Debates of Feb. 17th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

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

Madam Speaker, I maintain that Canada has the capability to do it all and has the opportunity to leave the CF-18s in the fight.

I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to leave the CF-18s in the battle, because we have to be engaged, we have to stop this scourge on the face of the earth and ensure that the people of Iraq and Syria have the opportunity to benefit from our institution-building and the humanitarian compassion that we will show them in the time ahead.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the critic for national defence for his passionate comments about the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and what they do for us. One thing we can always agree upon, not just the members of this House but all Canadians, is the great work that our men and women do for us on a 24-7 basis around the world.

It is my privilege to rise in support of the motion tabled by the Prime Minister. Last week, our government presented a detailed plan to broaden, enhance, and redefine our contribution to the fight against ISIL.

Today, I would like to speak to the House about the military elements of that plan. Before I begin, however, I would like to remind the House of the evolution of this mission and to explain the context that necessitated this new approach.

When Canada's military mission began in the fall of 2014, it was in response to an emerging and immediate crisis. The situation in Iraq and Syria was grim. ISIL was advancing rapidly and claiming territory. It was taking charge of abandoned military equipment for its own use. It had the momentum.

Since then, the reality on the ground has changed. ISIL has lost territory. It has lost the freedom of movement. It is forced to move by night in small numbers or under cover of the civilian population. Its leadership has been targeted. Its morale is in decline. As a result, the Iraqi military is able to conduct offensive operations and reclaim territory, most recently in Ramadi.

ISIL remains a danger, but the situation on the ground is much different from 18 months ago. ISIL is losing momentum. Against that backdrop, our mission partners, the U.S. chief among them, have been reviewing the coalition efforts and reconsidering the best way forward.

At a national level, we too have an obligation to look toward the next phase of the armed conflict, not simply because we faced an expiration date on March 31 and not simply because we had a new mandate for Canadians, but because the realities of the mission demanded it.

With that in mind, shortly after taking office this government began a deliberate and comprehensive review process. We knew we needed to undertake a thorough analysis of the evolving situation on the ground. We needed to consider our desired impact and the tools at our disposal. We needed to devise a comprehensive, long-term strategy for Canada that was in lockstep with our partners.

To support that process, I personally travelled to the region twice. I consulted with allies and partners, and I listened to our troops on the ground. In fact, I met with military commanders, front-line troops, and regional leaders, including Iraq's minister of defence. I spoke with U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. I spoke with Brett McGurk, the U.S. special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIL. I met with Michael Fallon, the U.K. Secretary of State for Defence.

At the same time, I worked closely with the Chief of the Defence Staff and senior officials here at home to gain a better understanding of the skills and assets available within the Canadian Armed Forces and across the Government of Canada.

My cabinet colleagues undertook a similar process, and together we brought informed advice and frank analysis to the cabinet table. Together, we were able to identify a meaningful contribution for Canada, which is synchronized across government and responds to the shifting needs of the coalition effort.

We have recognized that security, diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and development will all play a major role in this endeavour.

ISIL is not a singular threat that we can just carve out and dispose of. It is dangerously interwoven with internal political instabilities and broader regional dynamics. It is a parasite that thrives off the discord, poverty, and hardship that plagues the region.

For that reason, the military elements of Canada's new approach are now more clearly situated within a broader, whole-of-government plan. This integrated approach will help deal with the immediate needs of the people of Iraq and Syria, while also establishing the the conditions for long-term stability in the region.

For the military line of effort, we recognize that it is ultimately the people of Iraq who will be responsible for stabilizing their country.

We need to enable them to defeat ISIL, though, and we have the expertise to help bolster their capabilities and prepare them for that fight. Going forward, this is where we will be focusing much of our effort. As we announced last week, we will triple our commitment to the train, advise, and assist mission in northern Iraq.

At the same time, we are going to significantly increase our intelligence capability. There is a complex interplay of forces that underlies the conflict environment in Iraq and Syria. We need to have a clearer picture of how all the pieces fit together, and we need to better anticipate the impact of our actions. Our enhanced intelligence contribution will be invaluable in this regard.

In addition to our training and intelligence activities, our Polaris air refueller and Aurora surveillance aircraft will continue to serve as critical enablers for the coalition effort.

We will also be offering ministerial liaison teams to the government of Iraq and additional capacity-building efforts in Jordan and Lebanon in close partnership with Global Affairs Canada.

We will increase our medical presence to support Canadian and coalition personnel and to offer mentoring support to the Iraqi security forces.

In addition to these ongoing elements, we also intend to deploy a small helicopter detachment with air crew and support personnel. This will provide safe and reliable transport for our troops and also for our material and equipment.

Overall, we will increase the number of deployed personnel to approximately 830 people. Please keep in mind that this is a dangerous armed conflict and this mission carries inherent risk to our men and women in uniform. This mission will be riskier than air operations, but at this point in the campaign these new lines of activity are essential to future success and the defeat of ISIS. Our people will be in close proximity to the dangers inherent in the region. There may be times when they will have to defend themselves, their coalition partners, or the forces they are mentoring.

As the Chief of the Defence Staff emphasized last week, we will do everything in our power to keep our personnel safe. We are adding specialized capabilities to mitigate the risk to our personnel. In particular, they will benefit from the enhanced situational awareness that will come from our bolstered intelligence capabilities. They will be closely supported by our medical personnel.

Also, as a former soldier, I can tell the House that those on the ground are well aware of the risks associated with military operations and they will take their own necessary precautions. I know from personal experience in combat that the Canadian Armed Forces are highly trained and experienced men and women who know how to operate effectively in a conflict environment. Ultimately, this is what they train for, to accomplish their mission and to make a difference, and in this case, to contribute to the defeat of ISIL.

Last week I was in Brussels and I met with our coalition partners. I had a frank and open discussion with many key allies, most notably Secretary Carter of the U.S.

I also met with the Iraqi defence minister, as well as ministers from France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, New Zealand, and Poland. I was able to present to them in person the details of Canada's new approach.

There are more than 60 countries working together in this fight, and I can say without hesitation that they have welcomed Canada's new contributions.

Last week Secretary Carter proposed a new way forward in the mission against ISIL. He asked coalition members to step up their contributions as we enter the next phase of the fight. He talked about refocusing and accelerating our collective efforts.

Through the course of the coalition discussions in Brussels, two pressing requirements came to the fore. The coalition needs increased intelligence assets and more training and assistance for local security forces. I am proud to say that Canada's new approach has landed right on target. In fact, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “The Canadian announcement is the kind of response the secretary has been looking for from coalition members as [we]...push to accelerate the campaign against ISIL”.

The coalition commander, Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, came to me personally and described our mission—moving forward with our capabilities that we are bringing to the fore—as forward-looking.

A U.S. military spokesperson for the coalition has characterized Canada's contribution as “extraordinarily helpful”.

From the coalition perspective, there is sufficient air power to continue pressing ISIL positions and to hamper their movements.

We now need to intensify our work with local partners to build real, long-term security solutions for the region. As the Prime Minister has said, we must take action in a way that will affect durable results on the ground.

Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to the fight against ISIL. We recognize the shifting landscape in theatre. We heard the views of our partners and allies. We undertook a deliberate and thoughtful review process to make sure Canada's contribution remains at the heart of the coalition campaign.

Canada's new approach is coherent and comprehensive. It leverages some of Canada's core strengths. It reflects Canada's interests and values and meets the critical needs of the coalition effort.

In closing, I would like to echo the Prime Minister in acknowledging the tremendous service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. I want to express my sincere gratitude to those who have served, are serving, and will serve on Operation Impact. In particular, I would like to commend members of the Royal Canadian Air Force including our CF-18 pilots and members of the air crew and support personnel who have done an outstanding job for Canada and conducted their final mission as part of Operation Impact on Monday.

Let us also remember that we have men and women deployed around the world, in the Ukraine, the Mediterranean, the Sinai, and elsewhere. Some 1,400 Canadian Armed Forces personnel are currently deployed on operations abroad. It is thanks to their efforts and those of their predecessors that we are able to gather like this, as democratic representatives, to have a frank and open debate about Canada's role in the world. We, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, owe them and their families a tremendous debt of gratitude.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his service to our country as the first Sikh regimental commander, a lieutenant-colonel when he left the forces. I appreciate his service, I appreciate his speech, but I do disagree with him and I disagree with the motion of the House. I think of this matter as a three-legged stool: we have to do humanitarian work, training, and air strikes.

In fact, the air strikes are so effective, let me list a few of the ISIS commanders we have killed. As we know and the member knows, there is fighting on the front and the air strikes are there to kill commanders in the field who do not take part in combat on the front lines. Abu Salah, the ISIS finance minister, was killed December 9, with two of his accomplices, by air strike. Abu Maryam, the ISIL enforcer and senior leader of the extortion network was killed December 9, 2015, by air strike. Abu Rahman al-Tunisi, who was coordinating the transfer of information, people, weapons logistics, was killed December 9, 2015. Mohammed Emwazi, known as Jihadi John, responsible for some of the most brutal acts of murder to be shown on YouTube, the ISIS propaganda leader, was killed November 12, 2015, by air strike.

The list goes on and on of ISIS commanders who have perished in the field, killed by air strikes. Does the member think these were mistakes or that these types of air strikes are not worth continuing so we can further degrade the enemy in the field?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the member talks about the effectiveness of air strikes and taking out commanders, the way the evolution of the mission has gone, that is exactly what has happened. The air strikes were effective and targeted, but the enemy also learns from our lessons. I remember when I was serving, I had a rule. When we were in some intense combat, we could never use a strategy twice because the enemy would always learn from it.

When we looked at the analysis with our military commanders, we looked at where the mission was at, where the evolution of the enemy was at. When I asked the ground force commander, General Clark, what he needed, the first thing he said to me was “intelligence”. The enemy is getting smarter because of our effectiveness in the past. We need to increase our intelligence capability. Why our Canadian intelligence capability? It is effective. Why do we need to increase our training capacity? This is what is needed on the ground. This is to defeat ISIS. It can only happen with troops on the ground. It cannot be done from the air.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech today. It was much more clear than some of the other information we have had. I would also like to thank him, of course, for his service in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

As someone who also worked in Afghanistan as part of a training mission on international human rights in 2002, I share some of the doubts that the minister expressed about the ultimate impact of our mission in Afghanistan, as we saw the government of Afghanistan lose control of the Kandahar airport on December 15 of last year.

I guess my question to the minister would be this. How is what we are doing now all that different from what we did in Afghanistan, where we had both air and ground campaigns and training missions, and yet we did not really succeed in uprooting the Taliban? Would we not be better going after the sources of money and arms for ISIS than the program we are actually pursuing?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the situation in Afghanistan is different from that in Iraq. Nonetheless, we always need to take a comprehensive approach to any situation.

The effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces is the key to success in the defeat of ISIL. However, we have also taken a much more comprehensive approach in looking at capacity building, not just within the forces themselves. The ministerial liaison teams are going to go directly to the ministry of defence and the ministry of the interior. Therefore, we are looking at more and different capacity building to make sure that we will bring some solution to the difficulties of the political situation that happened in the past and caused some of the issues.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the people of St. John's East to whom I have spoken have a lot of concerns about the complexity of the conflict in that region and that there are so many different conflicts being engaged there, not merely against ISIL but also among the various parties involved.

My question for the minister is this. How are the efforts in this new Operation Impact going to allow our partners to target ISIL as part of the combat and not inadvertently step on the toes of our allies or intervene in improper conflicts that are also going on in the same area?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. That is a very good question.

That is one of the reasons we have enhanced the intelligence capability. It is not strictly for understanding the direct action fight to target ISIL but to understand the dynamics of the region. It is very critical, because if someone gets one piece wrong, that can actually inflame the situation. This is one of the reasons the commanders on the ground are asking for the right intelligence capability. Canada has this type of capability. Unfortunately, I am not able to discuss this in the House. However, I have offered to have discussions with critics in private on this. We can really enhance the capability so that we do not target the wrong people.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister of National Defence for his service and for a great speech today.

It is common knowledge in the army—and I am sure he would probably be more experienced than I on that—that an army without air force ability is really not a great thing to have. We would not be able to protect our troops on the ground or even achieve dominance on the ground when operating in such a fashion.

The minister mentioned at the beginning of his speech that, with quick air strikes, we were able to get the Iraqi army on the ground to battle back and start making ground, which is to limit the power of ISIS on the ground, and that is just because of the air strikes. Would the minister agree with me that air strikes are very important and crucial for any military operation, yes or no?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, air strikes are crucial for any campaign and having all the capabilities that are needed to defeat a complex enemy like ISIL. However, when it comes to the use of air strikes, the coalition has a tremendous amount of capability for air strikes.

When we are involved in a conflict, we cannot bring our assets to coalition partners to have them figure out where they go. To be a responsible partner, one needs to have an understanding of what is going on and what capabilities are needed, and then one can take on a certain responsibility, being better at that. This is the conversation I have been able to have. I am actually very pleased with how well this conversation has gone, and this has allowed Canada to bring in the right asset to contribute to the fight.

However, yes, the coalition has a tremendous amount of air strike capability as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why it is that we have not gone after the sources of funding and the arms sales to ISIL. We know that $1 million to $3 million a day in oil is still being sold on the world market, and this is what allows it to pay its troops and buy arms. We know that it is getting arms and ammunition.

Is it because it would embarrass some of our allies and friends that we have not actually gone after the arms and the funding? Can the minister tell the House why not?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, in the House we do not have a lot of time to talk about all the capabilities. However, yes, we are actually targeting ISIL's finances, and FINTRAC is working extensively on that.

A lot of work, as part of the coalition, has been done. Anti-radicalization, with the U.S. efforts, in many different countries is having an impact. We are looking at a multitude of things, and ISIL's ability to finance itself and recruit has been targeted as well.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, once more it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House and participate in a debate on Canada's mission overseas. As I indicated for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this is the seventh debate that I have taken part in since Canada became engaged or when the debates came to Parliament. I would like to remind the Liberal Party that the first time Canada entered into Afghanistan it was without a debate in the House. At that time, former prime minister Paul Martin sent Canadian Forces into Afghanistan without having a debate in the House.

Subsequently, when we came into power, we said that any time a Canadian operation took place, we would engage the House of Commons in a debate. I am glad the current government has followed our lead and has brought this motion to Parliament to be debated because many points need to be addressed.

A couple of points come to mind about this. During all those debates, when the Liberals were in the opposition, there were many areas that we agreed upon. We definitely did not ever agree with the NDP, but the NDP's approach is completely different. It is one of humanitarian assistance, but never to go to the root cause of what crisis has started and why it started. However, on many occasions, we agreed upon many points with the Liberal Party.

The point in this debate is that we definitely do not agree with the Liberal motion of withdrawing the air strikes and the air fighting capability of attacking ISIL and degrading it. Past experience has shown that air strikes is one of the most effective ways of degrading ISIL.

We sat here and listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, and others give reasons for expanding capacity and sending out special forces to train the forces on the ground, as well as humanitarian assistance. Let me just remind the Liberal Party that this is what this government had originally proposed. We are already doing it in Iraq and Syria.

On many occasions, I attended conferences representing the former foreign affairs minister, talking at the conferences about engagement, both politically, in which they are heavily engaged, and diplomatically. As well, many of my colleagues went there to see what the Canadian Forces were doing.

Let me go a step further back in history. It was under the proposal by the then Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley that there should be parliamentary oversight for our missions and he asked that we create a special committee on Afghanistan. We did, and I was a member of the committee. That committee visited Afghanistan to see Canadian engagement there. When I talked to the Afghanistan people, there was no question that they were very thankful that Canadian soldiers were there, because we had a different approach. We actually embedded into their midst and went out with them into the field. As members know, one of our soldiers was attacked with an axe when he was totally engaged and embedded in the Afghanistan forces. It was an approach that brought us thanks from the Afghanistan people.

I was a little amazed when the defence minister said that our engagement in Afghanistan was a mess. I did not understand how it could be a mess. The fact is that the generals and everybody came before the parliamentary committee to give us an overview of what was taking place, what needed to be done, and was right to be done. When the committee, which included myself and my Liberal colleague at the time, the foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae, went to Afghanistan, we heard from soldiers and commanders. Nobody told us that the mission was a mess. It came as a big surprise to me. Of course, the Minister of National Defence was there and actually engaged. However, the minister coming to the House and saying it was a mess when nobody else told anybody that it was mess came as a big surprise.

Getting back to the question of our engagement in Syria and Iraq, I attended three conferences of foreign ministers to bring peace and stability to Iraq after the Gulf war. In all this time in the engagement, it became pretty obvious that, due to the partisan politics of former Prime Minister Maliki, everything was falling apart, which gave rise to ISIL. We all know today that the terrible root of ISIL arose due to the instability both in Iraq and Syria.

As a matter of fact, when I first went to Turkey, I visited the refugee camps. At that time, the Turkish government told us that it did not want any help. Today, with the massive refugee crisis taking place, it is seeking international assistance. I am glad that we agreed to that.

On the question of the pillars of humanitarian assistance, diplomacy, and training on the ground, yes, that is part and parcel of the whole thing. However, on taking out one of the most effective means of degrading ISIL, the air strikes, and saying that the coalition forces will carry on, I just heard the Minister of National Defence say that they are learning something.

I am a little surprised. The fact of the matter is that no other coalition force has said that it would withdraw its air strikes. It is only we in Canada. In fact, on the other hand, the British went back recently to their Parliament to start air strikes, because they felt that was most effective thing to do. Yet, here I am sitting in the House listening to the Minister of National Defence say that the Liberals are actually learning a lesson, that we are the only ones supposed to have learned this lesson on air strikes and are withdrawing from this thing. However, all the other coalition partners are going in with more strikes, including the U.S.A.

The minister said that he talked to the defence ministers when he went to Brussels, and they accepted. What do we expect them to say: no? The Liberals already made a campaign promise and openly said, before any consultation with anyone, that they were going to take the air strikes out. Therefore, this was already public knowledge. They made this commitment publicly without thinking deeper about it, and now, of course, they expect the coalition partners to say they are doing a great job and that they agree. No, they are not going to say that. They understand what an election promise is.

Nonetheless, the Liberals made this election promise, among many others, which they have broken after realizing they were not sustainable. Most important was the one on a budget deficit of $10 billion, which is not sustainable. We saw it with the refugee crisis, that they would bring in so many people by the end of last year, but they could not do it due to logistical problems. At the end of the day, they made a campaign promise.

I know for a fact, because I was in the opposition, that one does not have all the facts. When one does get all the facts, then there is a re-evaluation, and it is very easy to re-evaluate this. This is why we are having this debate and making a very clear point of why the air strikes are very effective and why they should be resumed, which is what our amendment talks about.

I want to talk about the other issue of humanitarian assistance.

The Minister of International Development in the Huffington Post said very clearly that once the government gives money, it then has no control over it. However, the question was asked if the jihadists got access to it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, when we were debating on CPAC, said not to expect jihadists to wear a t-shirt that says “I'm a jihadist” on it. It is absolutely naive to talk about that. However, we are saying that if the jihadists hear of these things, then, yes, they can take advantage of them. This is one of the reasons we are opposed to UNRWA getting this money. We know from past experience that money sent to it was misused against Israel. Henceforth, we need to have oversight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development said yesterday, in answer to my question, that universality was very important. She was asking us a question, and said that they were just following what we were doing. I am glad she is following what we were doing, because if she really followed what we were doing, I am sure that humanitarian assistance would go to the right people.

However, it was publicly stated that we do not have any control over the assistance money, but then today in question period the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that, no, we have complete control over it and know where it is going. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said that, yes, we have control over it.

Fine, I am happy they have control over it. I am happy they will work hard and ensure that Canadian dollars will not go to jihadists, that they will make every effort to ensure that happens

They cannot wash their hands of something that is not theirs. It is Canadian tax dollars going out there. They are duty bound to ensure that those hard-earned Canadian dollars do not go to the wrong people. That is absolutely fundamental. It is very important that the Minister of International Development does not get up and publicly say that they wash their hands of it. That is absolutely the wrong signal.

They will defend that in the House, but that is fine. Good. I am happy to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, that they will do proper diligence to ensure that money does not go to these groups. I can tell the House, from this side, we will keep an eye on that to ensure that the money for humanitarian assistance goes to the right people.

We agree that humanitarian assistance is vitally important in addressing the issue. We see the refugees coming. That is another pillar to bring peace to the region. The third is diplomacy. We all agree. As a former parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I was part of diplomacy working in that region.

It is a complex region. The crucial thing is that Canadians have alway stood up when called to do our duty. We are again today doing the same thing. We are debating, which is the effective way to do it. We have past experience.

The Minister of National Defence says we have past experience, we are going to learn, and we are going to move forward. However, we are the only ones who somehow have found a way to move forward. We are the only ones who seem to have found a way that intelligence capacity is something we need. He has been part and parcel of the military. Everyone knows that is a vital component. Certainly, all of a sudden that becomes more important. There are 60 coalition factions out there and all of them are working in the same capacity on this.

It comes as no surprise, as our Leader of the Opposition has stated and my colleague, the defence critic, has stated very clearly, why we cannot support the motion and why we have put forward amendments to the motion. Hopefully, we will continue doing that.

Do I have time left, Madam Speaker?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes), Liberal, Anthony Rota]

You have six minutes.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I will take my six minutes to address this very important issue for Canadians.

ISIL is spreading its terror throughout the world. We know from Paris, Indonesia, and Nigeria with Boko Haram fighting there. In Somali, it is Al Shabaab fighting there. In Kenya, Al Shabaab has arrived there as well. The root of terrorism is spreading. We need to fight together to fight it.

No one disputes the fact that working with those affected, the local population, is the most effective way of handling this. That is why we are with the Peshmerga in Iraq, why we went to Nigeria to help build capacity, and why we said we would support the Kenyans in building their capacity to fight terrorism. That is the most effective way.

Right now, the most effective way to stop the biggest threat to the world, the most terrible terrorist organization, is in Syria and portions of Iraq. That is where we have to go and attack. We have been doing it in an effective way. The Minister of Defence and everyone stands up and says it. We all know our pilots and our military personnel have done a marvellous job of degrading the capacity of ISIL.

That is why we are extremely surprised that the Liberal Party wants to take away an effective tool. Then, after deciding it wants to take this tool away, it makes its excuses, saying it has to put in more training officers and that we will have better intelligence capacity. It is already there. They can also do that. There is nothing stopping them increasing the training forces or the intelligence gathering.

However, why would that be at the expense of the most effective weapon we have in destroying ISIL? That is what everyone is asking. That is what Canadians are asking. In poll after poll, this is the question everyone is asking. That is the question the government will have to answer for the Canadian public.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his entertaining speech. I have known my hon. colleague for many years. He and I came into the House at the same time. He certainly is a well-travelled colleague. He gave us an itinerary of where he has been in the last number of years.

I have been listening to this debate, and it is passing strange to me. The Conservatives agree that we should triple our advise-and-assist mission. The Conservatives agree that we should double our intelligence mission. The Conservatives agree that a helicopter component is an important component to these two missions. The Conservatives agree that we should have a medical component to this mission.

The Conservatives agree with the upping of the amount of money for humanitarian assistance. The Conservatives actually agree, reluctantly may I say, with the resettlement of refugees here in this country. The Conservatives kind of reluctantly agree, as well, that diplomatic re-engagement is a good thing.

The only thing they disagree with is our opposition to the bombing mission continuing. Members will be interested to know that up till February 9, there have actually been 67,000 sorties, of which 10,000 have been in strikes. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Jordan, Netherlands, U.K., Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE have all been involved in these strikes.

Do members not think at this point that it is time to re-evaluate this mission and enable our security forces, the security forces that we wish to train, to take the fight to ISIS? Everyone agrees that bombing alone will not finish this mission.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member said, I know him very well. I want to correct him and say that my speech was not an entertaining one. It was a serious speech to give some attention to this thing. By saying that it was an entertaining speech, he is degrading the debate in the House, as he has been doing all day. I want to correct that. Please do not say it is an entertaining speech.

Coming back to the facts, the member said that air strikes are not only ones. Agreed, air strikes are not the only ones. I am very glad he got up and said what the Conservatives agreed with, because that is what we have been doing in the past, in the debates that he and I have had in the House. We have been doing all of that. I am very happy he got up and stated what the Conservatives agree with.

Let me make it very clear, in response to the hon. member saying very clearly that air strikes are not effective and his wanting to withdraw them, that one of the most important elements is that the capabilities of our jets are the finest in the world. That is what coalition forces need. That is why the coalition forces are a little disappointed in the Liberal government.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know full well that with the international arms trade, Canadian weapons are ending up in enemy hands.

Does my colleague not think that signing the Arms Trade Treaty could at least help in reducing the Islamic State's power and would be more effective at stopping its progress?

I talked about “signing” the treaty, but I would add “ratifying”.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have debated the question on the arms treaty. We made our point very clear that there were some domestic issues with the laws that would not allow us to sign that treaty as well. Also, let me say that the treaty will not stop ISIL from advancing. Contrary to what the NDP has said, the treaty will not stop these terrorists from attacking. That is absolutely wrong. For that reason, we really need to degrade ISIL's capabilities. One of the most effective ways is with our military engagement, which we know the NDP opposes and has been opposing since I have been in this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment on the speech by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

It is important to remind the House why we are here today. When the previous government proposed the motion that authorized Canada's combat mission in northern Iraq and Syria in the fall of 2014, it was a mission proposed in the form of a motion in the House that had been worked on in concert with its allies. In fact, if we look at the wording of the October 7, 2014, motion, it is almost identical to a motion that was adopted in the British House of Commons at the same time. This was something that the government was doing because it was the right thing. It was also something done in close co-operation with Canada's allies, such as France, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

What happened in the fall of 2014 is very telling. At the time, the Liberals decided not to support the government's motion, not out of any issue of substance but out of a pure political calculation. The proof was that at the time Irwin Cotler actually abstained from the vote, and many other Liberals criticized the Liberal Party's decision. The final proof is that the current government has had to twist itself into a pretzel with respect to the current motion in front of the House in order to continue with some sort of a mission against ISIS.

According to the current government, we will pull out the CF-18s in that area of the world but yet continue with our surveillance and the refuelling of aircraft. It is a nonsensical motion. It proves that the Liberals were playing pure politics when they made the decision not to support the previous government's original motion of 2014.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving a historical perspective of what happened in the last Parliament on this issue. It is a very good point. We have now heard the Minister of National Defence say that he met with the coalition and he told them what we are planning to do.

I have a question for the member. When the Liberals decided during the election that they were going to pull out the CF-18s, did they consult with anyone from the coalition forces at that time? If they had done so, they would have been told that it was a wrong move to make this election promise. Let me remind the Liberals that they only got 39% of the votes. Over 60% of Canadians did not vote for them. Therefore, let us not go into this whole idea that they speak for Canadians. At the end of the day, if they had talked to the coalition forces, they would have been told that, and they would not have made that stupid promise they made during the election.

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

Madam Speaker, the member said that he agrees on nine out of the 10 things in this motion but for some reason he has a problem with pulling the CF18s out. As the hon. member agrees with nine out of the 10 things, he should be able to support this motion.

I would also like to correct the hon. member when he said that our defence minister said that the mission in Afghanistan was a mess. I am very proud, and we should all be proud, of the work the minister did on our behalf when he was fighting in Afghanistan.

My comment to my colleague is this: he should support this motion and be proud.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he says that I seem to have a problem with the motion. I want to let him know that not I but Canadians have a problem with this government's motion. He should look at the motion and see if he feels he can support our amendment.

As far as the contributions, the defence minister has made a great contribution to Canada. He is a great Canadian.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

I do not know if he will have enough time for all of his speech, but I am sure we can take it up at some other point in time.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I will have an opportunity to take a breath but, in taking a breath, I want to note that I am splitting my time, what few seconds I have, with the member for Orléans.

Given the few minutes available to me at this time, I thought I should put a summary point on this debate.

I want to commend colleagues for, largely, the civility of the debate. It has been the aspiration of the Prime Minister and the cabinet to improve the tone of the House. Based upon at least the first day of debate on this contentious motion, there has been some success.

In summary, as I indicated to my hon. colleague with whom I share a long relationship, sometimes strange relationship, the points of agreement far exceed the points of disagreement. It is clear that the conflict is entering another phase. It is clear that the bombing has had some success. It is clear that there are quite a number of other nations very capable of doing exactly what our very capable men and women in the Royal Canadian Air Force have done.

However, it is now Canada's opportunity and its mission to step up to this conflict so the people on the ground have some chance of success.

Therefore, we have put before the House a mission which says that we will triple the number of trainers, advisers, and assisters. We will double the amount of intelligence capability. We will put into the theatre a medical capacity. We will put into the theatre helicopters so our people are much more able to transport themselves if necessary.

We have, as a nation, welcomed 20,000 refugees into our country since this government was elected, taking them out of this conflict zone. We have committed to engaging in a more robust diplomatic engagement because a lot of bridges were burned by the previous government. We have stepped up on the humanitarian component of this message. This is a whole-of-government approach. That is what we need at this time.

The Conservatives have taken the position that they agree with everything except the bombing.

The NDP, on the other hand, agrees with the humanitarian, it agrees with the refugees, it agrees with more a robust diplomatic engagement, but somehow or other it thinks that we can do all of that without any military component to the mission. I welcome it to that thought.

However, it is not as if ISIL is in fact a very pleasant group of people to deal with. It is one of the worst forms of terrorist organizations, and a military response is absolutely necessary.

I look forward to the opportunity to engage in this debate when it resumes.