Mr. Speaker, there were a number of mistruths in the member's speech.
For example, he said the government has not been clear about our objective. We could not be more clear. Our objective is, in co-operation with our allies, to degrade the so-called Islamic State to the point where it can no longer pose a threat to Canada or the international community and, I would add, to degrade it to a point where it no longer has the seductive power to radicalize or recruit individuals, including Canadians. That is how I would characterize defeating that organization.
He says that we are in a quagmire but then goes on to quote an article saying we have only contributed six aircraft and 69 ground personnel. Which is it? In terms of a quagmire and a so-called exit strategy, it is very simple. Once Canada believes we have achieved our objective or we are no longer able to make a useful contribution, we bring back the aircraft—nine, actually—and the 69 ground personnel.
He says humanitarian support is an alternative to what we are doing. No, it is not, because we are already doing humanitarian support with the largest per capita contribution of any developed country, the fifth-largest contribution overall, at nearly $70 million.
He says we do not know the cost. That is not true. We revealed the costs of the mission for the first six months in this fiscal year and we have revealed the estimated costs of the mission going forward.
He says that we require sanction from the United Nations. Is it now the position of the NDP that President Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Politburo should have a veto on Canadian foreign policy?