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

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Regina—Qu'Appelle Saskatchewan

Conservative

Andrew Scheer ConservativeHouse Leader of the Official Opposition

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I rise in the 42nd Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to this most prestigious office.

I will mention that I did leave a package of Rolaids in the compartment to your right, if you need to use it. I hope you do not, for a long period of time, but it is there for when you do.

Since this is the first and last Thursday before the Christmas break, I would like to take a few moments to thank a few people who support us in the work we do on behalf of Canadians.

First and foremost, I would like to congratulate the other chair occupants who will assist you in the work you do, Mr. Speaker, presiding over this chamber.

We are very fortunate in this House to be served by a great group of professional individuals, the Clerk, the clerks at the table, and all the legislative support staff who help us in what we do.

The House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, is a great place to work and visit, and that is because of all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes by all the support staff, whether it is maintenance, printing, postal, or security. They do a great job on our behalf as well.

Of course, the pages have had a short period of time to work in this session, but no doubt when we come back in February, we will put them to work again to make up for it.

Thanks also to the Hill and constituency staff and the spouses and families, all those who keep the fort running at home while we go away. We all owe thanks to our spouses, our children, our friends, and our families.

I also want to congratulate my counterpart, the government House leader. I have worked with him for some time in the past and we have already had some productive meetings; and also the House leader for the New Democrats. I think we have found some areas of common ground, while at the same time we have engaged in very vigorous debate, holding the government to account.

I would like to wish a very merry Christmas to all those in this place and back at home, and indeed, all Canadians. I hope they have a very merry Christmas and safe and happy holidays.

Now I would like to ask the government House leader if he could inform the House what the business will be for the remainder of this week and when we come back in February.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. colleague's question, this afternoon we will continue debating an opposition day motion from the Conservative Party. Following the vote on the motion, the House will consider the appropriation bill for the supplementary estimates, which provides funding for our government's program to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada.

Tomorrow, the House will have the third of six days of debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. As members are all aware, the House will then stand adjourned until January 25, 2016.

I want to briefly join my colleague, the opposition House leader, in wishing you, Mr. Speaker, Kelly, and your family a very happy holiday and a very Merry Christmas. It has been a long election campaign. It has been a quick series of events that have brought us to Parliament before the end of the year. I know members on all sides of the House are looking forward to a holiday break to catch up on constituency work or set up constituency offices, as so many hundreds of our new colleagues are still doing.

I urge all colleagues to take some time with their families to enjoy the holiday season. The January to June period, as you know Mr. Speaker, is a busy one for parliamentarians. Jolène and I are looking forward to spending some time in New Brunswick at our place on the Northumberland Strait, and I would urge colleagues to take advantage of the same moment.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I was not inviting you to come to my cottage. It sounded very bad. It would be very inappropriate, because you would have to go to the cottage of every member. It would not work.

I join the opposition House leader in recognizing the staff who work so hard here to help us with so many important tasks, starting of course with the Acting Clerk, Mr. Bosc, and his colleagues at the table. Right through the administration of the House of Commons, in every branch and every service, we are served by a remarkable group of women and men. The pages are getting the experience of their first parliamentary session. They missed a good chunk of the fall because of the election, but we look forward to seeing them in the new year.

A final word: it is not a secret that the chief financial officer of the House of Commons, Mr. Mark Watters, a CA, is leaving after many years of distinguished service, both in the House and with the Office of the Auditor General in a number of senior public administration functions. He has certainly been, for me, a very valuable ally. He has served all members of Parliament in an extraordinary way, and I know that all of us wish him much success and happiness in a new stage of what I hope will be a continued career of serving Canadians.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be here every Thursday, but I think it is important to be here today to congratulate you on your role as Speaker and to congratulate my colleague, the new Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and, of course, the new House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I think we will be able to work together very productively. I also want to thank all of the staff in the House and in our constituency offices across Canada. These individuals and the work they do make it possible for us to serve Canadians.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to wish each and every one here very happy holidays, all the best in 2016, happiness, and good health.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I want to thank all the House leaders for their comments and well wishes, which I appreciate and share with all of our colleagues, employees of the House and everyone else who was mentioned. I wish the same to all of you.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I can continue my speech.

To explain my position to those of my colleagues who feel that we should be doing more, I said that we should reconsider the decision to end the CF-18 mission. As a G8 country, should we not contribute as much as we are able to this international fight?

Have we forgotten our traditional allies, our most precious alliances, and our friends? France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States have answered the call for air strikes. Other countries are sure to join them soon.

While the international community rallies to a common cause, will Canada beat a retreat? To withdraw our fighter jets and our courageous pilots would be to send the wrong message to ISIS. We might as well be saying that it is not important to fight terrorism and support our allies and that we could not care less about ISIS. We need to take this more seriously.

No self-respecting government can act on a whim, not when it comes to ISIS and certainly not when it comes to the safety of Canadians.

That the government think before it acts is not too much to ask. Let us wait before taking any ill-conceived action. We need to begin by listening to and consulting Canadians, our allies, and first and foremost, this House, in the spirit of collaboration and transparency.

Here on this side of the House, the only message we want to send beyond our shores is that Canada is standing up. If Canada will not stand up to ISIS, who else will?

We have the means, the materials and the equipment. Our soldiers are very well trained, and in that regard, as a former soldier myself, I know what I am talking about. We have everything we need to do our part with pride and conviction. Imagine what a difference we could make. After all, that is what Canadians expect from their government.

At the end of the day, what is the Prime Minister so afraid of? Is he afraid of terrorism or is he afraid of being wrong?

In closing, and in keeping with the mood here as this session begins, I urge all members of the House to reflect carefully on the thoughts and criticisms my colleagues and I have shared here today.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate the fact that we have just come through a national election from which a new government has been formed. Part of its election platform was to recognize that Canada could play another role outside that of the CF-18s. I wonder if the member would recommend to the government that it should in essence break an election promise?

It is something that was very clear and made to all Canadians. Canadians then decided to support the Liberal Party and the commitment it made to recognize that there might be other ways that the air force, which I am a former member of, could actually play a role. It does not mean that it has to be with fighter jets; there are alternatives.

Given the fact that a solid commitment was made by the Liberal Party in the last federal election, is there not an obligation, in the member's mind, that we maintain that commitment?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very good question.

If the member had been here for the beginning of my speech, he would have heard what I said about his government, namely that it should take note of how international relations are developing right now. As we know, there have been a number of attacks in recent weeks, including one in Paris.

Under the previous Conservative government, we had a three-pronged strategy: bring in refugees, provide humanitarian assistance to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and go into battle with our CF-18s.

Today we are not asking the government to break any promises. We are just asking the government to recognize the current chaotic reality of international relations and reverse its decision.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for another heartfelt and thoughtful speech.

Over the past few days and earlier today the Liberal government told us that we make up barely 2% of the air strike missions. They keep putting the emphasis on “barely 2%”.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou is a former soldier. He wore the uniform with pride and honour for five years. He comes from a military family.

As a soldier, how does the hon. member feel when he hears the government repeatedly say that our participation amounts to barely 2%, when our pilots are risking 100% of their lives in such a difficult and dangerous situation?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, whose riding is quite close to Beauport—Limoilou, for his question.

I find that way of thinking shameful. I would like to reiterate that, in those 2% of cases, 100% of the individuals are serving our country and putting their lives in danger every day to protect our freedoms.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I keep hearing the phrase "cut and run". Republican Senator John McCain is not a man who cuts and runs. He suffered for months in a Viet Cong prison. He is currently the chair of the U.S. Senate armed services committee. On Tuesday, he said that the United States needed to reconsider the focus of its campaign in the Levant. I will quote from an article he wrote with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for The Wall Street Journal. He wrote that the United States needs to “develop a strategy that is credible to the American people and I don't think that is the case today“ with the air campaign focus. Would you like to comment on Senator McCain's position on this?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order, please. I would remind the member to direct his comments to the Chair, please.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that very good question.

I will not comment on American politics or on the U.S.'s decisions on international relations. I do not understand “reconsider the focus” to mean redefining the U.S. air strike approach, so I do not see how that changes what we are saying here.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

This afternoon, it is with a great sense of responsibility, humility and pride that I rise before my colleagues in this honourable House for the first time.

I would like to thank the people of Mississauga—Lakeshore for putting their trust in me. I would also like to thank my family and my extraordinary team in Mississauga—Lakeshore. I also want to congratulate all of my colleagues in the House on getting elected or re-elected and you, Madam Speaker, on your re-election.

I am rising on a very important topic, namely ISIS, a terrorist group otherwise known as Daesh.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague opposite, the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, for introducing this motion so that we can have this important discussion here in the House of Commons today on developments in the Middle East.

I was in the Middle East for nearly seven years, from 2005 to 2012, serving as a senior United Nations official in Baghdad, Iraq. The majority of my time was devoted to supporting the Iraqi parliament, the Iraqi executive, and elected officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan region. My team and I supported our Iraqi counterparts in building an all-party dialogue on important questions of political and constitutional reform, including their struggle with early incarnations of the Islamic State of Iraq.

As a Canadian who has served proudly under the blue flag, one of my proudest moments was was when former prime minister Jean Chretien decided not to join the coalition that intervened in Iraq in 2003, a decision that was supported by members of the Conservative caucus but opposed by President Obama.

It is difficult for me to fully capture just how much goodwill this Canadian decision generated among the people of Iraq during the subsequent decades and how profound a role it played in allowing my U.N. team and me to build trust and effective working relationships with our Iraqi counterparts and Iraqi-Kurdish counterparts.

Let me be clear. Today the question of how to deal with the Islamic State is of the utmost importance for people of the Middle East, for us in the west, and in all other parts of the world and, ultimately, for human civilization. By all indications, fear, division, and widening global conflict is what this murderous group wants to achieve. We must not indulge it. We need to defeat it in other ways.

Canada's most effective contribution to the fight against ISIS will focus on empowering those voices and forces in the region that are prepared to stand up and take on the fight to reclaim their territory and their collective future from this terrorist group, like our friends in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

One of the greatest obstacles to the fight against ISIS is that at the moment there is no alternative vision in the Middle East. Young men or women in Iraq or Syria who contemplate standing up in the struggle against ISIS will first ask themselves what exactly they are fighting for. The formulation of an alternative, the vision of a better tomorrow for an economic and social future, is not something that can be created by dropping more bombs on Syria.

The Islamic State is a complex, multifaceted humanitarian, economic, religious, cultural, political, and military problem. It has those components. Most important, the vision for a better tomorrow has to be created by the people of the Middle East; it cannot be imposed from the outside.

I am proud of the government's decision to withdraw our fighter jets from the Syrian air campaign, all the while remaining engaged in the effort to defeat ISIS on other fronts, including military training and advisory capacities to support the brave miliary forces in the region that are taking up the armed struggle and who have developed their vision for a better tomorrow.

Just to be clear, the Canadian Armed Forces has a strong record of projecting leadership abroad through its participation in international operations. Foremost in our memory of course is the mission in Afghanistan. Over the 12-year mission, Canada sent more than 40,000 personnel to the region. Many of our members served more than one tour, including our hon. Minister of National Defence.

Our achievements in Afghanistan were hard won. Our forces had to overcome many challenges. Canada undertook ambitious projects that aimed to improve the lives of Afghans, including helping to build critical infrastructure such as roads and schools and supporting partners with important initiatives like education on polio.

We are proud of Canada's legacy in places like Afghanistan and in many other places around the world, and of the tremendous effort of our brave women and men in uniform. Our legacy continues as the people of Afghanistan now continue to progress toward a democratic and secure country.

Our government has never been opposed to deploying our armed forces in combat when it clearly serves our national interests. The Government of Canada will shift our mission to a non-combat role that will be focused on training and humanitarian aid.

I am particularly proud of the fact that Canada participates actively in the humanitarian aid effort, which includes, most importantly and most recently, the fact that we will be welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by March of next year.

The problem of Daesh is multifaceted. There are many roles to play. Canada is not advocating for an end to the air campaign. There are countries that are going to conduct an air campaign. We are not telling them to stop. All we are saying is that there is a better way for Canada, a more effective way that better fits Canada's historical missions. It is sophistication. It is an understanding of the region and it is a history of diplomatic engagement. For that reason, I am proud to speak against the motion today.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB

Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised listening to the member's background that he was in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan, considering that he feels that humanitarian assistance and diplomacy is what will work in that region and not military and that he would like to withdraw.

Let me remind him that I was also engaged with diplomacy and everything in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq. I can say from our experience, without having strong action being taken, if we had taken very strong actions with the Maliki government when it was in power, ISIS would not have had the opportunity to do the horrendous crimes that it did and is doing right now.

I am extremely surprised that the member is talking about actually withdrawing. Making it even worse, he is telling the coalition to do it and we should not. That is exactly what he just said. Let others carry the burden and we will stay home. That is something we will not agree with.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Speaker, again, the problem of ISIS is multi-faceted. There are many tasks that need to be accomplished. Canada can play a better role in this conflict than simply dropping bombs. Canada has demonstrated its engagement at political, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, and governance levels in the past. There are roles for us to play that others are not playing effectively that we could and should play. Again, most emphatically at this point, training the brave men and women of the Kurdish forces who are standing firm in their fight against ISIS. It is a local solution that is required; it is local embrace of their own collective future. We are here to help the Iraqi people, the Kurdish people, the people of the region who stand against ISIS to achieve exactly that.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been providing erroneous information about the combat mission since the discussions on this subject began. The combat mission is not being carried out under the UN or the NATO banner, and many coalition countries are not participating in combat missions but are simply providing humanitarian aid.

Does my colleague have any information about the type of humanitarian aid that Canada could provide? How can we provide real assistance on the ground by providing humanitarian aid?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

It really is about what Canada does best. What is our expertise, what is our record when it comes to international engagement?

What can we do best? With the problem of the complexity of ISIS, it is a question of figuring out what is not only in our national interest, but through which avenues we can help the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East the best. It is not simply by dropping bombs on Syria; that is not the Canadian way. It has never been the Canadian way to reflexively engage in air strikes without further thought.

Maybe I can take this opportunity to question fundamentally a perspective on the side of the Conservative caucus that somehow suggests that we dishonour our women and men in uniform, or dishonour their service, by pulling them back or redeploying them. That calls into question the civilian control of our armed forces that is fundamental to our democracy and that this caucus seems to be throwing into question.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his exceptional understanding of this question. I find myself in the position of asking a genuine question and trying to probe my way through this discussion. From his expertise in the area and region, in that large arsenal of tools that we have to help in this situation, what would his first or second priority be in terms of diplomacy, or aid, or on-the-ground training? What would he suggest to the House and the government?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Speaker, most important would be the resumption of diplomatic relationships. We are providing humanitarian aid and assisting with military training of the Kurdish forces. We have let go of our diplomatic engagement in the Middle East. If we are not trusted as political interlocutors, we have no future in working toward a comprehensive solution.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin this debate by expressing the gratitude of all of us in the House, in fact, of all Canadians, to the men and women of Canada's armed forces.

Canada's forces have a fearless history of facing down evil. Most recently, in the Levant, it is Canada's air force personnel who have contributed to the allied air war campaign against Daesh that we are proud of. However, our capacity in this regard is modest and it is reflected in the statistics of the air campaign, to which we have contributed a mere 2% of all bombing runs.

It is also significant to note that 75% of our aircraft engaged in this campaign return with their payloads unspent due to the correct and strict rules of engagement preventing bombings that cause collateral civilian deaths. Having no such qualms, Daesh uses civilian settings as human shields. Today, virtually all military and counterterrorism experts have come to the conclusion that this war will not be won from the air. It will be won on the ground.

Daesh is a scourge that must be eliminated. This is a war that must be won. It is time to reassess our strategy and strategically re-examine our military commitment to the allied war effort in ways that match our abilities and can produce results on the ground. That is why our commitment of providing training and arms to local forces, such as the Iraqi military and Kurdish peshmerga fighters, is of critical importance to winning this war.

This past Tuesday, in testimony before the U.S. Senate armed services committee, two former top Obama officials underscored that the U.S. was not winning the fight against the so-called Islamic state. Michèle Flournoy, former under secretary of defence, stated, “I don't think we are fully resourcing a multidimensional strategy.... ...[we] need to play more of a leadership role...in terms of enabling others militarily,...”

However, this war on terror in the Levant has two fronts. Three of the five major terrorist attacks have occurred in NATO countries in recent months and most of the suicide terrorists were born and raised in the west. As a lonely Virginia born and raised teenager, Ali Amin stated in a New York Times interview this past month that, curious about the Islamic State, he went online. There he found a virtual community waiting. He stated:

For the first time, I felt I was not only being taken seriously about very important and weighty topics, but was actually being asked for guidance. By assimilating into the Internet world instead of the real world, I became absorbed in a “virtual” struggle while disconnecting from what was real: my family, my life and my future.

In the west, these sympathizers number in the thousands. For weeks and months, they marinate in the rhetoric and symbolism of the fictitious Islamic State, courtesy of Twitter and other platforms. They are lauded for being wise and told that they are leaders. Finally and tragically, they are recruited to travel as fighters to the Levant or encouraged to commit horrific acts of terror against non-Muslims or, as they are called, infidels, and non-supportive Muslims, so-called apostates, in their home countries.

In June of 2014, a huge surge in foreign recruitment began. By September of this year, estimates are that nearly 30,000 foreign recruits have poured into Syria, a doubling in the number of terrorist fighters. It is estimated that approximately 300 have come from North America, mostly from the United States, but a handful from Canada as well. This coincided with Daesh declaring online that it was now an "Islamic caliphate" or "Islamic state."

Clearly, there is a powerful communications battle taking place. We must not inadvertently feed the false narrative and provide this terrorist death cult with legitimacy by calling it an Islamic state. It is neither Islamic nor a state. In fact, it propagates a perversion of basic tenets of the Muslim faith and can only militarily occupy a decreasing number of cities and towns in Syria and Iraq.

We must join the Arab countries and our closest allies, Great Britain and France, and call it what it is: Daesh, a death cult.

The crisis we face in Syria and Iraq has layers of complexity and has due political significance. Currently, our allied war effort faces new and additional challenges posed by a significant ramping up of involvement by Kremlin President Putin.

As we have learned in recent years, Putin's stated intent and actions are often diametrically opposite. Instead of bombing Daesh, the vast majority of bombs unleashed by the Russian military land on anti-Assad forces and civilian neighbourhoods. The Kremlin is expanding existing and adding to the number of Russian naval and air force military bases in Syria. At the same time, it continues to test NATO partner Turkey's resolve.

Problematically, while for the most part avoiding bombing Daesh, the FSB, Russia's intelligence services, has been funnelling hundreds of fighters from Dagestan into Daesh's ranks. A recent investigation by Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent newspapers left in Russia, based on extensive fieldwork by Elena Milashina has concluded that, “Russian special services have controlled” the flow of jihadists into Syria. Russia has now become the third biggest source country for foreign Daesh fighters.

The FSB's establishment of a green corridor is meticulously documented by Novaya Gazeta, from FSB recruiters to supply of travel documents. FSB funnels potential terrorists who, instead of causing trouble and blowing things up in Russia, militarily engage NATO forces. This has, in the Kremlin's view, the added benefit of making impossible a Qatari gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe so as not to challenge Russia's gas chokehold of western European gas markets.

In our war against Daesh, we must find ways to address all of its complexities in the Levant, on the Internet, at home, and geopolitically.

As Republican Senator John McCain, chair of the U.S. Senate armed services committee co-wrote with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in the Wall Street Journal in regards to the current allied war effort, which focuses on our air campaign, the U.S. needs to “...develop a strategy that is credible...I don't think that is the case today.”

Our government intends to develop a comprehensive strategy to fight this war in ways that make the most effective use of our military resources and with our allies, help rid the Levant of the Daesh death cult and its global tentacles.

I would like to conclude with a quote from U.S. Ambassador to Canada Heyman, this morning on Ottawa radio station CFRA AM 580. He stated:

I think each country is making their own decisions as to how they are going to contribute to this. In my conversations with the Prime Minister and his team, they have a firm commitment to the coalition. It will be robust...and I am confident that we're going to work very well together.

For the above stated reasons, I will be opposing the Conservative motion.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair. Congratulations on this special role.

I listened to my friend's speech with some interest. It seems he quotes John McCain in the United States without even understanding the context of that quote.

The original mission, we all might remember if we followed this for a few years, was to degrade and destroy ISIS or ISIL. Canada has been a proud part of an international coalition of countries from around the world doing just that. In fact, it has been successful. In between 25% to 30% of the land area in Iraq and in parts of Syria, ISIS has been pushed out and there has been the containment.

What Senator McCain was actually asking for was the destruction of ISIS, which is the next step. The President of France has been going around the world urging all countries to step up, not just to degrade but to destroy, because we have seen what leaving that threat out there can cause to even democracies far away.

My question for the member is: Having played the role degrading ISIS to this point, when our allies are actually calling for the effort to be stepped up, why are we the only one stepping away?

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, Senator McCain was quite clear during hearings in the committee, and in the article that I quoted, that an air campaign on its own was not effective and that a ground campaign was critically necessary.

On that same day, The Wall Street Journal also wrote a piece, which I would like to quote from. It said, “as in the past, air power alone will not win this war. Any administration strategist or presidential hopeful who pretends otherwise isn't serious about achieving victory.”