Debates of Feb. 16th, 2016

Foreign Affairs

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, training is helpful, but it is not fighting. The Prime Minister has taken us out of the fight against ISIS.

Hamas, a listed terrorist group, was found using UNRWA schools and hospitals in Gaza to store rockets and weapons designed to kill Israeli citizens, yet the Prime Minister has planned $15 million in new funding for UNRWA.

Even worse, UNRWA staff have been suspended and fired after inciting anti-Semitic violence.

Why is the Prime Minister restoring funding to an organization that has been linked to Hamas?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to welcome the UN Secretary-General to Ottawa last week to highlight that, in fact, Canada is willing and open to re-engaging with the world in a positive, constructive way because, quite frankly, Canadians expect us to be helpful in the world.

As we look at different ways of engaging, ways of supporting the United Nations in the good work that it does, we will of course look at all the various things that the past government cancelled for political reasons.

International Development

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's incompetence and bungling have reached a new low in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. The Minister of International Development and La Francophonie has acknowledged that the money she is sending into the field could end up in the hands of terrorists. The excuse she gave is that Canada does not control how the money is distributed in the field. That is unacceptable and it is not the Canadian way of doing things.

What meaningful and effective measures will the minister take to prevent humanitarian aid money from ending up in the hands of terrorists?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, the practice of providing funding for humanitarian assistance is something that continues from the previous government. It is neutral, it is impartial, and we are making sure that the money is going toward civilians who need assistance, as we should do as Canadians in the world.

National Defence

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a bungled mess. The Liberals are bent on bringing our CF-18 fighters back for ideological reasons, but it turns out that at the same time, we will be sending four Griffon helicopters to fight the so-called Islamic State. This is yet more proof that the Liberals are incompetent and flying by the seat of their pants when it comes to fighting this terrorist group.

Can the minister confirm that the Griffon helicopters are fit for combat, or is Canada about to send unarmed pilots into a violent combat zone?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Griffon helicopters are being deployed for the safety of our troops in northern Iraq. They will be used for the transportation of our personnel because they provide increased force protection for our brave men and women in uniform.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election, Canadians were led to believe that under a Liberal government the mission in Iraq and Syria would be scaled back and that Canada would no longer participate in a combat mission. However, General Vance said that with the Liberals' new mission, the lives of the men and women of the military are actually at greater risk. Then over the weekend, the Minister of National Defence also admitted that this is indeed an expansion with increased risk.

Can the Prime Minister please explain how we can call this a non-combat mission when there is in fact more risk for our troops on the front line?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the beaches of World War II and in the trenches of World War I, Canadians have never shied away from standing up and doing what is right. We are actually—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Members will come to order please. Let us hear the answer to the question. We are each going to take our turn. The Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have always been willing to step up when the need is there, to have a positive impact in the world, and we will continue to do so. That is why our mission against ISIL, which will involve more robust training and engagement, is an important part of Canada's role. Our troops will always have the capacity to defend themselves when fired upon.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just gave two examples of combat missions. Which is it? Is it a combat missions, yes or no?

The Prime Minister is leaving questions about his new mission in Iraq unanswered. There will be no air strikes, but there will be a refuelling aircraft on site to support air strikes. Our ground troops will identify targets for air strikes. The Prime Minister is tripling the number of people involved in this combat mission, and his Chief of the Defence Staff has admitted that it will be more dangerous.

Why is the Prime Minister beefing up the military mission even though he promised Canadians that he would shrink it?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we kept our promise to pull the CF-18s from the bombing mission even though our pilots were doing very good work. We can do other things that our allies do not do as well, such as training and work on the ground. We have experience in that area that we can share, experience that our allies very much appreciate in the fight against ISIL.

Employment Insurance

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was in Saskatchewan and heard first-hand the impact that growing unemployment and lay-offs are having. Families are struggling and have no cushion to fall back on. Our EI system is so broken that fewer than 4 in 10 unemployed Canadians are actually getting benefits. The government needs to act swiftly to help them. Will the Liberals move immediately to drop the threshold for eligibility to 360 hours and extend the length of benefits? Yes or no.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians well saw during the last election campaign that the Liberal Party campaigned and promised to address the challenges on EI, to make sure that individuals who need the support of employment insurance are going to get it. I certainly heard that more directly in my visits to Saskatchewan and Alberta recently. We are working hard to meet that demand.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how bad does it have to get for him to say yes?

Saskatchewan's farmers want answers also. The Conservative government dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board through Bill C-18.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Let us see if they applaud after this.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance tells us the loss of the single-desk system has meant a whopping $6.5 billion shortfall for grain farmers in just the past two years. Last week, farmers passed a unanimous resolution calling for the restoration of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Before the election, the Liberals talked a good game on this issue, but now in government are they actually going to help farmers and restore the Canadian Wheat Board? Yes or no.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board was completed under the previous government. G3 Canada Limited is now a fully independent commercial entity that is operating in the competitive grain-handling business with no ties to government.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not given Canadians a single good reason why we should stop bombing ISIS with our fighter jets. Matthew Fisher, a senior foreign correspondent, noted that despite diplomatic niceties, the idea that our allies would be happy to see our CF-18s come home is hogwash. General Vance has said that by tripling the number of special operation forces on the ground, it increases the risk. Why is the Prime Minister reducing our capabilities, taking us out of the fight against ISIS, and putting our troops at risk?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government is stepping up to the fight. We also know that the defeat of ISIL can only happen on the ground. It cannot be won from the air. Tripling our training capacity and doubling our intelligence is exactly the capability that our coalition needs.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a non-combat mission, so we are not in the fight. The fact is the Prime Minister is putting our troops at increased risk. Just last December, CF-18s protected our troops and allies from a major ISIS attack. Instead of leaving our CF-18s to protect troops and destroy ISIS, the Prime Minister is sending unarmed Griffon helicopters. Why is the Prime Minister endangering members of the Canadian Armed Forces by withdrawing the CF-18s from the fight against ISIS?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that I was briefed on the attack. Our brave pilots did participate in that, but other coalition jets also participated in that strike. We are tripling our training capacity, doubling our intelligence, and as the coalition commander said to me while at the Munich Security Conference, our plan is forward looking, and that is exactly what they need.

International Development

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, was established in 1949 to support Palestinian refugees, but for years UNRWA has been politicized by the corrupt Hamas government in Gaza, in flagrant contradiction of the UN's stated goal of neutrality. Human rights organizations in Canada and abroad cite unacceptable redirection of aid funds and material, and storage of weapons, and incitement to violence against Israel in UNRWA-operated schools. Why is the government considering new funding to this flawed UN agency?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, UNRWA is entirely funded through voluntary contributions and receives financial support from numerous governments, including its principal donor, the United States, and others such as the United Kingdom. The hon. member seems to have forgotten that in 2012 it was the Conservative government that provided $15 million in response to UNRWA's request for emergency funding. Our government has not yet taken a decision. We are considering all options for how we can best assist those in the region.