Debates of Dec. 10th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite who suggested that the coalition bombing effort against the Islamic State was ineffective.

Canadian journalist Michael Petro was in Iraq in the last year talking to Syrians and Iraqis who were fleeing the persecution of ISIS. Here is what he said:

I was in Iraq, where every single person I asked—Iraqis, and also Syrian refugees sheltering there—said they wanted Canada to bomb Islamic State."

That is why Bob Rae, former Liberal leader; Ujjal Dosanjh, former Liberal cabinet minister; and Irwin Cotler, former Liberal minister all support the concept of a combat mission to counter the Islamic State. That is why the members opposite need to reconsider their position on the motion in front of this House.

I encourage the Liberals to vote for this motion and to realize that we got here because some people made a cynical political calculation that this position of the Liberal government was a way to win votes instead of looking out for Canada and its citizens' long-term interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister has stated that we will do the training mission, because bombing has not helped anyone. When the Americans went to bomb Iraq, what did they create? A hotbed for tensions between the Sunnis and Shias.

I think that members need to understand the history of Islam. I invite them to the Aga Khan Museum where they will know it better.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in front of this wonderful House, I would like to thank the people of Kanata—Carleton for having placed their faith in me. I look forward to being able to serve as their representative. I also look forward to being able to serve Canada's veterans as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

I am thankful for the opportunity to address the issue of Canada's contribution to the military effort against ISIL.

I would like to begin by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed the 31 years I spent in the Canadian Forces. I visited over 65 countries around the world and I saw the nature of the work that Canada can do and the contributions that she can make. I worked with some of the most intelligent, dedicated, and professional individuals in the world. I have been involved in the operations in the first Gulf War and Afghanistan, which made a lasting impression on me.

During my time at NATO, I spent four years in the NATO air headquarters in Ramstein, Germany. I gained a very solid understanding of the entire force effort required to succeed in any mission. I spent those four years in the operations branch, which required us to determine the list of skills, capabilities, people, and equipment required on any mission that NATO was going to embark upon. I gained an understanding of just what was required to make a success of any one of these missions.

A lot of this operational support, such as training and logistics, is not celebrated in the public view, but it is no less critical to the success of the mission.

During my 31 years as a member of the Canadian Forces, I did a tour in Afghanistan and spent time at NATO headquarters, so I know what the men and women of the Canadian Forces can contribute to international missions.

That tradition has not changed and today Canadians can continue to be extremely proud of our men and women in uniform. They are well trained, enormously dedicated, and have a lot of work to do across the country and around the world. The men and women of the Canadian Forces have made a significant contribution already to the fight against terrorism and ISIL. They will continue to make a significant contribution, alongside our allies, in the fight against terrorism and ISIL.

Today, Canadian Forces members have a global reputation not simply for our force projection capabilities, but also for our training and logistics. As we all know, the Royal Canadian Air Force has contributed to the air effort of this immense 60-country coalition and all Canadians should be very proud of this contribution. The war on terrorism and ISIL, however, requires a multifaceted approach that degrades not only their fighting capability but also their command and control; stems the tide of foreign fighters into ISIL; denies their logistics and financing; stabilizes the population; and develops the long-term conditions required for peace, security, and prosperity, such as the development of a standing security force.

It is only by creating an environment that allows for the safety and security of its citizens that terrorism and ISIL will be defeated. Medium and longer term goals must also address the region's ability to provide good governance, stability, security, and economic opportunities for its people. Canada and the Canadian Forces have world-renowned capabilities to help achieve these goals, and we need to step up our efforts in these critical areas. Suggesting that training local security forces to protect their country and their citizens is any less of a contribution than air strikes is doing a great disservice to our men and women in uniform.

Canadians have time and time again provided the training and support required for mission success right around the globe, and the Canadian Forces have provided this training in operational theatres. It has been that way for years. This has placed Canada in the unique position of being recognized as an expert in this area, and this global expertise will be a critical component in adding to the stability of that region.

To achieve success in the region, Canada's approach needs to consider the many factors that will create long-term peace, and our government recognizes the need for a comprehensive, multi-faceted, and calculated plan that addresses the end-to-end effort, not only the short-term objectives. That planning and consultation with our allies is currently underway.

Canada has world-renowned capabilities that can contribute to all aspects and phases of this comprehensive plan, but there is also a need to concentrate efforts on these next steps. Iraqi and Kurdish forces need to provide the means of maintaining security in the region to ensure that the gains we make as a result of the combat mission are not immediately lost. They go hand in hand.

The lack of good governance, insecurity, and hopelessness are all contributing factors that drive terrorism, and they have led to the humanitarian crisis that we see unfolding before us today.

The protection of Canadians is the most important mandate of any government. On a daily basis in Canada, the combined forces of the RCMP and CSIS; local, provincial, and national police departments; the Canada Border Services Agency; and the Canadian Forces protect the interests of all Canadians, and they perform their duties with honour and integrity.

Here is a little fact for the House. The Canada Border Services Agency conducts interview screening on approximately 270,000 individuals entering Canada every single day—

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

Do they have documents?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me?

While our government is committed to our Canadian Forces' contribution to the fight against ISIL, we are also committed to the safe and secure resettlement of these refugees escaping this violence and fear. As members heard, before arriving in Canada, refugees must undergo a rigorous multi-layered security and health screening to ensure the safety of Canadians. Many of the refugees who are arriving in Canada have been in United Nations refugee camps for years and have already been screened by the United Nations, the Canadian immigration police, and security officials.

There is no need to fear. If the CBSA can handle 270,000 entering Canada per day, surely we can manage this task, as well. Canada has a duty to display leadership and generosity of spirit, both in helping to fight terrorist groups and providing a new home for those who have been driven from theirs.

I have the utmost faith in the Canadian Forces. They do whatever is asked of them. They have the capability, the heart, the spirit, the brains, the skills, the talent, and the will to do whatever needs to be done. I am very proud to have served, and I am very proud to say that we are looking for a long-term solution and that these are some the ideas that we are putting forward so that we can make progress, not only in the short-term but in the long-term as well.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some reports this afternoon out of Switzerland about potential concerns of terrorist attacks and threats of terrorist attacks, including some with respect to Canada. We have heard about potential threats to Toronto. Other European news sources are talking about potential attacks to Vancouver and Ottawa. These are serious concerns. The RCMP has put out a statement indicating that it is taking these seriously and that the safety of Canadians is of the utmost importance. We are all happy to hear that the RCMP is taking them seriously and has our safety as its highest priority. However, I wonder why the government does not see it the same way. Why does the government not have the safety of Canadians as its utmost priority? It is quite clear that when it wants to drop out of the fight and the combat mission against ISIS, it is not taking this seriously. I really wish it would. Why is the government not taking the safety and security of Canadians seriously? Why is it not standing with our allies and ensuring that we are there as part of the combat mission?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. This is what this House is about, in being able to have this dialogue.

The answer is that there is not just one role that needs to get done. There is not just one way to address this challenge. We will not be able to address it alone; we need to sit down with our allies and negotiate.

I worked in NATO and I know that sometimes it was tough to get the support of nations for the activities that were not so prominent in the press. However, sometimes it is the activities that go on in the background that people do not see that make the difference between success and failure.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election win.

I also thank her for sharing her experience in NATO. I can understand her respect for organizations like the United Nations and NATO, which we belong to because they help us protect Canadians. Since this mission does not have the backing of the UN or NATO, I would like her to draw on her experience in NATO to help us understand what would justify it.

What does she think of Canada's participation in a mission that is not under the aegis of the United Nations or NATO?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a considered one that needs to be answered.

There have been times when getting certain mandates, either through NATO or through the United Nations, has been thwarted by other political efforts. It does not mean that these concerns and missions do not deserve our attention and our contribution, because they do. When I bring up the idea of NATO, and I have worked in both NATO and in the United Nations, it is to identify the difficulty and what it takes to build a coalition that is working together to achieve a common goal. When there are 60 countries trying to work together to achieve something, there will always be differences of opinion on how we should move forward, what our priorities should be, or what the phase of a certain operation should be. However, when we have 60 countries step up to say that they want to contribute and make a difference, I think that sends a very strong message. Canada has always stepped up when we have been asked.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to first and foremost thank the constituents of Brandon—Souris who have once again given me the great honour of representing them in this House. It's a great responsibility to be the voice of so many, and a source of immense pride to call western Manitoba home.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Durham.

Today, this House is once again grappling with our nation's response to the terrors occurring in the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Before I begin, I want to pay homage to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who wear our nation's uniform and keep Canada safe. Not only do the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, and the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, train at CFB Shiloh, located in Brandon—Souris, but they are our friends and family. They are our neighbours and colleagues, and we are privileged to have them as part of our greater community. Their actions and courage in battle have brought glory to themselves and great distinction to Canada. They have sacrificed so much while defending our freedoms and bringing liberty to countless people around the world.

At this very moment, while we are debating this motion, they are serving and defending Canadian values at home and abroad, just as they have always done. It is with them in mind, and all of our men and women currently serving in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East, that I speak with such conviction and confidence in their ability to destroy the evil that currently seeks to enslave women and children and brainwash millions of people around the world with its warped and wicked ideology. It is truly unfortunate that the new Liberal government refused to bring its proposed changes to the mission in Iraq and Syria to be debated on the floor of Parliament.

In recent years, thanks to Conservative openness, it has been the custom for any member of this House to have a say on the engagement of Canadian Armed Forces members on foreign soil. While Canadians in the past have had their representatives come and debate the merits of such deployments, unfortunately it seems that this practice has now ended. If it were not for the Conservative Party bringing this matter to the floor of the House today, not a word would have been said on Canada's involvement in combatting ISIS.

Colleagues, we must all admit that, regardless of our position on this critical matter, it deserves to be debated, and I am pleased that our Conservative Party has taken the lead on this issue. The crux of this debate rests in the question of Canada's role: should we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies; and do we have a moral responsibility to share the heavy lifting? As has been said before, it has never been the Canadian way to shirk our responsibility. It has never been the Canadian way to turn our backs on our allies and to only do the most praiseworthy of actions.

While the Americans, the French, the British, and others have risen to the occasion and have made the decision to combat ISIS, and most of all, risked their lives in the name of freedom and liberty for millions of people, the new Liberal government under the new Prime Minister has decided that halting and degrading ISIS with the assistance of our CF-18 fighter jets is no longer our concern.

While millions of people have been displaced and torn from their families, our new Liberal government has decided to step back. It has stepped back in the name of political expediency, rather than what needs to be done to defend and protect those living under the curtain of ISIS.

While it is true that RCAF assets will remain in the area, our new Prime Minister has asked our incredible and gifted fighter pilots to come home. While we have asked if the atrocities being carried out by the terrorists are not worthy enough of the intervention of our CF-18s, we have only been given obfuscation from the new Prime Minister. Even though our CF-18s have successfully bombed ISIS fighting positions, weapon caches, training facilities, and IED factories, the fighter pilots are now being told that their assistance is no longer welcomed by the new Liberal government. They are being told that their 1,167 sorties as of last week were not necessarily the best usage of their time, by the new Liberal government. They are now essentially being told that their efforts and the significance of their contribution to the international coalition's air bombing campaign were a mistake.

Let me say unequivocally, and as proudly and clearly as I can, that our CF-18 pilots have made a difference. Through their actions and collaborations with our allies, ISIS has lost the ability to operate freely in roughly 25% to 30% of Iraq territory that it previously controlled. They have played an important role in degrading, destabilizing, and weakening ISIS's position and operations in the region. Through their assistance, they have liberated cities and towns. They have struck the very operations and infrastructure that has propped up this jihadi regime. They have helped stop the spread of its poisonous ideology, while protecting the vulnerable and innocent civilians who have been caught up in this war.

Our fighter pilots have made Canadians proud. They have struck fear into the hearts of these so-called terrorists and are full partners in the global effort to degrade the abilities of ISIS. That is why it is incomprehensible that the new Liberal government is telling them to pack up and leave. While our allies have stepped up their efforts, the new Liberal government has yet to provide any rational or logical reason to recall our CF-18s. It has flatly declined the opportunity to outline what sort of horrific acts need to occur for our CF-18s ever to be considered part of the solution, rather than in the way.

Most worrisome, when it is Canada's time to shoulder our own burden of this renewed fight, our new Prime Minister has decided to hide behind his speech writers instead of getting into a substantial debate on the change of mission. Neither the Prime Minister nor any member of his government has explained how pulling our CF-18s out of the fight is helpful to our coalition partners, and it seems that once again they have passed on their opportunity during this important debate.

I am under no illusion that our motion will be passed. Not a single Liberal member of Parliament will break ranks. While prominent Liberals from across the nation have spoken out against the position of their new government, I call on all my hon. colleagues to stand up, be counted, and prove to not only our allies but to the women and children who have been enslaved by ISIS that Canada will not turn its back when called on. I call on my Liberal friends to join us in asking the government to continue our efforts in destroying the plague that seeks to sweep over the Middle East and Northern Africa, and the entire world if it has its way. This is their time to stand up for what is right rather than just their political party's position.

Canada has a moral responsibility to continue on all fronts, and that includes the deployment of our CF-18s in battling ISIS. No one in the House disagrees that more needs to be done, and I am encouraged to hear that countless Canadians will soon open their homes to the refugees fleeing this region. However, let us not fool ourselves. If we do not stomp out the evil that confronts us, more refugees, more families, and more communities will continue to be affected.

This battle is not for the lighthearted. It is costly and dangerous. As a nation, we are asking our brave CAF members, public servants, and NGOs to do all they can to alleviate the misery that lies in the wake of ISIS.

While we debate the merits of dealing with the consequences of ISIS, I urge all of us to recommit our efforts to destroy it. Let us think of our courageous allies who have pledged to up their commitments and think of how Canada will be viewed when our CF-18s are sent home because of some ill thought-out platform promise that got in the way of what is right and decent. Let us think of those who are being slaughtered and tortured. This is not the time for yielding. This is the time for action. I call on each and every member of the House to review the motion with great detail, think of those who are literally dying and suffering at the hands of ISIS, and ask themselves, if not now, when?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate. Our party congratulates the Conservative Party for bringing the motion forward here today. It is an intelligent, thoughtful debate about Canada's role and purpose in the world.

My question is directed at some of the comments made by my colleague and a number of colleagues on the other side of the House with respect to Canada. I heard the words “cutting and running”. I heard the words “abandoning our leadership role in the world”. I heard all kinds of words about Canada's role in this multinational effort to deal with a terrorist crisis. If we look at some of the involvement of other state actors presently, who are participating in the coalition effort, we see that some are leading on military fronts, some are leading on military aid fronts, and some are leading on humanitarian fronts. For example, the Israelis are providing intelligence aid. Therefore, are the member and the Conservative Party suggesting today that the dozens of other countries that are involved in this effort, who are not on the front lines of military prosecution, not full partners? Are they not fully participating in this global, multinational effort?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am enamoured by the fact that my hon. colleague has been listening to the debate that has been carried on here today and heard the words that have been said by the opposition, which is the view of most of the citizens of this country as well.

Because of the resources we have in Canada, with the minimal number of six fighter jets and the refuelling planes and reconnaissance planes, plus the people who we already have on the ground providing humanitarian aid and training Kurdish soldiers for the ground troops, we can do more. We can continue to do the very least that our allies could expect in support from a nation of our grandeur and our importance and our abilities.

We have never backed away from these types of fights and wars before. We must realize that we are in a war, and sometimes I believe that my hon. colleagues on the Liberal side of the House do not understand that we are in a terrible situation, with people being killed.

As was indicated in the House today, we have seen terrorism right here in our own country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am presuming the member was in the House when my colleague spoke specifically about the U.N. resolutions calling on the world to work together and stop the flow of arms and the flow of funds to these terrorists.

I am a little surprised that the member's speech, and in fact the speeches of most of his colleagues, indicated a totally unilateral agenda.

Could the member speak to whether or not he agrees that there are many tools that we could use to combat this kind of activity?

Does he respect the voice of the United Nations?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are not using the unilateral process, and I am pretty sure the member understands that. We are using all fronts. We are using humanitarian aid in Iraq as well as Syria. I have stated in the House before in debates on this very topic that I am just as concerned about making sure that the humanitarian aid gets to the front where it is required, including the training of the Kurdish soldiers by our soldiers, as I am about saving the lives of many of the women and children who are being raped and pillaged, as had been indicated here in this House and around the world, on a regular basis.

I want to emphasize that we are using all of those mechanisms, but the Liberals have now indicated that they will pull back on one of those efforts. Some say it is insignificant. I indicated here that there were 1,167 sorties up to last week in this effort. That is not insignificant support for our allies that are in there fighting so that our citizens can have freedom in their own country every day as well.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my third opportunity to rise in the House to speak about this important national and global security issue facing Canada and the free world, and what Canada's response should be in the face of the fight against ISIS, or ISIL, as we called it a year ago in the first debate.

Like those previous speeches, it is an honour for me to rise in the House for such an important debate on the deployment of our men and women to an area of the world where they will be in harm's way, whether directly in a combat role or indirectly in a support role.

We have been fortunate as Canadians to have one of the most effective and professional militaries in the world, dating from our early years as a country. We send these people into harm's way to promote and protect our values and to support our allies. That is what hundreds of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have been doing on our behalf in this last year. They have faced risks in flying combat missions, and we saw how they faced risks in friendly fire incidents, as we lost Sergeant Doiron to such an incident. I had the fortune of visiting his CSOR colleague who was recovering in hospital from his wounds. This is a very real threat faced by our men and women and I know that all members of the House acknowledge and respect that role.

What we are debating here is the role of Canada. Are we a nation that allows other nations to do the difficult work for global security and we ride on the immense wealth and opportunity we have as a leading member of the G7? Do we cross to the other side of the street as we go by people in distress, or do we take the lead and try to make sure that we combat a force that is committing genocide, horrendous crimes, and is now a global threat?

This is one of those quintessential questions facing members of the House. It concerns me that the Liberal Party in its current iteration does not seem to respect its traditions. In fact, in my previous speeches I referred to Mackenzie King who spoke of the deep-lying instinct for freedom that he said all Canadians had on the eve of a North American country going to Europe to fight tyranny.

Lester B. Pearson said that if a Canadian fired a rifle in Korea or in Germany, they were protecting their freedom and the security of Canadians, just as if they had fired that rifle on our own soil. So we cannot afford to hide in the blanket of security that distance and wealth provide Canada. We have a responsibility as a nation to play a role that is commensurate with our size, our abilities, and our values. We have been doing that.

There have been 1,100 sorties on ISIS positions and storage areas, helping to cut off supply and financing lines to that force. The result is an effective cut-off of 25% to 30% in of the territory that ISIL once held or threatened to hold. People are able to return to areas they could not go 18 months ago. These are huge, huge wins that Canada and our coalition partners are securing, and we are doing it in a way that is meaningful and commensurate with the remarkable ability of our CF-18s and their crews to make sure that this important security role can be done with minimal to no collateral damage.

My approach and that of the previous government was a three-pronged one: providing humanitarian assistance in response to this tremendous crisis, in which we have been a leading donor, particularly on a per capita level; and providing a refugee response, which our government began and what the new government is doing and expanding, which we support. We have been playing that role. In fact, the Syrians arriving in airports in recent weeks have been privately sponsored, and were approved and cleared by the previous government. However, the third pillar has always been a military role for Canada.

We need only look around this building to the statue of George Baker in the hall who was a sitting MP and who died in World War I to know that Canada, from our earliest days as a nation, took that role. We did not pass to the other side of the street. We did not allow other nations to do all the work. We took a role that was never the biggest, that was never an aggressive posture, but supporting the values we hold as Canadians and supporting our allies. That is what we have done.

It is hard for me to get used to this side of the chamber. One of the positives of a large Liberal government is that I am happy to see more veterans in the House of Commons. I am happy that some of them have taken part in this debate today, including the Minister of National Defence and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is a positive thing to have more veterans' voices in the chamber. There are two exceptional new veterans' voices in my caucus, new members from our team in Quebec, and I am very happy with their contributions to the debate today as well.

I know that the Liberal veteran members cannot vote for the motion here today, but what I am hoping they can do is to start wrestling back the position of their party taken in the past Parliament. They are saddled with the position the Prime Minister took at that time, but I hope they use their experience and influence in their Wednesday meetings to say that we need to return to our Pearsonian ideals, that Canada has a real role to play.

I was deeply concerned by the comments of the Minister of National Defence here today. I have the utmost respect for his tremendous service to Canada. I think all members of the House do. He was a proud commanding officer of one of our fine regiments, the British Columbia regiment. He has 21 battle honours with the B.C. regiment, and those battle honours were not for humanitarian assistance. They were a recognition that, from the early days of that province, its citizens were willing to play a role for our values and allies.

Today, he blamed the previous government by saying, “Where was its leadership when it could have taken out this threat, looking at the indicators, when it was smaller”, meaning why did we not move against ISIS sooner? I will remind him and the members of the House of what happened.

Last September, the Prime Minister announced a 30-day mission, in which we sent military assessment advisors into Iraq at the invitation of that government, along with our allies, to see how we could respond to a force that had pushed so quickly across that region that it was almost into Turkey, a NATO ally. After that 30-day assessment period, the previous Prime Minister brought to the House the decision to deploy combat troops in that mission, and we had a debate.

The then third party leader, now Prime Minister, asked mockingly if we should just send a few aging aircraft. We know what he later called even more flippantly our sending of aircraft, but he opposed the mission from that date. We then brought back for debate in the House, in March of this year, an extension of that mission, when the mission was extended and changed slightly to include bombing missions into Syria against ISIS targets. Some of those have been successful.

At that time, the then third party leader, now Prime Minister, established four principles that he said the Liberal Party would use in deploying military troops: that Canada had a role to play; that there be a clear mission and role; that there be a clear and transparent debate; and how we could help best. There is clearly a role to play. There is a clear mission and role. In fact, President Hollande and other leaders are ramping up the mission, not just to deter and degrade ISIS, but to defeat it. We are having another clear and transparent debate. In fact, we are bringing this debate to the House. It should be the government doing that, since it is altering the mission.

I guess it comes down to the fourth pillar, the role that Canada can play. We have one of the most highly trained, highly effective air forces in the world. I was proud to be an officer in the RCAF for a few years, albeit never in the top gun role that some of our men and women are doing overseas. Nonetheless, we have some of the best equipment, the best capability, and the best training to assess each mission and to be part of this coalition, to make sure that we are getting targets and that there are no civilian lives at risk, to ensure that we are defeating and degrading ISIS and not allowing conflict to spread into urban areas. We have that capability, possibly better than most countries, with a handful of NATO countries being our equal in this unique role of targeting with certainty.

We are flying 2% of the missions, which is commensurate with our size and participation. At a time when our allies are asking the coalition to do more, Canada is turning back. The government needs to listen as much to its Pearsonian and Mackenzie King traditions as to the sunny ways of Mr. Laurier, and not withdraw Canada.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he has a clear idea about the efficiency of the military involvement of our CF-18s against ISIS, and if he clearly understands the other steps our government is taking to cripple ISIS?

There was a high cost for our involvement with the CF-18s. Our government has decided to use this money to provide humanitarian aid to those who are in need, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Coupled with that, our government is undertaking to provide excellent training to the army forces and the police of Iraq. Those forces are capable of conducting combat with efficient results on the ground, because they understand perfectly the geographic situation in that part of the world. Besides that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have run out of time.

The member for Laval—Les Îles, we have five minutes for questions and comments. We are trying to fit in as many people in as we can.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the conclusion of my remarks, perhaps no country can better do the type of mission that needs to be done as us, including the assessment, pre-flight, pre-sortie, and the post-flight damage assessment to make sure that we are actually hitting the targets we need.

I know from talking to colleagues and contacts in the RCAF that most of our missions do not deploy their weapons because they do not have the certainty they need to make sure there will be no civilian damage or death. Our country does this alongside some of the NATO countries better than anyone else.

I would refer the member to what we have been doing: the humanitarian mission, the refugee mission, and the military mission. There are refugees because of ISIS. We are the fifth largest donor country. We have playing a role in all three important elements of this mission. Why are they making us pull back from that third important military contribution?

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

Mr. Speaker, why is my colleague so insistent that Canada should continue with the air strikes, when many experts say that they help ISIS recruit civilians on the ground and therefore victimize more people within the civilian populations of the countries they are bombing? This is doing far more harm than good.

The UN Security Council wants allies to tackle terrorist financing and recruiting and to provide humanitarian assistance, which is not what the Conservatives are proposing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that her question is very similar to the approach the Prime Minister brought to the House earlier this week, in that we cannot talk about ISIS because we are somehow going to be promoting their propaganda.

I recall last year in October when we had the terrible attack in Ottawa. Some of the early pictures of that episode were from ISIS sources. This is a group that is engaged on social media and is radicalizing people online and through the media. To somehow feel we can divorce ourselves from discussing the threat they pose is absurd.

What we have been doing is the original mission to degrade and destroy the ability for ISIS to take more ground. As I said in my remarks, as a result of the air strikes, they control 25% to 30% less territory in Iraq and in parts of northern Syria than they did before. We have contained and controlled them.

The debate in the U.S. and France and other countries right now is about a ground commitment. That is the second phase to this response to a growing and real threat to Canada, and we are withdrawing from the first phase, in our modest contribution to it. It really is a backtracking from the traditional, global, multilateral actions that the Liberal Party of Canada supported for 50 years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Liberal Government of Canada, just as much as any other political entity inside this chamber, wants to deal with the issue of terrorism, and we are fighting terrorism in a very strong way. We recognize the values that Canadians have and we will continue to pursue and fight terrorism where ever we can.

It is important for us to recognize the fine work of the men and women of our Canadian Forces, and what they have done for our country, both past and present, and into the future.

Today we are debating the role that Canada should play. The Conservatives seem to be completely fixated on the CF-18s and a bombing role. However, during the campaign the Prime Minister made a commitment to withdraw the CF-18s.

There is an alternative to bombing, and I will give specific examples.

Canadian special operation forces are teaching Iraqi security forces about using heavy weapons. This includes such things as mortars, heavy machine guns, and other weapon systems. They are acquiring lessons on things like site fixtures, target indications, range and rate of fire. This means they can fire more accurately and more efficiently. This reduces the number of unintended casualties and collateral damage.

We are also offering basic shooting skills and sniper training to the Iraqi security forces. Snipers who are part of this training program can effectively shoot up to four times further and ten times more accurately than when we began. The point is that there are alternatives to bombing, and the Conservatives know this full well.

During the election not that long ago, the Prime Minister made a commitment to pull the CF-18s. However, let there be no doubt that the Liberal Party, the Government of Canada, is committed to fighting terrorism. We are going to play an important role in working with our allies.

We understand and appreciate the values that Canadians have. It is but a reflection of the values inside this chamber. If we look at the benches of this chamber, we will see the experience, whether the Minister of National Defence, who has served for many years and has fought in Afghanistan, or our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence who has served on NATO. We have many members who have served in our Canadian Forces.

All members can rest assured that Canada is taking the right approach when it comes to fighting terrorism on behalf of all Canadians.

House of Commons

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons report to Canadians for 2015.

It being 6:15 p.m., and this being the final supply day in the period ending December 10, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.