Debates of Dec. 10th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election.

As far as our war against ISIL, against Daesh is concerned, our government made the right decision. Mathematically speaking, our CF-18s have flown less than 2% of the missions, but the cost is very high. What is more, we are putting the lives of our pilots at risk.

Our government has decided to use that money for humanitarian aid, to help the people who need it. We will also work with our allies to help the countries in that region properly monitor and control their borders to prevent Daesh from bringing in more people to augment its own army.

The Government of Canada must also work with our allies to ensure that Daesh cannot use black market oil to fill its coffers. That is how to combat Daesh effectively and properly.

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

Madam Speaker, today we learned straight from the mouth of our Liberal colleague that this is in fact a financial decision that the Liberals are making. The purpose of withdrawing the CF-18s is to save money. That is news to us. We are making cuts to our forces and ceasing air strikes just to save money.

I take issue when the government says it is going to withdraw our pilots from a mission when in fact it is their job. It is what they do. Their job is to fly CF-18s. The government is withdrawing them from this mission because they might be in danger. In danger of what? We are involved in bombings, not air combat.

We see where the government is heading, and it is insulting.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for his service.

I have many friends who currently serve. I lost a former schoolmate of mine in Afghanistan. I am also the son of a retired service officer. I think everyone in the House agrees that the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces do an outstanding job every time they are called into action.

Since being elected to the House as a member of Parliament for the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have really become aware of the responsibility that rests on my shoulders. The things we debate in the House have very real outcomes in the course in which we direct our country.

When I think about the motion we are debating today, there is one expression that comes to mind. In order for us to extend our hands, we must first unclench our fists. I have always been struck by the rationale of meeting violence with more violence and expecting that we are somehow going to reach a peaceful outcome.

Could my hon. colleague please explain how he believes that bombing will work, given the fact that we have so many examples from the region over a decade that this does not in fact lead to a peaceful outcome?

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

Madam Speaker, to explain why this will work, we could ask President Obama, President Hollande, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Countries decided to form an international coalition. Over 25 countries are involved in the same kind of combat. Top generals, military strategists, who have a great deal more experience than I do, decided that that was the right thing to do. I, sitting here in the House, am not the person to draw up a major military strategy, and I think our allies are strong enough and competent enough that we can follow them, not blindly, but by standing shoulder to shoulder with our partners.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sauntered into NATO headquarters the other day suggesting he did not have to do much of a sales job to sell the government's misguided campaign pledge to withdraw Canada's CF18s from the coalition air mission in Iraq and Syria. The minister reportedly has made much of the fact that Canada, according to him, delivers only 2% of the bombing strikes.

While the minister and his leader may try to diminish the importance of 2% in a military context, they are certainly going off wildly in the other direction over the less than 2% of global greenhouse gases Canada emits every year. Therefore, my question is this. Is 2% a lot or a little? I believe Canadians deserve an answer and an explanation as to why the new government defies the will of Canadians, and I know many in the Liberal caucus.

There is no apparent logic to remove the sharp point of our Canadian forces' spear. We are told that the surveillance aircraft will remain; that the fuelling aircraft that enables strike aircraft from across the international coalition and their missions will remain; that the technology and personnel, which paint targets for the smart bombs and other munitions for the coalition, will remain; and that our ground trainers, who work with peshmerga and Iraqi troops in battlefield situations when there are few identified front lines, will remain. However, we have not yet had a logical, credible reason offered as to why the CF-18s will be withdrawn.

Not breaking a campaign promise in a season of broken campaign promises is simply not acceptable justification. Therefore, I am moved to wonder if it comes down to a matter of sort of conscientious objection. I understand that an individual might choose to stand back from the actual delivery of death and destruction in time of war and to pick and choose alternatives. However, conscientious objection by an individual, or even a group of individuals on the other side of the House, is quite different from imposing one specific belief on a nation where a clear majority of Canadians support the complete military mission.

Now is not the time for Canada to step back and force our allies to take on a heavier burden in the fight against ISIS. The new government inherits a standing obligation made to our NATO partners and our responsibility to protect the freedom, democracy, safety, and security of Canadians. That is because whether it is called Daesh, ISIS, or ISIL, it is not only a threat to the region; it also poses a serious danger to Canada and the world. The terrorist death cult, and that is exactly what it is, has called on its sympathizers around the globe to target those who do not agree with its ideology, using any means, no matter how barbaric. We have seen in recent weeks, months, and now years, just how much death and destruction such calls to violence can cause.

It is true that many terrorist plots have been interdicted, but far too many have been carried to deadly completion. Furthermore, ISIS has threatened Canada, and Canadians specifically, urging its supporters to harm disbelieving Canadians in any manner possible. We have seen plots intercepted on our own soil. There were deadly terrorist inspired attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, at the national war memorial just down the street, and not that many metres from where we sit today, in the chamber of what ISIS spokesmen have described as Canada's infidel Parliament.

Across our country, certainly in my riding of Thornhill, Canadians are justifiably concerned. We know they expect their government to take strong action. That is why our government committed the Canadian Armed Forces to the broad international coalition against ISIS.

I would like to take a moment to again express profound appreciation to all our members of the Canadian Armed Forces, at home and in theatre, for their meaningful engagement in this fight against terror.

Our government had a three element commitment to this tragic region of the Middle East, which included many hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian relief on the ground to assist in the comfort and care of the millions of displaced civilians. As well, since 2009, Canada welcomed some 25,000 refugees from first Iraq and then increasingly from Syria, with commitments this year for 20,000 in a continuing compassionate but security-conscience process.

Then there was the third essential element, and perhaps in the long run Canada's most important contribution, our commitment to the international coalition's military mission. That is because, in the long run, the most important thing that democratic nations around the world can deliver to the millions of suffering people of the Levant is peace and the ability to return to admittedly destroyed homes and communities to begin to rebuild their shattered lives.

Last year, during the prime minister's historic visit to Israel and Jordan, I had an experience that will be burned into my consciousness for the rest of my life. While the prime minister and official party visited the vast Zaatari refugee camp in the northeast quarter of Jordan near the Syrian border, a number of us were flown by Jordanian helicopter to the far northwestern Jordanian border with Syria and Iraq.

In my previous life as a journalist, I saw many terrible scenes and natural disasters, manmade tragedies, and wars—Vietnam, Cambodia, Rhodesia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Israel—but that scene on Jordan's border with Syria and Iraq was like no other. We saw scores of men, women, and children carrying their remaining life possessions in blankets and bags and knapsacks, trudging out of the distant desert haze toward the small detachment of heavily armed Jordanian soldiers at the border.

It was not a typical border crossing. It was just a bulldozer-scraped scratch in the sand and gravel of the desert. The guns of the Jordanian army were not aimed at the refugees but at the terrorist gangs still roaming the area, though not present that day. These solders were not trying to stop the influx of refugees; they were there to welcome them to sanctuary. In fact, given the low threat risk that particular day, some of the soldiers laid down their arms and walked across the border into Syrian no man's land to assist, to carry bags and children and the infirm back to vehicles that then transported the refugees to a nearby transit camp for food, water, medical support, and comfort before then being relocated to the ever-growing Zaatari camp on the other side of Jordan.

We spent time with these folks. Some had struggled many hundreds of kilometres to reach safety. Some of these people may well be among the lucky few who will be welcomed to Canada or to other developed countries in Europe and elsewhere. However, in the camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, many of the refugees still hold out hope—admittedly faint hope at the moment—that they will one day be able to return to their home communities in Syria and Iraq. The reality for most of these displaced millions is that this dream is the best dream they have.

That is why the international military mission is so important as a key part of Canada's three-pronged commitment to the people of the Levant. That is why I consider the Minister of Foreign Affairs's flippant measurement of the Canadian Forces' valiant service in percentage terms so demeaning to our men and women who put themselves in harm's way for democracy and freedom. I believe an apology is in order. That is why it is so important that Canada not leave the heavy lifting of this war to our coalition allies.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this being my first occasion to rise in the House, I would first like to thank the constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore for giving me the honour of being here.

The motion seems to be positioned in such a way as to say that we are working with our allies or we are not. We are in or we are out.

The speeches we have heard today suggest that the only way to participate in this mission to fight ISIS is through bombing. We all agree that we have to support our men and women in the military, and we all agree that we have to fight ISIS. My concern is that members across the floor, by taking this position, are creating the impression that the role played by other members of the military in the non-bombing aspect is a lesser role, and that not does provide them with the respect they deserve. Would my friend agree?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree. I made clear in my remarks that what the official opposition is arguing for is the fulfilment of our commitment, as the previous government, to NATO, to our coalition allies, who still ask that Canada participate in the complete mission, not to pick and choose. I raise that question of conscientious objection. There has yet been no explanation, no clear justification, from the Prime Minister or any of his ministers as to why Canada is withdrawing one element of the war against ISIS.

As the son of veterans, as a former reserve officer, as I said in my speech, I respect completely the work of our Canadian Forces, both at headquarters at home, on bases across the country as they cycle in and out of theatre, and in the Levant where the men and women are serving in this very important battle against international terrorism.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Thornhill for a very eloquent speech. I wonder if the members adjacent might have spoken with equal eloquence in favour of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Now, after a decade of bombing Iraq, I wonder if they would acknowledge that it has not actually led to peace and, in fact, has created and contributed to the conditions that have allowed ISIS to thrive.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in part, my colleague is correct.

I would go back to a point made by one of his colleagues earlier that, in fact, the world is no longer the world that existed in conflicts of the past century. It is impossible to defend end points in a conflict with terrorist opponents of all stripes who value martyrdom more than negotiated peace. That is why sometimes when I hear colleagues on the other side of the House long for the days of Pearsonian peacekeepers, I feel that they are somewhat naive and do not recognize the reality of the fight against terror, the fight against ISIS, which is a sophisticated terror organization, far more sophisticated than al Qaeda, far more sophisticated than the Taliban, led by former professional army officers of the Iraqi army.

On this point, my colleague is right in that the liberating armies that went in to depose Saddam Hussein in the war in Iraq left too early. There is no question. It was a mistake, because the officers of the defeated regime have banded with the Sunni terrorists and are now operating this state.

I can tell members that I believe the coalition, in this case, is in for the long run.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As a tip for hon. members, when they are in the midst of comments or questions or, indeed, during their speeches, I would ask them to direct their attention to the Chair from time to time. The Chair is able to give signals as to how much time is remaining and perhaps how members may want to move along so we can get to another question or comment.

Resuming debate, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

The international community will defeat ISIL, and Canada is and will be a part of that fight and ultimate success. This government wishes to profoundly thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces for their dedication, courage, and hard work as part of Operation Impact.

The women and men of our Armed Forces deserve to be protected from attempts to politicize their mission and sacrifice. Unfortunately, the former Conservative government did that too much, and it is one of the reasons why they are today in the opposition. Conservatives did it in giving the sense that they were alone in support of our troops and alone willing to fight terrorism. This kind of dogmatism exaggerated partisanship. This blatant distortion of the truth is one of the explanations why they are in the opposition, and I wish them a good reflection about that, so they change their attitude and come up with a debate that will be a tribute to our ability to understand that we might have different views about how to tackle the danger, but we are all patriotic, we all want to fight terrorism, and we all want to protect our citizens even though we disagree about the ways to do it.

The terrorist activities that ISIL, or the so-called Islamic State, undertakes in the territories controlled in Iraq and Syria have resulted in thousands of deaths and the displacement of millions of people.

It continues to target members of religious and ethnic communities, has licensed rape and the enslavement of women, and has callously destroyed places of worship and irreplaceable archeological sites.

While there remains much to be done, the coalition has made significant progress over the past year.

The so-called Islamic State has been pushed back from territory in Iraq and Syria that it used to occupy, and thousands in those countries no longer live as prisoners in their own cities.

In Iraq, the cities of Tikrit and Sinjar have been liberated, and Iraqi forces are currently fighting to free Ramadi. Refugees and displaced people have returned to their homes to rebuild their lives and communities.

The military campaign against ISIL is critical, and Canada's contribution has been and will remain significant. The issue is how we can make it optimal.

This fight is not about religion or civilizations. It is about human civilization against terrorism. Every country involved in this fight has a responsibility to identify its strengths and to see how these strengths can complement those of its allies, in order to defeat terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.

This past month, I spoke to many of Canada's partners in the coalition at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in the Philippines, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta, and the NATO and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe ministerials. The Prime Minister did as well.

The message was always the same: our allies respect and understand our choices, and they welcome our decision to focus our contributions in areas where they will have maximum long-term impact, in full consultation and complementarity with our allies.

Why do our allies want Canada to be involved in all these files? It is because they tremendously respect the men and women in uniform for their professionalism, dedication, and ability to protect the population. We must all be proud of them.

Canada's contributions moving forward will be part of a long-term comprehensive strategy to address this key global concern. I understand that the opposition would like to see the full plan right away. It is its job to ask us to do so. It will come. It is important to do it. We cannot do it alone in a corner of the table. We need to do it in full co-operation and consultation with our allies, which is what we are doing.

We have put in place a broad array of mechanisms to disrupt or stop the flow of foreign fighters. We need to improve them to be more effective. Working closely with our allies, we are sharing information, best practices, tools, and programs to better understand who these people are, how they are radicalized, get trained, and move, and how can we win.

In the past year, the coalition has launched a comprehensive campaign to cut off ISIL's finances and disrupt and prevent this terrorist organization from raising, moving and using funds, and from abusing the international financial system.

Canada is playing a leadership role in advancing this international effort, including through our work in the Financial Action Task Force and the G7. We want to improve this role. It will be part of the plan.

Canada has also initiated domestic efforts and is providing support to international efforts to thwart ISIL's recruitment efforts and reduce radicalization leading to violence, through activities aimed at exposing and countering ISIL's hateful message and ideology. This is something that we need to strengthen as well.

On the ground in Iraq, Canadian funding to local organizations contributes to delivering stabilization projects to address short-term needs and to support resiliency and stability. We must boost assistance for these local organizations.

The antidote to ISIL's nihilist non-state is a functioning state. As the world has witnessed, this is difficult, time consuming work that requires intense international collaboration. Canada has a lot of skill to strengthen the institutions of Iraq, and we will mobilize these skills.

Iraq, therefore, requires a political solution as well as a military one. It requires a political solution that addresses the root causes of its instability, that unites Iraqis and gives them a reason to place their trust in the central government and to fight for their country. Our closest allies and coalition partners recognize this.

To prevent another group from replacing the defeated ISIL, to prevent a series of Middle East civil wars that span generations, we must look at what Canada can do to contribute to long-term political stability.

With regard to security assistance, we are aware that there is a crucial need for continued training of Iraqi forces, and the Canadian Armed Forces are well placed to help prepare Iraqis in this area. Training the Iraqi forces must be an important part of our new plan. By contributing in this way, we will ensure that Iraqis are able to defend themselves and take the lead on the battlefield.

We are also actively considering if the RCMP can make a contribution in the training of the Iraqi police, and our current talks with our allies indicate say that this is a possibility that they would highly welcome.

By increasing our contribution to stabilization programming, and protecting the most vulnerable populations, the internally displaced members of ethnic and religious minorities who have suffered at the hands of this so-called Islamic State, and the victims of sexual violence, we need to increase our humanitarian assistance and make sure it helps those in need.

In conclusion, we are proud of the contributions of the Canadian Armed Forces in this fight, and they will continue to play an important role in Canadian contributions moving forward.

Canadians want us to have a robust fight against ISIL. They want us to choose the best tools that we have in Canada and to have a plan that will contribute to the efforts of the coalition with our allies. We will do so together, colleagues, because it is our duty, because we need to support our brave men and women in uniform as well as diplomats and citizens on the ground, and do everything we can to provide peace and justice in Iraq.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his speech. Of course, platitudes and eloquence can go a long way in this place, but in the war against terrorism and dealing with the threats, we need to see action.

I would simply suggest to the minister that if every country that has pledged to downgrade or rid the world of the scourge of ISIL, or whatever one may call it, did what this government is doing by withdrawing a very important tool in that fight, then what kind of world would we live in? If everyone decided to step down in the way that Canada is now, what kind of world would we live in, and is that what this minister wants to represent to the world?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not withdrawing. Canada is refocusing its efforts in a way to be more effective within the coalition. I think that is clear. Why is the member distorting what I have said? It is not helpful.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were two parts to the speech by my hon. colleague on the government side.

In the first part of his speech, he said that we were training Iraqi police to enable them to occupy a stabilized area. However, we are not yet there. The minister is talking as though we are already at this post-war stage, when we are still in the middle of a war.

Furthermore, at the beginning of his speech the minister said that in the past 12 months, the coalition has made significant progress in stopping ISIL and that people are returning to their cities. This confirms that the bombings were effective, since people are returning to their cities. It works.

Will the CF-18s continue to help the coalition?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the bombings are ineffective, but that Canada could be more effective by doing something other than contributing to the air strikes Our contribution is fairly small, despite the courage of our air force. We can do much more.

My colleague spoke of villages that have been liberated. The first thing we must do when a village is liberated is to ensure that there is a police force that people trust, one that is well trained and professional, that is not perceived as a threat but as an element of security that can serve as the basis for rebuilding something.

He spoke about ground battles. They must be conducted by the country's own forces, the Iraqi forces, and the soldiers must be well trained. Canada is known around the world for its ability to train military and police personnel. We are very good at it and we are asked to do it.

I believe that I will be able to convince my colleague when, in a few weeks' time, he sees that what we intend to do is very good because it will make Canada more effective in the coalition, not less effective.

In the meantime, the Canadian Forces are still there and are continuing with the plan that the former government had put in place. Thus, there is no vacuum. We will simply enhance Canada's contribution to the fight against this violent terrorist group in order to bring peace to this region of the world.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do the minister and Liberal government agree with the NDP that Canada must boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be an immediate life-saving impact, including building winterized camps for refugees, with water, sanitation and hygiene, and providing health and education for those who are displaced; partnering with organizations to combat sexual violence and providing support for survivors; and offering assistance to the international community to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what my colleague has said. However, it is difficult to provide humanitarian help in a situation where the lives of people are in danger. No humanitarian workers would go to such places if we did not provide security as well. We agree with the Conservatives that we need to fight the enemy in order to provide humanitarian help. However, the debate is how to do it in an optimal and efficient way in a coalition where we are not alone but are working with our partners. That is what is at stake. Of course, we need to provide more humanitarian help. However, it may not happen on its own in a region of the world where there is no security.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first time you have been in the chair and it is a pleasure to recognize that you have attained this august position.

It is also the first time I have had an opportunity to thank the people of Scarborough—Guildwood for returning me for a seventh time to this chamber over the course of 18 years. It is an honour to represent the people of Scarborough—Guildwood again. I want to thank my wife, my family, and what I consider to be the best campaign team in Canada for helping me to return here.

It is always a privilege to recognize that we are 1 of 338 people in all of Canada who gets to come into this chamber and debate the important issues facing our nation. It is, from time to time, something that one has to remember, but it is an incredible privilege. I welcome all new members here for this debate and others.

Turning to the matter at hand, I want to look at the motion and make three comments. The first is with regard to the following:

...ISIS has taken responsibility for recent deadly attacks...and has declared war on Canada

The first issue with the motion is that only a state can declare war. Words matter in this House. I am assuming, and I am going to give my Conservative colleagues the benefit of the doubt, that they did not intend to recognize ISIL or ISIS as a state. It is not a state, and therefore it cannot declare war.

I would just raise that as a point of drafting. As I said, in this place, words do matter.

The second issue is that the motion makes an assumption:

(a) acknowledge that now is not the time for Canada to step back and force our allies to take on a heavier burden

That is a presumption. There is no factual basis that could point to any indication on the part of either ministers or the government or even during the campaign where we have agreed to step back. I would be quite interested in any fact to support that presumption.

The third point is:

(b) remind the government of its obligation to our NATO partners

That is a curious point. Indeed, the Prime Minister has visited many of our NATO partners, and possibly all of our NATO partners, over the last two, three, or four weeks. He has had a direct conversation about Canada's involvement in this conflict with President Obama. He has had a direct conversation with Prime Minister Cameron and with President Hollande.

More importantly, the Prime Minister, and indeed everyone who is in this House, has had a direct conversation with the people of Canada and our constituents. I dare say, the message was loud and clear that Canadians want us to re-profile our involvement in this conflict, with a working presumption, which I presume all members of this House share, to bring this conflict to an end.

Really, working on the good faith of colleagues here, the question is merely how to bring this conflict to a conclusion and, indeed, what is the best contribution that Canadians can make to bring this conflict to a conclusion.

I know we are approaching the Christmas season, and I want to recommend to my colleagues a little Christmas reading. It is a book called Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by Scott Anderson.

I do not intend to promote the sale of Mr. Anderson's book, but I think it is a helpful context for us to consider how we got from there to here.

Members will recollect that during World War I, the British and the Germans were in effect fighting for the support of the various tribal groups in that area, known as the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate. The British had one very, very capable individual in this area, Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia took the time to get to understand the area, the language, the religion, and the various customs of these various tribes. Ultimately those tribes supported the British in the war, and that indeed contributed to the ultimate allied victory in World War I.

In a disgraceful piece of history, the French and the British, under the Sykes-Picot agreement, carved up this area into arbitrary states, and hence laid the seeds for the conflict that we see here today.

The point I want to draw out of this book is that Lawrence of Arabia was successful because he made a huge effort to understand the area, the language, the customs, the people, and the various tribal loyalties. In my judgment, we are actually making the same mistakes all over again.

We do not get it. We do not understand what drives the conflicts there. There has been for the last number of years, in effect, a low grade genocide going on. Various groups that are not majority groups have been been driven out of their own countries and are now refugees, many of whom are on our television screens on a daily basis and some of whom will land here tonight in Toronto.

My first concern is that we start to understand all of that conflict in a deep fashion, and as the government reprofiles its commitment to reduction and resolution of this conflict, that we start to understand the various pushes and pulls that are there.

I want to reiterate the point that in no way can it be interpreted that we are pulling back. In fact, we might well be re-engaging in a fashion that I think will be more effective, will possibly be a means by which we encourage the resolution of this conflict, which I assume everyone agrees is a good idea, and that we are in fact a robust partner with our allies and we are fully and completely engaged in this conflict.

I want to congratulate the ministers who are leading this review and encouraging us all to contribute to how Canada may contribute to the resolution of this conflict. I would be remiss if I did not mention, on behalf of the government and our caucus, the robust participation and help that our people in the military have contributed thus far. We look forward to how they will contribute in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the flaw in the Liberal argument to withdraw Canadian forces from the combat mission in northern Iraq and Syria is this. The Islamic State is unlike any other terrorist organization in the world because its members believe that the control of a territory in northern Iraq and Syria is essential to their cause.

Their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gave a speech in July 2014. It is the only speech known to have been given by him. It is the only public appearance videotaped of him at the Great Mosque in Mosul. In that speech he made it clear that he was not only declaring a caliphate, but also declaring a territory over which Daesh would have control. Therefore, if we are able to eliminate or reduce the territory that Daesh has under its control, we would also reduce the legitimacy of the Islamic State. The only way to reduce the territory under its control is through the use of military force. That is the fundamental flaw in the argument of the Liberal government to withdraw Canadian Forces from the international combat mission in northern Iraq and Syria.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good and quite insightful question. Unfortunately, the presumption of the question is that we are withdrawing. That is not true. Nothing has been said on this side of the House that would lead members to that conclusion.

However, I do want to comment on the siren call of the caliphate. It is hard for us in the west to understand the way in which this resonates in the larger umma. In effect, it has three points to it: one, to destroy the apostate west; two, to establish a pure Islamic State; and, three, to join in the prophetic call of the last days of the apocalypse. If we do not understand that, we will not arrive at a resolution to this conflict. Therefore, I am kind of agreeing with my colleague.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat saddened. The member purports to understand the situation and has said that we need to understand more. He supported a Liberal government that, after our allies were attacked during the tragic events of September 11, joined forces to get rid of a terrorist organization that was basically running under the sanction of a government. We now have a terrorist organization in the Middle East that is a government. It has access to billions of dollars of oil infrastructure and illegal black market sales to be used toward waging war against not only its own people but those spread throughout the area.

If all of the coalition members who are seeking to degrade or destroy ISIS were to take the same route the current government is taking and were to remove the tools to eliminate its access to that money, I do not understand how they could fight this menace. Perhaps the member can enlighten me. If everyone did what the current government is doing, what kind of world would we live in, and would he be proud of that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would neither argue that I purport to understand this particular area nor would I, from the basis of the commentary today, feel that we really do understand this area. I want to qualify my remarks in that respect.

We have been involved in these bombings for two, three, four years. There is no hint that our allies will reduce the sorties. However, there are other measures that can be taken, such as cutting off the money lifeline of this terrorist organization, as the member had mentioned,. The minister is saying that we can reprofile our commitment to do that. I would refer the member to an article in the Edmonton Journal to that effect. Also, the gathering of intelligence will be useful, as will the further training of troops so that they can take the ground fight to the enemy. These are all measures we are skilled at and capable of.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who shares similar views.

The Syrian war and the destabilizing effects of ISIS have displaced nearly 15 million Iraqis and Syrians. To put this mass displacement in context, that is equal to every man, woman, and child living in the province of Ontario being displaced simultaneously. The scope and scale of human crisis and tragedy that continues to befall Iraq and Syria is beyond comprehension.

With respect to the terrorist organization ISIS, it now occupies nearly 82,000 kilometres of territory, a land mass larger than the province of New Brunswick. From bombing passenger aircraft, burning opponents alive, sex slavery, murdering fellow Muslims who disagree with its extreme jihadist views, targeting Christians and religious minorities for total extermination, there is little depravity that ISIS has not shown.

The choice for those impacted by both the Syrian civil war and the tyrannical rule of ISIS is to stay in a war zone, be oppressed, and die, or flee and have the chance to live. The heart-wrenching images of asylum seekers and refugees risking their lives and those of their children to escape the civil war and terrorists have rallied Canadians to be generous in welcoming those who are suffering into our country, known for its stability, tolerance, and prosperity.

I am also proud of the Canadians who are taking the time to prepare for the arrival of Syrian refugees, many of whom live in my riding. I marvel at those who reach deep into their own pockets to raise the money needed to offer hope and a new future for those who make it here to Canada.

While I am proud of Canadians for their efforts, I have serious concerns about the Liberal government's haste in seeking to bring tens of thousands of people to our country by February. While the Liberals smartly reversed course and adopted the Conservative plan for 10,000 refugees by the end of the year, the current Liberal plan to resettle 25,000 refugees or more by February 2016 is fraught with many problems and inconsistencies. I do not deny the plan of welcoming 25,000 refugees is laudable, but the lack of proper planning and the screening of health and safety as well as fulsome security screening is very troubling.

It must be asked: Have we put the proper supports in place to help those refugees to succeed, those we are bringing to Canada in the midst of the winter on an ill-conceived election promise?

It must also be asked: Why is the government abandoning our modest military contribution in Syria? Should we not be increasing our military efforts, supporting the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States?

Canada requires a two-pronged approach to this crisis. First, we need to ensure that refugees we bring to Canada are properly integrated and supported so they can succeed and become contributing members of Canadian society. Second, we need to stay in the fight and arguably increase our military support and commitment to the coalition fighting ISIS. We need to help stop the forces that are causing one of the largest displacements of human beings in this century.

Most of us cannot imagine the pain, the anxiety, the fear faced by those willing to abandon everything they have, leaving their homes and starting anew in a new land. Many of these families are fleeing a double threat, that of a cruel Assad regime and the religious or ethnic persecution of the terrorist group ISIS.

Canada has a great history of welcoming people who are seeking a better life. This is a terrible humanitarian crisis and Canada needs to help. Canada needs to get this resettlement right and ensure that the supports and mechanisms are in place to help these refugees succeed.

Canadians rightly expect their government to ensure the safety and security of this country. They do not want to see security nor health screening compromised. Canadians need to know what assurances the government can give that it is keeping would-be terrorists off Canadian shores.

We need to ensure that health and safety protections are in place for Canadians. The health of Canadians must come before hasty decision-making related to an election promise that the Liberals simply had not thought through. We also need to know what additional services are needed for the refugees who are coming to our country. What mental health services do they need? Many refugees have been through abhorrent and traumatic stress and may need extensive and intensive mental health services. Not only will this put a huge burden on our country's mental health services which are already stretched to the limit, but it may stymie access to care for refugees to deal with these issues. Canadians' and refugees' mental health and family health services are all put at risk.

Most importantly perhaps, what screening is the government doing, and what questions is the government asking to ensure that people we bring to Canada share our values? Are they willing to embrace tolerance and pluralism, equity of gender, orientation, creed and religion, and giving back to Canada and society as a whole when one can afford to do so?

This brings me to the second issue. That is Canada's foreign policy in the Middle East, and in particular ISIS and the Syrian regime. The Syrian despot has wrought a civil war to keep his iron-fisted control over his people. ISIS has seized territories in two sovereign nations, and its modus operandi is in direct opposition to Canadian values, and to all that we believe. ISIS hates our values and our way of life. It believes that the world would be a better place if we regressed to the Dark Ages.

Those opposed by the confluence of the Assad regime and of ISIS are left with no alternative but to flee. Most Syrians do not want to leave their homes. Their preference would be to stay in their own homes. They look to the world to help eradicate this evil in their region and give them back their homes. That is why the government's decision to withdraw our modest military contribution is so disappointing.

Our forebears who died at Vimy Ridge did not leave the battlefield mid-fight. Canadians, in both peace and war, have shown our resolve to face tyranny in the fight for freedom and democracy. Retreating and leaving the battlefield in the middle of the fight is simply not Canadian, leaving aside the damage to our reputation that withdrawing our government's military support is doing when it comes to our relationships with Europe and the United States. Staying in the fight and increasing our commitment is about doing what is right.

On this side of the House, our view is clear. We have a moral obligation to help stop ISIS and ultimately bring peace back to Syria. Leaving the battlefield mid-fight is cowardly and tells our allies that we cannot be depended on when we are actually needed the most.

What are the results we seek as Canadians? First, we need the government to get serious about taking the time to screen refugees. Extending timelines until the spring and summer to ensure there is housing, clothing, and language training would be prudent and appropriate. Extending timelines to ensure that refugees who are the most vulnerable to harm abroad are prioritized and brought to Canada first would be the right thing. We also need to assure Canadians that those we are welcoming embrace the Canadian values we cherish: tolerance of others, seeking to build a better quality of life and standard of living for one's family, working hard and not taking the generosity of others for granted, appreciating our history by celebrating and respecting it, and giving back.

Let us also recognize that some day these refugees and their children will want to visit their homeland again. Let them be able to reminisce that their host country and their new home did its part, through both humanitarian and military action, to help make sure their homeland and that part of the world were safe once again. Let us take the steps now to ensure that Syrians and the land seized by ISIS can again return to the people who are fleeing from it today.

Let us put to rest the causes of this mass displacement of human beings and relegate the Assad regime and ISIS to where they actually belong, the history books.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech from the member opposite with great interest, to see whether she is going to join her colleagues in reinforcing the false choice they have been asserting that either Canada needs to maintain its six CF-18s in the bombing sorties or that Canada is not serious and sitting on the sidelines, thereby ignoring all of the other important contributions that Canadian Armed Forces members can make.

Does the member agree with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola that every coalition member needs to be engaged in bombing sorties or they do not count?

I was disappointed to see the member reinforcing this false choice, thereby minimizing and undermining the other potential contributions that Canada can and should make in this very important fight against ISIS as a part of the coalition, in discussion with the other coalition members.

Not only does the member not see it as serious if Canada is not maintaining our six CF-18 bombers, but she is claiming it is cowardly. Is the member prepared to talk to the Canadian army members, the trainers, the others in our Canadian Armed Forces, who can do so much to combat ISIS in a larger portfolio of activities that the coalition must undertake? Is the member prepared to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.