Debates of Feb. 17th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for his work on the file addressing concerns around military and veteran issues.

The question we can agree on is not whether or not Canada must be part of the coalition in a robust way against ISIL. However, the question we are facing today, and indeed we faced during the election campaign, is how Canada can best help as a meaningful member of the coalition and contribute to slowing, stopping and eliminating ISIL?

The air strikes by our allies and by RCAF members have been effective in a measure of impact against ISIL. However, the question is always, what can Canada do that other countries cannot offer to the same degree?

We have developed a level of expertise in training local troops, earned through 10 long years in Afghanistan, that allows us to offer something that many of our allies are unable to offer. Indeed, tripling our contingent of trainers in the region is going to have a measurable and meaningful impact on the one thing that will ultimately defeat ISIL, which is local troops taking the fight directly to those people who have taken and invaded their homes, lands and communities.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for brining this debate to the House. We all welcome the chance to talk about something that is so important and such a great threat to world peace and security.

If we are going to have a really good debate in this House and, as the Prime Minister said, talk about what it is that Canada can do that others cannot, we are going to be making the argument forcibly on this side that Canada could be providing a leadership role in cutting off the funding, the arms, and the flow of foreign fighters to ISIS. However, instead, the Prime Minister has left us wondering whether this is or is not a combat mission.

In question period yesterday, the Prime Minister compared this situation to World War I and World War II where we had very high Canadian casualties.

Does the Prime Minister have a casualty estimate for this new and much more dangerous role he has assigned to Canadians? That will tell us something about whether this is or is not a combat mission.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, we all agree that Canada must play a role against these terrorists. We must stand strong along with our coalition partners who, of the 65 different partners, all play very different roles.

One of the things that Canadians have said loud and clear to all of their elected representatives in this House is that they want Canada to be a force for good in the world. They want us to be effective at degrading people who are a threat to innocence, security and stability in the world.

The question we are debating right now is how best to do that. We feel that by engaging in a more robust training mission to empower local troops to effectively bring the opposition to ISIL on the ground while, yes, increasing our support for humanitarian and refugee work, and indeed working on counter-radicalization here at home, is part of the whole-of-government approach that this government worked very hard, in concert with our allies and key stakeholders, to bring forward to the House today.

We are pleased with the response that it has received, not just from our allies, not just from stakeholders around the world, but indeed from Canadians to this responsible, robust and comprehensive mission.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as his name was mentioned on the other side, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, started Canada's role as a peacekeeping, not peacemaking, nation. Could the Prime Minister explain how this mission is a peacekeeping mission rather than a peacemaking mission?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has united Canadians in our almost 150-year history as an official country is the knowledge and understanding that we are lucky in this country to live in this extraordinary place. That luck comes with the responsibility to help to promote the values that we hold dear and to offer opportunity and stability, and security to people around the world.

Whether it was in direct combat engagements in the trenches of World War I or the beaches of World War II, whether it was through developing United Nations peacekeeping under the leadership of former Prime Minister Pearson, and ensuring that Canada has positive ways to play, or indeed, in the current NATO-led missions and coalition mission against the so-called Islamic State, Canada continues to understand that we have a role to play.

The question we are debating here in the House, and it is the right question that we be debating, is how best can Canada help? We have different perspectives. The members opposite in the official opposition feel that we should be going even harder on a direct combat mission. The members of the second opposition party feel that we should be disengaging from the military side of things.

On this side of the House, the government feels that the mission we have put forward, a whole-of-government approach that is focused on training, increasing intelligence capability, supporting and logistics and emphasizing humanitarian and refugee support, is the kind of way that Canada can best support our allies in the coalition, and protect and offer stability to innocents on the ground in the region.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for opening up the debate today. I want to comment that in Iraq and Syria, there is no peace to keep. We have to destroy ISIS.

We do support a more robust training mission. We do support the humanitarian relief, the diplomatic and political solutions that are necessary, but the Prime Minister has yet to give us one single good reason why we cannot continue on with our CF-18s bombing ISIS.

We saw in reports just today that ISIS is on the run, its supply lines have been cut off, it has had to cut back on the amount of money it is paying its militia, terrorists, and bureaucrats, and it is running out of food. We have ISIS in a weakened position now, which means that the bombing missions have worked. We need to keep the CF-18s in theatre.

Other than his rhetoric and his comments from a couple of years ago, talking about whipping out our CF-18s and seeing how big they are, why does he not look at the reality of how good our pilots are with our CF-18s, how they have degraded and destroyed ISIS, and ultimately keep them in the fight to protect our troops on the ground?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman that we do not have any troops on the ground in the front lines. Our troops are there to train and support. That is what we will be increasing in terms of our support to advise and assist local troops. Indeed, of the 65 coalition members engaged in the fight against ISIL, there is a handful of them who are responsible for air strikes.

Canada had a role in air strikes. We are choosing to end that role in air strikes, so that we can better focus on the next steps in the fight against ISIL, which means encouraging local folks on the ground to have the capacity to continue putting pressure on ISIL to restore their homes, their lands, and to degrade and defeat ISIL on the ground, which is what local troops ultimately will have to do.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to provide the response of the Conservative Party and of Her Majesty's official opposition to the motion before the House.

At the outset, let me say on behalf of all members of the Conservative caucus how proud we are of the men and women of the armed forces. I had the rare opportunity to go to Afghanistan to visit our troops and thank them in theatre. If I could, I would go today to do the same thing. We truly owe them everything we have in this country.

There are times in the life of a Parliament and in the history of the House when Providence calls upon us to lead it, lead by conviction, lead by a responsibility we collectively have to the Canadian people, and lead by fighting evil. Sadly, today is not a day of leadership.

The deployment or decision not to deploy our military involves the most solemn decision any government will ever face: the decision to put the brave men and women who wear our country's uniform in harm's way. It is also a decision that reflects and projects to the rest of the world our most fundamental values. That is why it is important that members of the House have the opportunity to debate the future of the mission, an example set by the previous Conservative government. At its heart, today's motion runs counter to the clearly expressed will of a significant majority of Canadians.

We know that the decision to pull our CF-18s from the fight against the Islamic State, to blunt the sharp end of our spear, is not in keeping with the contributions of our allies. We know, too, thanks to poll after poll, that it is not what most Canadians want us to do.

As I watched the Prime Minister announce the end of Canada's air combat mission against ISIL, I was struck by the incoherence of the Liberal government's plan. While I applaud the commitment to continue diplomacy and development, I question how such goals can be achieved without basic peace and security for the people of Iraq and Syria. More fundamentally, I question how Canada can continue to claim to be a major partner in the fight against ISIL when it is eliminating the very contribution that most directly protects innocent civilians suffering on the ground.

Operation Impact was launched to help to stop ISIL from taking more territory and to destroy whatever capabilities it had built up. Bombing runs by Canadian fighter jets have provided vital cover for those battling ISIL on the ground. The Kurdish government, whose forces have been most effective in retaking ground from ISIL, have repeatedly requested that Canada's bombing activities continue. In light of this record, I am forced to ask why we have fighter aircraft at all, if not for the purpose of protecting innocent civilians from clear and present danger. If not this mission, then which mission?

The Liberals fundamentally misunderstand the nature of terrorism. It is not simple thuggery or even organized criminality, as recently alleged by the Minister of National Defence. Terror, the likes of which we saw in Paris last fall, is designed to undermine civilization and legitimate systems of government. It has at its aim the destruction of democracy and of the equal treatment of citizens, and the replacement of these values with a brutal and hierarchical system of control, including the sexual enslavement of women and children and the murder of religious minorities and gays and lesbians. This is an ideology worth fighting with every tool at our disposal.

Our international partners asked us to stay in the air combat mission. The victims of ISIL on the ground in Iraq and Syria asked us to continue to provide the air cover they desperately need to have a chance at survival, and our own people, including many Canadians who voted for the Liberal government, want our CF-18s to continue to take the fight to ISIL.

In reality, even with the announcement, not a single person has been able to explain why our CF-18s must be removed from the air campaign. We as Canadians are rightly appalled by the depravity of ISIS. The shadow of this so-called caliphate has descended over millions of people in large parts of Syria and Iraq, and under the shadow, people suffer, literally, a reign of terror.

ISIS has revolutionized the use of torture, mutilation, and murder as a means of oppression, an instrument of terror and a medium for propaganda. Those who run afoul of its oppressive rules, or simply do not share its perverse world view, are stoned, beheaded, burned alive, or crucified. The punishment for being gay is being hurled off the roof of a building.

ISIS also sends child soldiers into battle and trains other children to execute their prisoners. They revel in rape as a weapon of war. Some girls and young women are forced to marry ISIS fighters. Others get sold as sex slaves. Pre-teens are the most expensive, going for $165.

Their soldiers have reportedly turned chemical weapons on civilians.

They have slaughtered and dispossessed many thousands of innocents for the crime of belonging to ethnic or religious minorities, whether it is Yazidis, Christians, Turkmen, Shia, Shabak, the list of their victims go on and on.

Canadians are deeply committed to religious freedom both here at home and around the world. It is a fundamental Canadian value and it has no greater enemy in the world than ISIS. Since the Prime Minister loves to speak of diversity, we should note here that there is no hatred of diversity in the world deeper than the hatred at the dark heart of ISIS.

For us here in Canada, this is the stuff of nightmares, but for the people suffering under the boot of ISIS, it is what they live with every day and it is what has led to the exodus of millions of Iraqis and Syrians from the region.

Let us be clear. These terrorists are not mere thugs, as the Prime Minister has suggested, or simply a criminal organization as the Minister of National Defence has claimed. They are a death cult that has declared war on the civilized world, and the world, Canada included, has responded. More than 60 nations, including Canada's traditional friends and allies, are currently taking part in the U.S.-led coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS through air strikes.

Our CF-18s have now flown nearly 250 bombing missions, destroying ISIS troops, equipment, bomb factories, and fortifications. They have taken part in the liberation of substantial numbers of innocent men, women, and children. In fact, Canada is the coalition's fifth largest contributor.

As of February 3, the Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 aircraft had eliminated more than 300 ISIL targets. Our air strikes have been focused around major cities, such as Mosul, Sinjar, and Ramadi and have been extremely helpful in liberating roughly 20% to 25% of the populated areas of Iraq that were previously controlled by ISIL.

Canada's contributions to the air mission, both practically and symbolically, are unquestionably important. In mid-December, Canadian special forces trainers were involved in a day-long surprise attack from ISIS. Canadians laid down supporting fire with the Kurdish peshmerga. In that very attack, Canadian CF-18s were called on to provide air cover. Yet, in a statement from the Minister of National Defence about this issue, he did not even mention the fact that Canadian CF-18s were involved in that heroic effort.

The government talks about openness and transparency, but on this issue it is just talk. The fact is that if we remove our CF-18s from this fight, we will have to rely on others in future similar situations. And why would we leave the fighting to others? Why would we leave the heavy lifting to others? Canada has always stepped up when needed.

To say that our air strikes have had little effect, as the government has repeated time and time again, is an insult to our air force's heroic efforts as its personnel put their lives on the line for us each and every day. To suggest other nations can do their job better than they can is also an insult to Canada's proud history of taking the fight to the enemy. But equally important as the missions our pilots have flown is the statement that we should make with their presence, that we stand united with our allies and the rest of the civilized world, united against the savagery of ISIS, united in support of the suffering people in the region.

By pulling our CF-18s out of this fight, our government wants to send a different message, that this is not our fight. However, it is our fight. When human dignity and human rights are trampled in the world, it is our fight.

The message being sent is the opposite of “Canada is back”. The message is Canada is stepping back from the fight against terror. There can be no other interpretation. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have yet to offer any acceptable reason why the air mission should not continue, no strategic position, no morale imperative, no rational argument whatsoever. Instead, all we have received from them is complete and total incoherence. The truth is that his pulling out our CF-18s means that our fighting days against ISIS are over. Training, humanitarian efforts, and diplomacy are all important, and we support them, but they are not fighting.

When it comes to our security, fighting ISIL is the most urgent priority for every government and it should be the most urgent priority for this government. Instead, we have total incoherence from the Liberal Party.

There is no reason why we cannot increase our ongoing and long-running humanitarian and diplomatic efforts in the region and our training of local troops on the ground, as the government says it will do, while continuing to bomb the enemy and halt their progress.

These are not contradictory measures. Indeed, they are complementary measures. In fact, President Obama himself has said to the American people that air strikes are a key pillar of the coalition strategy in fighting ISIS, along with humanitarian intervention and military training.

Sadly, the government is making such a monumental decision for the purpose simply of fulfilling an election promise. This is clearly an ideological and political decision, that to the government the atrocities that ISIS commits against innocent people do not warrant a direct military response from the air. This is disappointing for a number of reasons, but remember this is the same Prime Minister who called our CF-18s, “CF-15s”.

I say to the Prime Minister and the people around him, military missions where we put people's lives on the line are not jokes, they are not an opportunity for throwaway lines, and they are not an opportunity to try to score political points.

Therefore, we are going to continue to ask the tough questions about the government's plan on behalf of Canadians. That is why we have to ask, again and again, is this not a fight worth fighting for?

There are many clear and worthy reasons for Canada to continue the fight. First, we should stand up for the people in the region. The people whom ISIS is oppressing cannot fight back alone. The training we are doing and will continue to do is valuable, but it is not enough. We must fight by their side and in the air. We must fight this evil head on.

Second, we should stand alongside our friends and our allies. Whenever the free nations of the world have confronted tyranny and oppression, Canada has been at the fore. From Vimy Ridge to the beaches of Normandy, from Kapyong to the Medak Pocket, from the Persian Gulf to the Panjwai district, when the cause is just, Canadians have never turned away.

Third, the government should stand up for Canadians. It has been said so many times that I am surprised I need to repeat it: ISIS is dedicated to the destruction of all that we hold dear. By taking the fight to the enemy there, we are protecting Canadians here at home. This point seems to have been lost on the government. Indeed, it does not talk about it at all.

Fourth, we should stand up for our values. In the words of one of Canada's great Prime Ministers, Sir Robert Borden, Canada fights “Not for love of battle, not for lust of conquest, not for greed of possessions, but for the cause of honour, to maintain solemn pledges, to uphold principles of liberty”. They were powerful words in 1914, and they ring just as true a century later.

For Canada to abandon our air combat role against ISIS is a betrayal of the people of Syria and Iraq. It is a betrayal of our closest friends and allies. It is a betrayal of generations of our proud Canadian military history. It is a betrayal of the government's highest purpose, ensuring the security of Canada and the safety of Canadians.

While ISIS thrives, no one is entirely safe from its cruelty. That is why our allies have redoubled their efforts to bring this horror to heel with more air strikes. They have stepped up while we are now stepping back.

The fight against global terrorism is the fight of our generation, and we turn away from it with shame. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to just talk about values, about freedom and democracy, about diversity, human dignity, and human rights. We have to defend them, and where they are threatened we must defend them. If we do not, then they are nothing more than just words in this chamber.

This is why Her Majesty's loyal opposition cannot support the motion. It represents a retreat from the fight, a willingness to let our friends and allies do the heavy lifting in the name of those values. It is unworthy of our great country that we all love. I encourage my colleagues in all parties to vote against it.

That is also why I will move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the words “That the House” with the following:

(a) urge the government to re-establish Canada's influence within the international decision-making process in the fight against terrorism and rebuild the trust Canada has lost with its allies by reversing its decision to withdraw CF-18s from the air combat mission, which essentially removes Canada from any combat role,

(b) ensure Canadian humanitarian relief does not directly or indirectly support jihadi terrorism, and

(c) express its appreciation and pride to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and in particular, Special Operation Forces and the RCAF members in the Air Task Force, including CF-18 pilots, and thank them for their extraordinary efforts in the fight against terrorism and for protecting Canadians at home.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Everything seems to be in order.

Questions and comments.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are having a robust debate, even though I have to admit I do not agree with everything the member pointed out.

I found one of the comments the member made particularly interesting. When she talked about the fact that Canada has been engaged from Vimy Ridge to Afghanistan and many places in between, she used the quote, “...when the cause is just, Canadians have never turned away”. We can all agree with that nice sentiment.

Does the member disagree with the former leader of the Conservative Party, who felt that in 2003 George W. Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was a just cause? Does she therefore feel that it was not a just cause? Canada should always step up and needs to step up in the right way, and that is what we are arguing right here. Does she feel that 2003 was a just cause or, as she just said, was it not a just cause?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his question. I kind of like this. I am hoping in the next four years there will be more questions from him for this side of the House.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for his speech as well. At the end of the day, I disagree with him. When he talks about Canada's proud military history, as I referenced in my speech, I hope he recognizes that whenever we were called upon to defend those very values that we hold so dear in this country—and he speaks of them and about his passion for diversity—and when we think about religious minorities and the rights of women around this world, there is no enemy right now in this world that threatens our diversity, our way of life, and our values more than the Islamic State.

We are called upon today by our allies and by the people on the ground suffering in Iraq and Syria to continue to fight ISIS. The Prime Minister continues to say we are taking the fight, but we are not anymore. When they pull out of the combat part, they are not taking the fight. They cannot say they are fighting when they are not fighting anymore. There is no fight in this plan.

We have said we support all the components. We support diplomatic efforts. We support political efforts. We support humanitarian efforts. All those things were being done, but we were also fighting, and we should be part of the fight. Now we are out because of him.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition's speech, especially when she said that she supports humanitarian efforts. Unfortunately, the Conservative government sometimes gave us conflicting messages about humanitarian efforts.

Humanitarian assistance is based on three fundamental principles: neutrality, independence, and impartiality.

Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition agree that we must not confuse humanitarian assistance with military intervention?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also am proud of the fact that over many decades Canada has always been—and was under the previous government—one of the biggest humanitarian donors to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. I applaud the government for continuing on with its humanitarian efforts, just as we were a large contributor under the previous government. However, it is not enough.

Every one of our allies has asked us to step up the fight against ISIS. The Prime Minister can talk about all of the lovely things that came out of the White House after his announcement, but the reality is that, weeks before that, those in the U.S. administration, those in France, and those in the U.K. came forward and asked everyone to step up their efforts in the air strikes.

The point was made that we have to step up our humanitarian efforts and the work on a potential peace accord, but the point was also made that there is absolutely no peace to keep and people are suffering on the ground. Millions of Iraqis and Syrians are fleeing the region. They are arriving here in Canada, and we welcome them, but they are leaving their homes and they will never be able to go back until there is peace. There is no peace to keep, and that means, at this point, the short-term goal of the coalition is to degrade and defeat ISIS and push it back out of the territory where it is wreaking havoc and a reign of terror over civilians. That is what air strikes do. That is exactly what military action is about. We are not part of it anymore. We are not part of the fight against ISIS.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I very sincerely want to thank the leader of the Conservative Party for eloquently laying out our party's position on the need to fight this terrible menace that exists in the Middle East and has reached all across the world.

My hon. colleague sat in government around the cabinet table. She knows how difficult these types of decisions can be. She knows what is involved on the ground and in the air when we commit to engaging in these types of operations. What we heard from the Prime Minister were some good words about humanitarian relief and some direction of training, but not doing some of the hard work that Canada had been doing before.

I would like to ask this for my hon. colleague and leader of the Conservative Party. What if every leader of the countries involved in the fight against ISIS took the attitude of the Prime Minister? What if every head of state and every head of government that is currently fighting against ISIS took the direction of the Prime Minister, and none of them engaged in actual combat? What would the humanitarian relief look like? What would the diplomatic engagement look like if every single country backed out of the fight against ISIS, taking the same direction as the Prime Minister has done?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a good one because it goes to the very heart of the ideological decision that the Prime Minister is making, and luckily for him. The ideology here is that we will not fight; Canadians do not fight. He thinks those are Canadian values. I dispute that. I dispute that vigorously. However, that is his ideology.

Therefore, now, we are out of the fight against ISIS, the fight of our generation. This is the fight of our generation, and we are no longer in it. Imagine.

All of our allies were so polite when they said, “Oh, that's all right. We understand, Canada”. Of course, they were polite. They are our friends. However, imagine if every one of the coalition partners decided to walk away as we did and there was no more bombing, no more air strikes, and no more air cover for the men and women on the ground doing the training, the men and women on the ground fighting, trying desperately to help the men, women, and children who are fleeing from this terror. Imagine that we would all just walk away.

We are so lucky that we have coalition partners in France who will cover for us. That is what they are doing. They are covering for us. They are doing the heavy lifting that the government is unwilling to do. It is shameful.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest another response to the Leader of the Opposition, a much better response to the excellent question put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

If all heads of government had the same attitude as our Prime Minister, the fight against this horrible terrorist group would be even more effective. The Prime Minister's goal is to ensure that Canada's contribution within a coalition of 65 countries is as effective as possible.

The vast majority of experts agree that the coalition of 65 countries is not lacking in strength when it comes to air strikes. What it really needs is on-the-ground training capacity. What it desperately lacks is humanitarian assistance, long-term development assistance, consolidation, and resources to combat terrorist propaganda. Those things are what the coalition needs, and that is what Canada is going to contribute more than ever before. That is why our plan has been welcomed by our allies; the official opposition should also get behind it.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to name just one ally that, before this decision the Prime Minister made, called up and said, “Do you know what? Stop the air strikes”.

Just name one coalition partner that said, “You know what, Canada? You've got the best pilots in the world, but do you know what? Go home. Pull out your CF-18s and stop helping us halt the advances and the progression of ISIS”.

I would love to hear who said that, because do members know what? They did not. They are polite. Of course they are polite. They are our friends. However, we have let down our friends.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for following precedent and bringing this important issue to the House of Commons for debate and a vote.

Almost a year ago, the previous government asked this chamber to debate an extension of Canada's military combat mission in Iraq.

I want to reiterate now something I said then.

Approving a motion that asks our brave women and men in uniform to risk their lives overseas is the most important decision we can make. It is a responsibility we undertake with the utmost seriousness and with the greatest respect for those who serve our country. We owe them, and their families, a respectful debate and careful consideration of the issues before us.

The threat that Daesh poses to global peace and security and the atrocities it has been committing against civilians cannot be underestimated. Its despicable acts have displaced 2.5 million civilians in Iraq alone. Because of Daesh, over five million people need humanitarian assistance today. That terrorist group has killed thousands of people, many of them brutally slaughtered in unimaginable ways.

The New Democrats have long said that Canada has an important role to play in eliminating this threat, this scourge. We firmly believe that Canada can and must do more to alleviate the suffering of the civilians caught in the middle of this conflict. In fact, we have said repeatedly that first and foremost, Canada needs to block the terrorist group's access to weapons, funds, and foreign fighters. Unfortunately, the current plan does not do any of that. The Liberal plan proposes prolonging a front-line combat mission, and no one knows for how long, while offering no answers to some key questions. To be very clear, this is definitely a combat mission.

While we agree that Canada can be more effective in addressing the threat posed by ISIS, let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is proposing. This is indeed an expansion and an enlargement of Canada's military mission in Iraq, and it is also clearly a combat mission.

During the election, the Liberals promised Canadians that they would end the Conservative government's mission. They said that we “need a clearer line between combat and non combat”. Canadians have had a good example of the lack of clarity over the past couple of days. Every time we have asked the Prime Minister whether this is a combat mission, he has twisted, turned, and done everything he could to avoid even using the word. However, the reality is that their new mission actually blurs these lines even more.

By replacing planes in the sky with boots on the ground, the government is placing Canadians Forces personnel deeper into front line combat. The Liberals are planning to triple the size of Canada's train, advise and assist mission. However, let us be clear. This is not classroom training. We already know that Canadian Forces involved in training have ended up exchanging fire with ISIS militants on the front lines.

What exactly will this tripling of training mean for Canadian Forces? What proportion of our troops will be on the front lines? When and with what caveats? Will Canadians continue painting targets for coalition bombing? What kind of transport will we be doing in theatre? How will the weapons we provide to Kurdish forces be tracked and their use monitored? Does our training include human rights and international law components? When will our participation end? Critically, what does success look like for this mission? What is the end game? These and many more questions remain unanswered. but last week, the Chief of the Defence Staff was clear about one thing. There will be more risk to Canadian soldiers under this new mandate.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Vance, said that putting more people on the ground in a dangerous place is “riskier overall”. Those were his words.

We can also refer to the government's own backgrounder on this important issue. The government's backgrounder says that training will take place in a battlefield context. That is right. The government's own backgrounder says, and I quote, “in a battlefield context”.

It also says that the mission will examine ways to enhance in-theatre tactical transport.

Last year, the tragic death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us all of the serious risk involved in this kind of on-the-ground training mission. Less than a year ago, when the current Prime Minister was on the opposition benches, he said, and I quote:

...when we deploy the Canadian Forces, especially into combat operations, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada.

Here is something else he said when he was in opposition:

The government wants to increase Canada’s participation in a vague and possibly endless combat mission. We cannot support this proposal.

That is what he said when he was in opposition, but now that he is in power, he is making the same mistakes. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is telling us today.

Just like the bombing mission, this mission is a de facto combat mission, one that does not have an end date and fewer criteria for establishing what constitutes success and, therefore, the end of the mission. The Prime Minister is proposing a never-ending mission, which is exactly what he criticized last year.

If the members of the House recall, this mission began with a few dozen soldiers providing training. Oddly enough it resembles the start of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. The Liberals are asking the House to give them a blank cheque with respect to a mission that has not been authorized by either the United Nations or NATO and that has no exit strategy.

We obviously do not agree with that. What is interesting, and this needs to be pointed out, is that one year ago the Liberals said that they too did not agree with that.

We cannot agree to this new expanded combat mission, but there is another way forward. When it comes to the fight against ISIS, it is simply not enough to say that we have to do something. We need to ask ourselves what the right thing to do is, and what is the most effective thing that Canada can do.

First, Canada should lead efforts to prevent the flow of weapons and resources to ISIS, starting by signing and ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty, which is another thing the Liberals have promised but still have not done. If fully implemented, the treaty will deprive some of the world's most brutal actors of access to weapons. Canada remains, sadly, the only member of NATO not to have signed the Arms Trade Treaty, and we in the NDP find this totally unacceptable.

Second, Canada should partner with domestic faith communities to counter radicalization, which we all know is a primary source of foreign fighters going to join Daesh. We can and should lead the way in developing a strong campaign of counter-extremist messaging, exposing the brutality of ISIS, and the utter lack of any religious basis for its atrocities. ISIS is not Islam.

Many of our allies have recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to countering and discouraging radicalization at the community level: the United States, France, and Germany to name a few. Municipalities are even acting. Montreal now has an effective model. Here at home we have also seen families of young people who have been radicalized and left to fight in Syria pleading for this kind of help from government.

In addition to Bill C-51's attack on our rights and freedoms, it utterly failed to respond to the need for a Canadian de-radicalization strategy. The Liberals made the unforgivable error of supporting Bill C-51 at the time, but they must not compound that mistake by failing to address radicalization now.

Third, Canada must also step up our role in the fight against terrorist financing. In Turkey last November, the Prime Minister signed a joint G20 statement committing Canada to tackling “the financing channels of terrorism”. Yet the fact remains that between 2001 and 2015, Canada has had only one single successful conviction for terrorist financing. More needs to be done here at home and with our international partners to cut off the supply of oil funds that ISIS relies on to fund its terrorist activities.

Finally, and most important, we must continue to do more to increase humanitarian support for millions of civilians who are now victims in this conflict. From the beginning, the New Democrats have urged the government to boost aid in the broader region where there would be an immediate life-saving impact. Our NATO ally, Turkey, has repeatedly asked Canada to do more to help the millions of refugees flooding its borders. We should also be assisting in areas of Canadian expertise, like combatting sexual violence, protecting minorities, reintegration, and helping to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

Last month, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Iraq underscored the importance of providing support for the Iraqi government's reconstruction and stabilization efforts in regions liberated from Daesh. The priority is to rebuild these communities so that civilians can return in safety and with dignity. This will also have long-term benefits.

It is a tragedy that the previous government missed the opportunity to recognize the importance of strengthening institutions, developing democracy and giving priority to humanitarian aid in order to save lives in Iraq and the region.

It is important that the Prime Minister is undertaking to invest in humanitarian aid, but it is also important that the humanitarian aid and military objectives remain separate in order to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers on the ground.

Finally, we cannot overlook the broader context of this conflict. Ignoring the broader context would be a terrible mistake. Daesh managed to set up in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries do not have stable, well-established governments that can maintain peace and security. In Syria, the UN's fragile ceasefire reached on February 12 to allow humanitarian workers to reach the most vulnerable is in jeopardy because of the Russian bombing in support of the bloodthirsty dictator Bashar al-Assad. In the meantime, nearly 19,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in 21 months. That is why we believe that Canada should put all its diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resources into trying to establish lasting peace in the region.

The overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground will not be solved by force alone. It also demands that Canada put forward a comprehensive multi-faceted intervention that clearly defines success.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently said, “Over the longer-term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not the power of missiles – it is the [power] of inclusion.” That is Canada's strength. That is why we in the NDP cannot support the Liberal's expanded military combat mission in Iraq.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear my hon. colleague talk about what defines “mission success” and “mission failure”.

We have to know that in conflicts in Iraq and in Libya, those countries both fell into chaos and fell under the control of extremist organizations like ISIL. They did so precisely because there was no follow-on plan. What will happen after the combat mission? It is an excellent question. Now we need to understand. If Canada takes on this leadership role of forcing the coalition to look at the follow-on phases, perhaps we can prevent the same tragedy that happened in Iraq and Libya from happening again.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about mission success, but I also want us to learn about other mission failures. Canada can help prevent that from happening a third time.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is arguing my case for me. What she has just pointed out is that it is essential to define what a successful mission looks like. We must have an exit strategy. We have to say what the purpose of the mission is. She points to previous failures to define a successful mission. However, what we have just demonstrated is that the Liberal plan does not define success. Therefore, instead of defining why she is right, she has just managed to prove why the Liberals are in fact wrong. That is why we are voting against the Liberal extended combat mission in Iraq.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today our Prime Minister stood in the House and said that we know our forces are in a risky situation. We have a duty to our men and women who put their lives on the line for all of us every day. We have a duty to remember and honour their sacrifices every day. I am one who believes that we should be honouring that not just once a year as we do on Remembrance Day, but every day throughout the year.

We have a duty to ensure our men and women stand for everything that Canada represents, those who put their lives in danger. We have a duty in this House to ensure they come home.

The hon. member for Kanata—Carleton said mission success or mission failure, what are the parameters that define that. What can define that is unnecessary loss of Canadian lives or Allied lives. If we are putting our forces in the line of fire, we want to ensure that they have every tool to be effective and ensure that they come home safety.

Does the hon. member not believe that we should be making sure that our forces should have access to all tools to ensure they come home safely?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we share the concern of the member for Cariboo—Prince George that there could be unnecessary loss of life. We already saw the tragic case of Sergeant Andrew Doiron, who was indeed on the front lines in the previous Conservative combat mission. Tripling the number of people doing the exact same work, as General Vance has said, simply increases the risk that there will be other unnecessary losses of life.

I said at the beginning of my intervention today that I do think that this is the most serious thing we can do as members of Parliament, to decide to put our brave women and men in uniform in harm's way. That is why any time we take the decision to put them into combat, we have the obligation to make sure they have the best tools possible.

I would also add that we have the obligation to take care of our brave women and men in uniform when they return from combat. When the Conservatives were very recently in power, they shut down nine Veterans Affairs offices across the country, depriving those brave women and men of the aid they were entitled to when they came back to Canada.

He also used the expression, “line of fire”, and I think that represents what we are concerned with here. We are indeed talking about troops involved in combat. The wordplay from members on the other side only makes us more skeptical about what is actually involved. They are doing everything they can to avoid the obvious, which is that this is indeed a combat mission.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend from Outremont. I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister and he said that Canada must not be involved in these bombing missions. We will point out the targets and do everything but press the button on the bombing missions, but heaven forbid Canada actually does that. That is his response.

The Conservative leader's response was to state several times a minute, Canada needs to fight more, fight more, fight more, without any clear definition from either leader as to what success would be or what the exit strategy would be.

We have seen time and again for countries and leaders too eager to fight or too unwilling to make the fight and actually declare it as a combat mission, that the leaving of the theatre, the exiting of that war is more difficult than the entering of that war.

I am wondering if my colleague would be able to either define or understand what possible answer is coming from either the Liberals or the Conservatives on this important question. If we are to support our troops in the most fulsome sense of the word, we must also be able to support them and give them a clear indication of what the exit will look like, and how we will know when that exit begins, because the definition of success has been made public here in this House of Commons.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend and colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite right to remind Canadians that under the Conservatives we had people on the front line. That was proven by the tragic death of Sergeant Doiron.

I asked the Prime Minister at the time, several times here in this House, whether or not those Canadian troops were painting targets for air strikes. It took everything to get it out of them. We learned that we were not doing that at the time, but it turned out that they were painting targets for air strikes, our own later on and those of our allies.

That is clearly, by anyone's definition of it, combat. That is what we will continue to do here. By any definition, that is a combat mission.

Let us call a spade a spade.

You have to call things by their name.

If Liberals are refusing to state the obvious, which is having people on the front lines involved in firefights with ISIS and painting targets for air strikes, if they refuse to acknowledge that is combat, then they are not being clear, transparent, and honest with our military, they are not being clear, transparent, and honest with the families of our military, and they are not being clear, transparent, and honest with Canadians.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the second opposition party for his speech. He will get two answers.

First, success means that the coalition manages to eradicate this so-called Islamic State and stabilize the region enough so that this group does not rise from its ashes. That is what success means.

Now, who has to engage in combat? In Iraq, it is the Iraqis who have to fight to liberate their country. However, they need training in order to be able to do that. Training is not just provided in the comfort of a school, it is provided on the ground. Our troops may find themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves to save their lives. Those are the rules of engagement recognized by international law.

What problem does my colleague have with that?