and they are making all Canadians proud every day. To them, I want to make it very clear their work on behalf of Canadians is as appreciated today as it has been in our history.

Contributing to international civility is a role that Canada takes seriously. We are committed to seeing this fight continue and be won. So we must ask ourselves,how will it be won? How can we best contribute to this goal? To destroy ISIL and its twisted ideology over the long term, we will need a local force professionally trained and ready to defend its territory.

While ISIL is a complex, interconnected threat, in addition to its military power, it seeks to inspire terrorist attacks for the mass displacement of refugees and for the intimidation of others. These separate problems are all part of the same threat, ISIL, but none of them can be defeated with military power alone. To combat these threats, we need to be flexible and measured and have a multi-faceted approach, an approach that will continue to battle ISIL on multiple fronts and which addresses the political, social and economic drivers fuelling the conflict in Iraq and Syria. These approaches include hindering the flow of foreign fighters, addressing the humanitarian needs, and halting ISIL's financing and funding.

We are taking important steps on these fronts, not the least of which is the acceptance of 25,000 Syrian refugees. As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in the House, the first such refugees will be arriving tonight in Toronto, with more coming on Saturday in Montreal.

The best way to show Muslims that they have a place in our society is by accepting these refugees with open arms, as we did with the Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s and the Kosovars in the late 1990s. I hope members of the House will join me in expressing our welcome for these people and wishing them all the best as they begin the next phase of their lives in Canada.

I can assure the House that we will maximize the use of our Canadian skill set, offer a valuable contribution to the coalition effort, and have a meaningful impact on the situation on the ground. Our commitment remains steadfast. However, the battle against ISIS is a complex one and demands a sophisticated response. We will ensure that our contribution to the coalition response represents the best of what Canada has to offer.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Madam Speaker, I note that the American defence secretary has just contacted 40 defence ministers around the world, asking for an increased commitment at the same time as Canada is actually taking back its commitment and moving backwards in the fight against ISIS. Is it the case that the U.S. defense secretary called the minister? Did he express regret at Canada's actions? Did he ask Canada to keep its jet in the fight? I would also be interested in hearing if he asked Canada to do more, rather than less, for the coalition against ISIS.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Speaker, I did have a conversation with the secretary of defense. I also met the deputy secretary of defense in Halifax. I met a lot of the experts, including General John Allen, who is now the former president's envoy in the fight against ISIS.

The conversation I had with the secretary of defense was about how we could increase our contribution so it would be meaningful to the fight. We did talk about many different options in terms of how we could target it better and what Canada could actually bring to the table.

I assure the House, as we look at the various options, we will be taking a meaningful approach and a meaningful contribution to the fight against ISIL with our coalition partners.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, we know that one of the keys to fighting ISIS and any other such group that is currently operating or, unfortunately, could rise up in future is to prevent trafficking of weapons.

Does the government plan on signing and quickly ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty, which all our partners and allies, including the United States, have already signed, but which the previous government refused to sign?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raises a very good point. As we deal with the current threat around the world, which is significant, we have to be very mindful that these threats start when they are small. We have to get better at identifying these threats, not just in certain areas but globally. These are the discussions I have been having with the coalition partners. At the end of the day, one of the things that Canada has been very good at is identifying these threats so we can prevent the victimization of the people we are talking about today. I can say this with confidence because this what I personally did in Afghanistan.

Canada will be taking a leadership role, and as we move forward, this is the conversation I will be having with my coalition partners.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, for his remarks in the House today. I appreciated his strong words of support for the Royal Canadian Air Force and our Canadian Armed Forces, and also his words of strong support as a partner in the fight against ISIL as part of the international coalition.

When I hear some of my Conservative colleagues speak, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, for example, and others, it strikes me that they are posing a false choice. The false choice is either that Canada maintains its six CF-18s in Iraq and Syria, or, the Conservatives have used words like “not serious”, “not involved”, “backseat”. That is a false choice when there are other tools for contributing, as the minister has mentioned.

Could the minister comment on the message to the Canadian army? What message might the army take away when the Conservative members consider only the involvement of the bombing sorties to be worthwhile and full participation in this fight against ISIS?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces has been dealing with threats around the world. When the opposition members talk about one particular component, I can understand their passion behind that because of the decision made in their government.

What I want to stress is that we have experience in dealing with threats around the world. Every conflict is different. My goal is ensuring that we assess properly so we bring the right tools. We have phenomenal capabilities in the Canadian Armed Forces and within the whole of government that could actually have a meaningful impact, that would increase security. That is the discussion as I move forward, ensuring that we have the right options that will have the right impact, and not only taking the fight against ISIL, but preventing the recruitment of the fighters who sustain ISIL right now.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, Canadians have a responsibility to take part in all three parts of the international coalition against ISIS: diplomatic; humanitarian aid; and militarily, all three segments of the military.

The Royal Canadian Air Force has been carrying out significant air strikes, and our international partners are also doing that against ISIS. However, not one of our allies has asked us to reduce our military contribution. In fact, we have only heard requests for more robust military interventions.

The Liberals' plan to withdraw the CF-18s is both illogical and unjustified. In listening to the minister respond, he is saying that our CF-18 contribution is not meaningful, that it may be more meaningful if we do something other than just air strikes and training. We also heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs mention that it was not significant.

I am wondering why the Liberals would not be standing beside the members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, along with the great men and women who serve in the special operations forces over there, and why the minister would be leading the retreat against ISIS.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the member's accusations, I have such a deep sense of appreciation for our Canadian Armed Forces, our air force personnel, and there is no member in this House who would not have the same viewpoint as I do. We do not need to even go down this road.

I can assure the member that what I am trying to stress here is that we need to assess the entire problem. We have a full array of capabilities in the Canadian Armed Forces. The recommendation that I will be making to the Prime Minister and to cabinet is that we will be ensuring we have the right capabilities on the ground. Our CF-18s play a phenomenal role in many areas around the world currently, and with every option that we do present, I want to ensure it has a meaningful contribution to the evolving threat that is ISIS.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Boudrias Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate all MPs for the quality of this debate on the critical issue of our involvement in the fight against ISIS.

As a former member of the military who served in Afghanistan, I obviously share many of the concerns expressed by the members of the opposition. I also commend the wisdom of the government and the minister in choosing to be flexible in their actions and to retain the most crucial means with a view to future interventions.

However, with regard to the land force, I have concerns about the fast pace of the operations, which, over the years, have overtaxed our men and women who have served in the different missions.

I would also like to remind the minister that the analysis of the next mission, which we will decide on together, will have to consider the depth of the mission as well as the concept of flexibility and ensure that our contribution respects the men and women whom we will probably applaud over the next few hours.

We must also—

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order, please. The hon. Minister of National Defence.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I heard a question in that, but what I got from his comments was regarding the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

We talk a lot about our capabilities, but the number one asset in the Canadian Armed Forces are the men and women. The capabilities that we give them enhance their capabilities. When it comes to future missions that our government sends them on, we will make sure they have the right capabilities to carry those missions out.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, since this is my first full speech in the House, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Laurier—Sainte-Marie for their renewed trust in me. It is an honour to debate the motion moved by the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, since it essentially calls on us to continue with the Conservative government's policy. It goes without saying that this is really not a good idea. That government kept expanding a mission that began with providing assistance and advice. The mission progressed to bombings and even led to the death of a Canadian soldier on the front lines. There were boots on the ground.

Under the previous government we also saw the prime minister make light of questions about whether the bombings in Syria were legitimate under international law. He essentially made light of international law, which is, I should point out, our greatest guarantee of security.

This motion also refers to NATO. I must point out that the coalition's activities are not led by NATO, nor are they led by the United Nations. I do not want to spend all of my time talking about what the previous government did, but it had no exit strategy and, more importantly, no peace plan.

We still do not know exactly what the Liberal government's plans are. We will have questions about that. We know the bombings are still happening. When will they stop?

They talk about training, but we do not really have any details or a timeline. As with any such action, we need more details. Although we have a lot of questions and doubts about the current approach, it would be ideal to have an exit plan. We would like to know all of that soon.

We have always made it clear that we do not think Canada should be involved in this war. That does not mean we should do nothing at all. Yes, we have to fight ISIS and terrorism in general, but we have to do it with the right tools for the current situation. We also need to respond to the emergency.

Humanitarian aid is another issue. Canada will be receiving quite a few refugees. That is excellent, and we applaud that initiative. Nevertheless, everyone has to understand that helping refugees solves only a very small part of the problem. There are three million displaced people in Iraq and 6.5 million in Syria. There are also 4.5 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries. That is making for some very difficult situations in those countries. For example, in Lebanon, a significant proportion of the population is now made up of refugees. We must do everything we can to prevent the situation from destabilizing those countries and to prevent the chaos—and it is chaos—from spreading to other countries.

People have been displaced within Syria, and seven million people have serious humanitarian aid needs. We absolutely have to do something about that. We have to work on water supply and education. We do not want a lost generation, but that is what could happen. Not only have children been traumatized, but they will have gone years without access to education.

We need to think about the future. Once the situation in Syria has been resolved, we will have to start thinking about what the country will need to rebuild. Syria needs young people who are strong, well educated and able to contribute to the national effort.

Clearly, I am not even talking about shelter. It is winter for the people who have been displaced as well. Perhaps it is not Canadian winter, but even Canadian winter is changing. These people need medical attention. There is so much to do. Humanitarian aid is absolutely essential in the name of our humanity and our obligation to show solidarity. It is also essential to the fight against ISIS.

Obviously, this is not a traditional war. When I hear answers that reflect traditional warfare thinking, namely the whole idea that they are enemies and therefore must be bombed, I cannot help but think that this is a last-century or even last-millennium reaction, philosophy or approach.

At this point, we are up against a propaganda war, and it is crucial that we win hearts and minds. Tragic attacks have been carried out all over the world, including the recent attacks in Paris. The people who perpetrated those acts were born and raised in France. The attacks were planned in Belgium. These people were inspired by anger, by resentment and by the Islamic State and its ideology. It is that ideology that we need to fight.

I have spoken with a number of people from humanitarian organizations working on the ground who happened to be in Canada. I even visited a refugee camp myself. Everyone I spoke to underscored the fact that this is complicating their work and creating confusion among the population. Even those who were being helped by the humanitarian groups did not understand why they were being helped and bombed at the same time. People do not necessarily make that distinction. As everyone knows, this kind of action often and unfortunately leads to collateral damage or mistakes in one form or another.

Humanitarian aid is absolutely crucial. It is a tool that goes beyond what we should do for the sake of dignity or solidarity. It can also help prevent radicalization in the entire region. It is another form of action that is absolutely crucial.

We have to cut off the money supply to ISIS. We also have to stop it from recruiting and that is done by combatting radicalization here and abroad.

The refugee camps surrounding the Central African Republic are now being used for recruiting new jihadists. Canada is no longer giving anything to UNRWA, which can no longer fund schools for young Palestinians. Those young people therefore have less hope for the future and more time on their hands.

We have to address these issues to combat radicalization all around the world. We must also combat radicalization here at home. That can only be done by working with the communities. If we want to cut off their resources, then we must also stop the flow of weapons.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask whether Canada would finally sign and ratify the arms trade treaty, which is an essential tool. Unfortunately I did not get a response. Nevertheless, I encourage the new government to address this important issue as soon as possible. We must also stop the flow of money from all sources. We know there is private funding and funding from oil-rich countries.

I will be told that oil facilities could be bombed, but another option is to have better monitoring of the flow of oil at the borders. We also know about the trafficking of art, in particular, and hostage-taking. There are a number of tools available, and we have been given a very clear mandate by the United Nations to work together in taking action. The President of France said that we must start doing much more about this issue. I would very much like to see Canada show leadership on these matters.

Above all, we must find a path to peace. ISIL was able to establish itself in Syria because of the chaos in that country. It also has a foothold in Iraq because of the country's prevailing problems with governance and exclusion. This has helped ISIL pit one segment of the population against the other. These are the fundamental problems in those countries and, I repeat, in others.

We have heard a lot about prevention. We must start looking elsewhere, where this kind of thing is going on. We know what is happening in Libya right now. We must do something about all those things that help terrorist groups thrive. We need a political solution in Syria. As Dominique de Villepin, France's former foreign affairs minister, said, we need to use tools for peace because, so far, all we have seen, with our bombings elsewhere and interventions in Iraq, war nourishes war. Let us try a new approach, since the approaches we have taken in the past have not been very successful, and let us focus as much as possible on tools for peace.

We must find a political solution in Syria. I hope that the new government will work with our allies, participate in the discussions that are currently taking place and try to make a contribution.

I know that, unfortunately, the Conservative government's policies have seriously undermined Canada's ability to contribute to these kinds of negotiations, but I think that we need to get back to work. We need to build a governance structure in Iraq, which is absolutely essential.

As I said, we need to work on promoting democracy around the world. I know that seems like the kind of work that will produce only long-term results and that I might sound like a dreamer, but we need to face the facts. So far, our approaches to these challenges have not worked, so we need to try something else.

The words of Ban Ki-moon seem fitting here. I think they sum the situation up quite well. He said that, over the longer term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not the power of missiles, it is the politics of inclusion. I could not agree more. Some political leaders, particularly among our neighbours to the south, have decided to adopt the politics of exclusion. That plays right into the terrorists' hands, and that is what we must not do. With respect to dropping bombs, many analysts say that kind of knee-jerk reaction also plays into the terrorists' hands because that is what they want us to do.

In light of the atrocities committed by ISIS and the Bashar al-Assad regime, I find it striking that they are not mentioned in the motion moved by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka, if I am not mistaken. Naturally, the initial reaction calls for violence, aggression, and warmongering.

However, we should recall the words of Ban Ki-moon and try to develop more appropriate and comprehensive approaches.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her speech.

I have a question and a comment about the responsibility to protect vulnerable people around the world.

It was a previous Liberal government, under Minister Lloyd Axworthy, that was critical in establishing the responsibility to protect doctrine in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide.

It is clear that the Islamic State has committed many atrocities, arguably some of the worst and most widespread atrocities in recent memory. We do not need to enumerate them here. My question is this. If the atrocities committed by the Islamic State are not enough to trigger the responsibility to protect doctrine by the current government, what kinds of atrocities do we need to see before it will invoke that doctrine? If it is not willing to invoke it in this situation, does that really mean that it is abandoning that very basic humanitarian approach that would prevent genocides like that of Rwanda from taking place around the world?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Invoking the responsibility to protect has been discussed at length.

That having been said, it is important to remember that the responsibility to protect is not something that one country can invoke. There are clear criteria in the doctrine. Military intervention must be approved by the UN Security Council. Therefore, we cannot invoke R2P, the responsibility to protect, unless there is a decision by the UN Security Council. In this case, we obviously do not have either a UN Security Council endorsement or a NATO endorsement. That lack of endorsement by a multilateral body is a further problem with the mission.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South Ontario

Liberal

Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Madam Speaker, this is my first time rising in the House. I want to thank my family and the fabulous constituents of Northumberland—Peterborough South who have put their faith and trust in me.

I also want to say that my daughter-in-law Kathy, and my grandchildren Morgan and Hobie have just now become Canadian citizens. It is a very proud day for me, and I am happy to be standing in the House.

I want to thank my colleague for her comments this morning. We talk a lot about our coalition partners and having those conversations about the fluid situation that is happening with ISIS in various parts of the world and how Canada can adjust our contributions in a way that is most meaningful. I wonder if she could elaborate on how she sees that happening.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, and I welcome her to the House.

As I pointed out, we are already providing some humanitarian aid, but we could do more. In my opinion, this aid is absolutely vital, both from a humanitarian and compassionate point of view and also to support the fight against these terrorist groups. I would like to expand the debate a bit on that point.

There must be more humanitarian aid for this region, where there is such terrible suffering. However, we must not forget other crises, such as those in South Sudan and the Central African Republic, which could lead to problems in the future. We must work in the long term to build democracy and solve the current political crises.

The problem emerging in Libya is a very good example. Even though we participated with other countries in the bombings, we did not have a sufficient presence to help the people build a new country. Today, there are significant problems that could affect neighbouring countries, and action is required.

I have something else to say about bombings, but I will save it for later.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to say how good it is to see you in the chair, and I know that you will bring both a sense of fairness and dignity as well as some gender balance to our chair. It is great to see you there today.

My question to my hon. colleague has to do with the important point she raised about radicalization. We all know the attacks that have occurred around the world are unusual in that they are not part of an organized and systematic attempt by ISIL to do things, but rather the inspiration people receive through their radicalization.

In debate on Bill C-51, the NDP asked the Conservative government at that time to include measures to counter radicalization in Canada, and it did not do so.

I want to ask the member if she has seen any indications from the current Liberal government that it will take strong action to counter radicalization here in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, I hope the Liberal government plans to introduce a concrete plan to combat radicalization, in partnership with communities, here and around the world.

At this point, the problem is that we are up against a war that is not a traditional or conventional war, but we are using conventional fighting methods that are not at all suited to the situation.

I want to come back to the issue of radicalization around the world. In the early weeks of the American bombings, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a widely recognized organization, said that during that period, ISIS managed to recruit 6,000 new jihadists.

We really need to ask ourselves whether bombing is simply leading to more recruiting; if so, then it is counterproductive.

Fighting a new kind of war with tools from the last century is simply not going to work.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, some of the comments the member is making just make me concerned that she may not understand even the basic nature of Daesh as an organization. It is not like Al Qaeda, which simply exists as a type of cell-based organization. It is an organization that has effectively a quasi state. It controls territories. It has bureaucrats. Actually, traditional, conventional military mechanisms are a very effective way of combatting it.

A lot of things that have been said seem to me, respectfully, kind of pie in the sky. To look at this in concrete terms, we have a killer on the loose, a group of killers. What do we do to prevent the violence? Do we provide training from behind the lines? Do we educate youth and give out food? Should we, at the very least, first stop the killing, stop the violence against the innocent, and then move on to other things after that?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I understand that it is a quasi state, but there are further ramifications that make the problem more complex. Yes, all of us would like to stop the killings and the atrocities committed by ISIS, or let us remember, by Bashar al-Assad's regime. The question is how best to do that. There is a gut reaction of saying the best way to do that is to go bombing, and that is what we question.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, for her speech.

I would like to know whether she sees the withdrawal of our CF-18s and the reorientation of our mission as the end of our vigorous fight against Daesh, which is how the Conservatives mistakenly see it, in my view.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. We also want to fight against Daesh or ISIS. We are proposing different tools that we think will be more effective. Like the Liberals, we believe that bombing is not the right approach for Canada to take. We would go even a little further than that. Yes, I completely agree that withdrawing the CF-18s does not mean that we are stepping away from the fight against ISIS.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Thornhill.

I am very proud to speak today in the House on a subject that is very important to me.

I had the honour and privilege of working for the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years and I earned the rank of lieutenant-colonel, like our colleague from National Defence. I am therefore in a position to talk about something that concerns me and many Canadians, specifically the withdrawal of our CF-18s from Syria and Iraq.

Our allies, including the United States, France, and England have decided to ramp up their attacks and bombing against ISIS. An international coalition is being formed on a consensus that it is their common duty to combat ISIS, which has made no secret of the fact that Canada and many other allied countries are potential targets for deadly attacks.

The Prime Minister has not provided a single plausible explanation to justify withdrawing our CF-18s from Iraq and Syria, from this so-called asymmetrical warfare, for our NDP colleagues who may need some information.

The explanations from Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs were nebulous at best, and completely incomprehensible at worst. He spoke about potentially increasing training for local police, providing governance assistance, without defining what that means in the middle of a war against ISIS, and helping create democratic institutions in Iraq. Does the minister understand that when we are in the middle of a war, that is not the time for teaching, but the time for combatting the common enemy?

This government does not seem to have a plan. The Minister of Foreign Affairs promised us a plan soon, and I cannot wait to see this plan in writing, since the minister is not even able to explain it to us in the House. We cannot wait to see it.

Canada must now make a clear commitment to combatting ISIS by keeping our CF-18s in Iraqi and Syrian territory. The Iraqi government openly called for military support from members of the international community to combat ISIS.

My NDP colleague mentioned the United Nations Security Council. Does she know that the United Nations Security Council remains seized of the threat posed by international terrorism? On September 24, 2014, the UN unanimously passed resolution 2178, which states, and I quote:

Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and remaining determined to contribute further to enhancing the effectiveness of the overall effort to fight this scourge on a global level...

Yes, you can make what you will of a UN resolution. However, we saw what happened in Rwanda in 1994 when we put General Dallaire in an impossible situation where he was unable to prevent the massacre of 800,000 Tutsis.

From my experience, I know that in this fight against ISIS, it is critical to destroy the enemy's resource base. We must not forget that ISIS is advancing on the ground and that refugees are being hunted down. Our involvement keeps ISIS from advancing and thus helps the local population. In an armed conflict, our air force supports the supply effort, does locating, and so on.

Why take away the final resource, the one required to destroy located targets? The answer is obvious. Our CF-18 fighter jets must continue their mission in Iraq and Syria. We have special forces that are assisting the Kurds. We have soldiers who are giving valuable advice and getting a lot of information. If we withdraw the CF-18s, what will we do with the intelligence that our aircraft gather on their radar missions? We will send it to our American and British allies so that they can do the bombing.

By withdrawing our CF-18s, we are failing to complete the job. Soldiers do their job from A to Z. By withdrawing the jets, we are forgetting about Z. We are stopping at Y and letting others finish the job. As a former military officer, I can say that our Conservative government raised our Canadian Armed Forces to unprecedented heights.

Why beat a retreat? Why stop?

That would be a slap in the face to all of our men and women in uniform who laboured for years to perfect their skills, an insult to the sacrifices their families were forced to make when they spent months away from home being trained to do their work well.

I would like to make another important point. When I was teaching in France, at the military school in Paris, I would ask my students to stop making long speeches about their plans and to focus on the ultimate mission. I can assure you that I got results that way.

Canada's goal and that of our allies is to destroy ISIS. That is what everyone wants. President Obama even said last week that we have to put an end to ISIS because it is a major threat to humanity.

In the battle against a mobile and formidable enemy, our CF-18 fighter jets are making a valuable contribution to eliminating ISIS targets. We are blocking its progress by attacking its caches of supplies, weapons, munitions and fuel. That is extremely important.

I am appealing to the government's good sense to preserve Canada's international reputation. I am asking the government to keep our CF-18 fighter jets in Iraq and Syria. “Army” rhymes with “credibility”. As a country, we need to preserve our credibility.