Debates of Feb. 19th, 2016

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the question, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence had five minutes, 45 seconds remaining in his remarks.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I can cover off the five minutes. The 45 seconds might be a bit more of a challenge. The difficulty of having my speech interrupted halfway through is that in some respects, I will have to summarize what was said.

At the point at which we initially ran out of time, I was talking about the NDP position, which was that the NDP supports the government's position on the upping of humanitarian aid. It certainly supports the government's position on the welcoming of the refugees here. By the way, more than 20,000 Syrians, possibly even 21,000, are now sheltered here in Canada. The NDP also certainly supports the position with respect to enhanced diplomatic engagement.

The NDP wants the government to engage in the interdiction of both arms and funds. However, there is a perception, at least as I understand the position of the NDP, that it can be done without military engagement. I would invite them to rethink that position, because to do those interdictions, we certainly have to have robust intelligence capabilities. We certainly have to have robust training and advising capabilities, because unless there are those boots on the ground, those local boots on the ground, the interdictions and the laudable goal of cutting off arms and funding will simply not happen.

The Conservative position, on the other hand, is that they wish to keep the jets in theatre. The rhetoric I have heard, which has been a little over the top at times, is that somehow or other, by keeping the jets in theatre, things will somehow or other work out and we will all be that much safer.

I would just point out to the hon. members opposite that Paris happened while the jets were in theatre. Beirut, Jakarta, Burkina Faso, and California, all of those events that affected us all, happened with jets in theatre, which leads me to the conclusion that this has to be a far more robust engagement than merely jets in theatre.

It is clear at this point that if there is to be a complete degrading of ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, however one wishes to refer to it, there need to be boots on the ground. Those boots on the ground need to be the best trained boots on the ground that can be there. They need to be local forces, and they need to have the best possible intelligence available to them.

The jets have done what the jets can do, and the only lines between Mosul and Iraq at this point are the rat lines. The actual connections between those two centres of ISIS activity are in fact controlled by the jets. Of course, the coalition, and we are in a coalition, has significant capability to maintain the gains the jets have achieved.

I want to conclude with some observations from others with respect to what our new, and I would argue, more robust engagement in this conflict is. I would start off by referencing Col. Steve Warren, a spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve. He says:

everybody likes to focus on the air strikes, right, because we get good videos out of it and it's interesting because things blow up—but don't forget a pillar of this operation, a pillar of this operation, is to train local ground forces. That is a key and critical part.

Then James Stavridis, dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander says:

Now I understand you're going to shift from doing training, which is...perhaps the most important of all. So I applaud the fact that our Canadian military and NATO colleagues will be working on the training mission with the Iraqi security forces, potentially with the Kurdish Peshmerga in the north because we don't want to send 100,000 troops or 150,000 troops like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We want local forces to fight ISIS. We need to train, advise, and mentor them. NATO can do that very effectively.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would end by quoting an editorial by a national newspaper, which said: “It's a sensible way to proceed”.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed at the Liberal position. I cannot for the life of me understand their position. On this side of the House, we have a lot of folks who have served admirably in our Canadian Armed Forces, as they have on that side of the House.

When I go through my riding, I speak to veterans, and they are asking how the government can pull these jets out of the sky. There are 75 troops on the ground now, when there has been cover for them, but they will not provide any cover. That is incredible. The Liberals are tripling the boots on the ground. That is their rationale. They will triple the boots on the ground, with no cover, which is going to make the problem even worse. We are going to have so many casualties as a result.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain that contradiction in the Liberals' position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to disabuse whoever it is that is speaking to him about this contradiction. There will be air cover. It is not as if the air cover is going away. There are at least 10 nations providing air cover. I think that at this point, 65,000 sorties have gone up. It is not as if the air cover goes away.

We are refocusing on what needs to be done in the next phase of the mission. The bombers have done what the bombers can do, which is drive ISIS members into their hidey-holes. Our troops will be as well if not better covered while they engage in this mission. I hope that the member disabuses his concerned constituents of the idea that there will be no cover, because that is simply not true.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague's speeches. I enjoyed them in the last session, and I enjoyed this one. However, I have some questions we have been trying to get answered. We are being invited to change our position. The Minister of National Defence has said that there will be increased risk to our men and women in uniform. One essential piece of information I would like know is whether they have a projected casualty count they could share with us. That is an important piece of information for us to know, and I am wondering if the member could share that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said yesterday in question period, the people we will be putting on the ground will be the best of the best, the most able of the most able, the people who have the best equipment possible. They will be in a theatre where there is greater risk.

However, it is not without risk, and to engage in fanciful exercises about what might be a casualty count is a disservice to the people of Canada, but particularly to our brave men and women in uniform who, when they sign up, take on unlimited risk. This is what they do. I would not under any circumstances engage in any kind of fanciful calculations along those lines. I think it is a disservice to our people.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his excellent speech. I wonder if he would care to build on his comments about the fighter support provided by allies in support of Canadian soldiers who may or may not be on the ground and draw that back to Afghanistan, where, as I recall, the Conservative government did not deploy Canadian CF-18s and relied extensively on international air power, with good cause and effect. As well, I do not recall the Conservative government ever releasing or discussing casualty counts prior to operations. Perhaps the member can confirm those facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for answering the question from the previous member better than I could. He has probably as much experience with the Canadian military, particularly in Afghanistan, as anyone in this House. His experience is something we rely on on this side of the House to give us guidance when putting forward this kind of revised mission.

I want to go to the point of interoperability. Just because it is an American jet up there does not mean that they are not communicating with troops on the ground, of whatever nationality, that are in the coalition. There is interoperability. There is intercommunication that worked quite well in Afghanistan, and as the minister has said repeatedly, the intelligence gathering we are bringing to this theatre of conflict is at a level of capability that possibly does not exist in other nations.

I feel absolute confidence that there will be excellent coverage while our people are in theatre. I feel absolute confidence that there will be interoperability. I feel confident that the communication will be there, and it does not necessarily mean that those have to be Canadian jets in the sky. They can be American or Dutch or whatever.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ISIL is an evil, brutal, and completely ruthless collective of organizations that specializes in the use of terror to accomplish its aims. ISIL seeks to conquer and subjugate, with the interest and intent of establishing a quasi nation state. As such, it is an insurgency. The Canadian Armed Forces, indeed Canada, has learned many valuable lessons over the last decades in counter-insurgency operations.

Allow me to quote from the Canadian Armed Forces counter-insurgency manual, published in 2008 under the authority of the previous government: “lnsurgency is not a movement or people. lt is a competition, struggle or conflict involving different groups of people. As a manifestation of war, it is a competition of wills.”

At its root, an insurgency is a political problem—so eloquently referred to by the Minister of National Defence yesterday—and a wider range of agencies, elements, power, and capabilities, in addition to the military, must come together in unity of purpose to defeat an insurgency. Defeating an insurgency needs more than just bombing. There are lots of bombers available in the region, as so eloquently mentioned by the previous speaker.

Our CF-18s, pilots and ground crew, have done a great job, with bravery, professionalism, and discipline. Since we deployed our fighter ground attack aircraft, they have contributed about 2.5% of the overall coalition air strikes, and they have done a fantastic job.

However, should Canada continue to contribute to the fight? Yes, but what, where, and how should we contribute in the whole-of-coalition context? What is needed among the various tools in the coalition toolbox is worthy of study, and the Minister of National Defence and his team have done just such.

Let me tell a story, essentially a tale of what we can learn from history.

I first deployed to Afghanistan in 2003 as the Canadian task force commander. Then it was a stability operation with some counter-insurgency activities against terrorists. We lost excellent soldiers in that fight. Eventually, our skill sets improved. I went back every couple of months for seven years, and I eventually became the army commander for four years.

Our forces, of course, were very successful in and around Kabul. Then we shifted to Kandahar, with the intent of providing some security for reconstruction and development. This turned into arguably the toughest fight that the Canadian troops had seen since the Korean War. The cost in lives and resources was both tragic and staggering. Our contribution grew into a very powerful battle group, and it was very well equipped. I will give credit where credit was due. It was in large measure thanks to the previous government and its focus on getting the troops what they needed for the Afghan war, and a robust provincial reconstruction team that was doing most of the local fighting themselves.

With very little value added, we saw poorly trained Afghan militia observing from the sideline, themselves traditionally ferocious warriors, but lacking in the disciplined and modern contemporary skill sets. There was lots of allied air power available, and the Conservative government focused its efforts, after time, on training because that was what was needed. We had to get the local forces into the fight. After a relatively short while, we Canadians realized that our efforts to help the local government win would best be served by increasing the amount of resources and troops who contributed to the training mission, and to intelligence, provincial reconstruction, and actual regional stabilization. From about 2005 to 2010, this transition was under way and applied with great vigour, determination, and skill, by not only the Canadian Armed Forces personnel, but indeed all those who contributed to a whole-of-government approach.

In 2010, the Conservative government ceased combat operations in the direct fight and the killing, and focused the entirety of the mission on training. I will say it again. In 2010 and onward, the Conservative government ceased all combat operations in the direct kinetic fight and focused the entirety of its efforts on training indigenous forces. It worked. It was a sound decision. There were no Canadian CF-18s overhead, and all of our troops were involved in the training mission.

Therefore, what has changed? What lessons can we draw from the valiant efforts of our soldiers, lessons paid for in blood and treasure?

Let me say this again. The Conservative government withdrew all combat elements and rerolled them into a strictly training role. No one in the Conservative caucus argued against this idea at the time. I know, because I was the army commander. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now, because the great shortfall is in training indigenous forces.

Counter-insurgency operations conducted within a counter-insurgency campaign are aimed to defeat the insurgency through military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civil actions, something we got to know quite well, and Canada became really good at it. However, the overriding focus was on providing skill sets so that we could do better than probably just about anybody else in the world. That turned out to be the complex endeavours of training indigenous forces, assisting in regional stability, reconstruction of civil society, and humanitarian support. Yes, we can fight, absolutely, but at times, to fight smarter, we have to look at it in the whole-of-government context.

This whole-of-government approach includes everybody in the fight. Whether people are public servants, police officers, aid workers, soldiers, trainers, or helicopter pilots, whether armed or unarmed, they are all there contributing to the fight, just like our government is proposing to do in a much more sophisticated and nuanced approach than exists today in Iraq.

The former government learned that a multinational coalition fighting against insurgency had to adopt this sophisticated approach, this whole-of-government approach, and that it had to look across the wide aspects of all the tools available to the coalition to get the job done. The former government decided to refocus all of its efforts into training local forces, increasing humanitarian support and development assistance, and worked very hard and quite successfully to enhance regional stability. It provided additional intelligence assets and reconnaissance assets, and focused and refocused on training. This is exactly what we are doing, so how is it different? How can it possibly be different? We have learned from the lessons of Afghanistan.

I have a rhetorical question. It is quite a simple question. How is what our government is proposing to do in Iraq any different from what the previous Conservative government learned after many hard lessons, paid for in blood and treasure, in the experience in Afghanistan?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member opposite was serving in Afghanistan, he appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence. When asked the question of why he sent our troops into Afghanistan in forest greens, his response was so that they would be noticed; they would stand out. I would like to know if his position is still the same, or is there another reason for wanting our troops to stand out like targets?

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to a situation wherein there were two types of uniforms, both green and brown. In the streets of Kabul, which was mainly stability operations and not necessarily focused entirely on counterterrorism, it was presence patrolling, which is in the pantheon of operational capabilities in the centre of the spectrum for counter-insurgency operations. In that context, our doctrine clearly states that presence, being able to be seen, to be readily identifiable when accompanying Afghan police in the busy streets of Kabul, is a marked difference.

I would also point out that we had tan uniforms available from when we went out to do the business in the mountains.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree on the need to eliminate ISIL, which for all of us is the equivalent of removing evil. We also agree on the need to increase humanitarian aid. However, what resonated with my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia during the election was that in order to deal with ISIL, we needed to do three things: cut off its supply of money, cut off its supply of arms, and make sure that Canada is the kind of country where everyone feels welcome, thereby ensuring that no Canadians would ever consider joining ISIL.

My question to the hon. member is this. The citizens of Kootenay—Columbia want to know how the government's proposal accomplishes those three objectives.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his appreciation of the nuances and sophistication required in the modern and contemporary counter-insurgency fight. What he is suggesting is part of the tenets, the building blocks, in the whole-of-government complex approach.

However, there does come a time when we have to focus on giving the indigenous residents themselves the skill sets and tools to carry the fight to the local foe. That is the government's proposal. It incorporates some of the good ideas that the member has, but, as well, it is not abandoning the fight but carrying on the fight by training the local soldiers themselves, turning them from a militia into a professional force so that they can carry the fight to the foe.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Orleans for a detailed and very credible presentation this morning, which draws upon his personal experiences.

I am looking at my personal experience around business and the top-down approach to management-solving versus the bottom-up approach. It is one that relies on intelligence gathering, complexity of issues, and complexity of strengths to attack problems together. I am wondering whether I might be oversimplifying this or whether this might apply to the current situation in the Middle East where we are doing intelligence gathering, training, and the execution of plans using a bottom-up approach versus a top-down approach.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the intelligence cycle starts both at the top and the bottom. We have kinetic activities and those which support it. We have the observe, detect, orient, and react cycle, which is fairly well-known in military theorems. The bottom line, though, is that it has to be comprehensive, so it incorporates some of the ideas already articulated by the previous question of the NDP member and this member's question.

We do have to work on choking off the flow of supplies, monetary supplies and personnel, in this holistic approach. I submit that is exactly what the coalition forces are up to now. It is exactly the intent of the NATO command and control architecture that is co-ordinating the activities in Europe, and of course of our American allies who have the lead.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The member for Orléans is a former military member like me. Today, we are in politics and our duty is to put our soldiers first. The decisions we make are critical.

The government's plan to combat ISIL is hypocritical to say the least. People are very dissatisfied with it. It goes in every direction but the right one, the direction that will lead to combatting ISIL. The government is increasing the number of soldiers on the ground to provide more training. In other words, we will show people how to fight without getting our hands dirty.

This plan does not take into account the wishes of Canadian Forces members. It is a repudiation of their work on the ground. Many Canadian Forces members are unhappy with this government. By way of evidence, I would like to read a letter I received from Mr. Roy. It says:

Thank you [hon. member] for your commitment. I am a former infantry solider who spent 14 years in the military. I was in Haiti in 1997, Bosnia in 2001, and Afghanistan in 2004 and 2009. As such, I often talk to other former soldiers, and we feel betrayed by the [Prime Minister's] government. It seems as though the [Prime Minister's] government is minimizing what Canadian soldiers have had to endure both physically and psychologically, not to mention what their families have had to endure with the soldiers being deployed so often. Canadian soldiers make these sacrifices to build an international reputation for Canada and to defend our values.

Thank you for saying out loud what so many people are quietly thinking.

As we can see, the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadians in general are very dissatisfied with this plan. Under this plan, the government has already withdrawn our CF-18s from Iraq and Syria, without even waiting until we finished debating the issue here in the House of Commons. That is a mistake since our allies and everyone recognized how much Canadian air strikes were helping in the fight against ISIS. The government has not given any coherent explanation for this decision.

Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy of the Journal de Montréal spoke about the Prime Minister's lack of judgment. She said:

To justify his desertion [that word, “desertion”, is very important], he claims that “...the people terrorized...every day don't need our vengeance. They need our help.”

Bombast like that from our Prime Minister is appalling and unfortunate.

...

It is appalling because it shows that [the Prime Minister] considers the fight against Daesh to be rooted in vengeance. What poor judgment!

Do we really have to explain to him that stopping a horde of fanatics who are destroying everything in their path is not about vengeance? That stopping bloodthirsty terrorists from raping people, kidnapping them, murdering them, cutting their throats, burning them alive, and beheading them is not about vengeance? If the Prime Minister can't tell the difference between vengeance and self-defence, if he can't tell the difference between Daesh's murderous instinct and the West's survival instinct, Canada is in very bad hands.

At the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Brussels, Miami, and Washington, many people told me that it is not the right time or not a good idea for Canada to recall its CF-18 fighter jets from Iraq and Syria.

In yet another episode of the current government's disavowal of logic, the Minister of National Defence says that he is considering the possibility of fighting ISIL in Libya. According to Italy's defence minister, Roberta Pinotti, who believes that action must be taken to prevent ISIL from gaining ground in Libya, some 3,000 ISIL terrorists are in Libya. Oil production facilities have been attacked, and 60 people were killed in a suicide bombing in February. After withdrawing the CF-18s from Iraq and Syria, a move that most Canadians do not agree with, the Liberals are taking their wishy-washiness to Libya. Once again, in Brussels last weekend, NATO people told us that going to Libya would be the worst thing to do.

There seems to be no end to the government's bungling. “Whatever” is the watchword, it seems. The Minister of International Development and La Francophonie even acknowledged that money sent to the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders could end up in the hands of the enemy, ISIL. Why? Because we have no way of controlling where the money goes. The minister even said that we cannot control that. As Canadian citizens, as taxpayers, we want to know what is being done with that significant amount of money. It should not be handed over to our enemies; it should be used to fight them.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying that Canada will do more to help Jordan and Lebanon deal with the pressures of the civil war in Syria. However, I thought the plan was to fight a war against ISIL. When you pursue too many targets at once, you often miss all of them.

That is the problem here. This plan has too many targets, even though there is only one enemy, which is ISIL.

It is important to understand what the people who elected us here really want. Consider this example: according to an Angus Reid poll from the beginning of February 2016, Canadians are concerned about the impact on the world stage of withdrawing our CF-18s from Iraq and Syria. In fact, 63% of Canadians want Canada to continue bombing ISIL targets at the current rate or to increase the number of bombing missions conducted against ISIL. Also, 47% believe that withdrawing our CF-18s will harm Canada's reputation abroad. Two out of five people, 37%, believe that Canada should continue with the current number of bombing missions against ISIL. One-quarter, 26%, believe that we should increase the number of missions. In addition, 64% of people believe that the threat ISIL poses has increased, and half of those people, or about 30%, believe that the threat has increased significantly. In the wake of the Paris attacks, 33% of people believe that Canada should increase its involvement in the fight against ISIL.

Not only did the government miss an opportunity to show leadership by taking a position much more focused on a combat mission against the Islamic State, but it also missed the boat on public opinion, on what Canadians think, and on what they want their government to do to fight terrorists.

A government that does not listen to the public is a disconnected government and that is what this government is. It only took them a few months to get there. Who knows, maybe the Liberals want to beat their own record at becoming disconnected from the Canadian public. This is how disconnected Liberal governments have acted in the past. Let us not forget the sponsorship scandal. They are back to their old ways, making bad decisions. In short, this government is on the wrong track. It has too many targets. It has forgotten who the enemy is. Its adversary in this war is the Islamic State.

The attacks in Paris last year, and the attacks in Ottawa, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and Burkina Faso are reminders that terrorists threaten and strike vulnerable, innocent people everywhere. We must fight these terrorists and eradicate them someday.

The Liberals are also disregarding the fact that Canada is making a mistake by eliminating from its plan the component of combatting ISIL. By withdrawing our CF-18s from Iraq and Syria, we are taking away from our experienced pilots the opportunity to use their skills in the air strikes.

Make no mistake about this mission: increasing the number of Canadian soldiers on the ground to provide training without assigning them to combat, which is what they are trained to do, diminishes their role and is an insult to the skills of the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is a mistake to return our army to the 1990s role of peacekeepers, which was catastrophic for Canada, especially in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were killed because our soldiers were powerless to intervene.

I will be voting against this government's ill-conceived plan, and I encourage all my colleagues in the House to reject it because it diminishes Canada's international reputation, it insults the talent and dedication of the men and women in the armed forces, and it eliminates the element of combatting ISIL terrorists, which should be the basis for this plan.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our coalition allies, the Americans and the French, have much greater resources than Canada when it comes to their air forces and they are providing the air cover that coalition forces on the ground need in the theatre. Canada on the other hand, as was mentioned, demonstrated in Afghanistan that we have tremendous capacity and experience in training indigenous forces on the ground and it is those indigenous forces that will take the fight to Daesh directly. We have committed to tripling Canada's capacity and to taking a lead in taking that fight to Daesh.

Does the hon. member agree or disagree with our position that Canada can take a lead in taking the fight to Daesh and training the indigenous forces who will take that fight to it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous government sent CF-18s into combat and special forces to train Iraqi soldiers. We have never been against the training component.

The new plan is problematic because it eliminates the combat capacity, which was effective. Even if we only carried out 2.5% of the strikes, we were one of the five countries that were bombing targets effectively.

We have nothing against increasing the number of troops providing training. We have never been against that. We are against withdrawing the combat and air protection capacity provided by our CF-18s for our troops and the fact that we will be relying on our allies to do the heavy lifting.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He was in the army for 22 years, so he understands and has expertise in these important issues.

He attended three NATO meetings, in the United States and in Europe, to understand the approach taken by Canada and its allies to ensure that Canada makes a better contribution within the coalition.

Can he tell us how our international allies perceive Canada? How might this perception affect Canada in the coming months?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I was indeed a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for 22 years. I am still in contact with former colleagues who are still members of the forces and who share their concerns with me.

At the NATO meetings, I was able to talk to colleagues from different countries. Our international allies say everything is fine, obviously. Given the nature of politics and diplomacy, people will say that everything is fine.

However, parliamentarians from other countries told me they were disappointed that Canada was withdrawing from the combat mission. Canada has decided to take a secondary role. This role can be important, but Canada's refusal to fight is a rejection. We must not forget that we are no longer in Afghanistan. We are fighting ISIL, which is an international terrorist group.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleagues in congratulating my friend and colleague for an excellent presentation. I commend him for the 22 years he served our country, and served it with distinction.

The one thing I fail to understand about the Liberal position is simply this. The Liberals seem to think it is appropriate for other countries to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting our troops. We were asked by a coalition to join the fight against ISIL, one of the most barbaric and murderous regimes this world has ever seen. We were asked to do so, and our government agreed, willingly. My colleague just asked in the previous question what message that sends to our allies when we refute their request to continue on with the CF18s. The answer is obvious. Our allies are not only disappointed, but they will be very hesitant in future of trying to count on Canada's support.

My question for my colleague is this. Does he think that this move by the current Liberal government, by pulling out our CF18s, will do long-term, irreparable harm to our reputation and our relationship with our allies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

As I said, when I spoke to parliamentarians from allied and foreign countries, they told me, in private, that Canada's position was weakened because we were withdrawing from combat. This is not hearsay. I think the government is to blame for that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes Garrison Petawawa, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate regarding Canada's contribution to the war against terrorism.

There is an ongoing and serious security threat in the Middle East posed by international terrorism. It is not only a threat to innocent victims in that war-torn part of the world, but also represents an active threat to international security and stability for Canada and our allies, as we have seen in Paris and more recently in California here in North America.

The brutal murders of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo on Canadian soil mean that no Canadian is safe. This is why the Canadian Armed Forces must continue to be a part of the solution as full participating members of the international coalition against terrorism.

My riding is home to the largest army base in Canada. More significantly, Garrison Petawawa is home to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, CSOR, the first new regiment to be stood up in over 60 years. The decision to triple the number of Canadian soldiers on the ground in the fight against ISIL to compensate for our withdrawal of the CF-18 jets affects my community directly, as it affects my local base. Those soldiers will come from CSOR. They and their families are my friends and family, my constituents. I see their faces every day.

As a member of the Petawawa community, I shared the grief and anguish of our military family when the political decision was made to disband the Canadian Airborne Regiment by a previous Liberal government during the period referred to by the former chief of defence staff, General Rick Hillier, as the “decade of darkness” for Canada's military. I was an elected member of Parliament when that same government made the political decision to send Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan without proper basic equipment. Moreover, the 1993 election promise to cancel the replacement purchase for the Sea King helicopter meant that Canadian soldiers died on the dusty roads of Afghanistan.

Will the 2015 election promise to withdraw Canadian jets from the war on terror mean that Canadian soldiers will die this time in Iraq?

Our Canadian soldiers were sent by the Liberal government to a land of sand and deserts wearing forest-green uniforms. The defence minister was not listening or chose to ignore the briefing when he was told there were no forests where our soldiers were being sent.

Once in Afghanistan, our soldiers were forced to use the Iltis jeep, a ride that offered no protection to its occupants. Garrison Petawawa remembers Sargent Marc Leger and Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger who lost their lives when their Iltis jeep hit an IED.

During the inquest into their deaths, it was revealed that soldiers who used the Iltis jeep had to make a choice between the more likely way they could die: from a sniper, or a roadside bomb. If they felt the greater danger was from snipers, a soldier kept his armoured vest on. If a soldier felt there was a greater danger from roadside bombs, he removed his vest and sat on it, as the Iltis jeep offered no protection from being blown up.

In the incident that killed Sergeant Marc Leger and Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger, the driver of the jeep, who had served longer in Afghanistan, had determined that the greater threat was from an IED. He survived that bomb blast by sitting on his fragmentation vest and was blown clear. Sargent Marc Leger and Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger were wearing their fragmentation vests and died in the explosion when the jeep hit the roadside bomb.

What life and death choices will Canadian soldiers now have to make knowing that Canadian air support will not be there if needed?

When the commander of the U.S. troops saw the jeep that our Canadian troops had to use, a horrified General Tommy Franks offered armoured Hummers, an offer that was turned down, for reasons only the Liberal government can explain.

However, once our Conservative government was in control of the situation, we immediately moved to provide things like proper uniforms, strategic lift to get our soldiers away from the roadside bombs, and replacement of the Iltis jeeps by vehicles complete with armour plating to protect the occupants from land mines.

Canadian soldiers do not complain. They do their job. We owe it to them to give them the proper equipment and resources to do the job we ask them to do.

The new defence minister is very quick to tell Canadians that he has firsthand experience serving as a reservist in Afghanistan. That would suggest he has direct knowledge of the consequence of sending soldiers into conflict without the proper tools and resources.

With that knowledge, he needs to explain to Canadians what will happen when we get another situation like what occurred last December. Will what happened in Afghanistan happen in Iraq? Will history repeat itself with the withdrawal of the air cover?

Canadian soldiers were involved in some direct fighting in northern Iraq. Luckily for those soldiers, they could call in air support from CF-18 Canadian fighter jets. These are the same jets that have been ordered home by an uncaring Prime Minister and his defence minister, who claims empathy for the serving soldiers based upon his time as a reservist in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the minister is suffering from selective amnesia. Or, did he not speak to soldiers who were first sent to Afghanistan without the benefit of strategic lift or who lost a comrade to a roadside bomb? As a reservist serving in Afghanistan, did he avoid being sent in a green uniform that would allow him, in the worlds of the Liberal predecessor, to be better seen?

The Prime Minister and his advisors cynically hope that Canadians have forgotten what happens when troops are caught in a war zone without proper air support. The high casualty rate in Afghanistan was a direct result of the politically motivated decision by the Liberal Party to cancel the Sea King replacement helicopter contract, without the strategic lift to pull our soldiers away from harm's way. Soldiers died.

It is 2016. Canadian foreign policy is taking a radical shift to the left. Now, we have another Liberal government making another election promise not to provide air support for Canadian soldiers.

I forgive the Canadians who may be confused in thinking that the year is 1993, the last time a Liberal election promise was made on the backs of soldiers.

While Canada prepares to spend millions of dollars airlifting tens of thousands of Syrian non-combatants to Canada, millions more suffer in camps, under the constant threat of attack.

Now is not the time to retreat. If they take away our air support, someone is going to die. Soldiers need to know that the government has their back. Bringing home the CF-18 military jets sends the wrong message at the wrong time.

It is said that the first casualty of war is truth. Nowhere is this more important than in the rhetoric Canadians are hearing from the government as the Prime Minister spins the peacekeeper myth. Using peacekeeping as an excuse, Canadian soldiers will be ordered to abandon the honour and recognition earned in Afghanistan. By pulling them back from the international coalition fighting terrorism, it will allow the government to make larger cuts and freeload on our allies, which was our reputation before 2006.

Cutting our military and abandoning our allies is absolutely the wrong direction for Canada. As a member of Parliament, I remind the government of its obligation to our NATO partners and its responsibility to protect the freedom, democracy, and safety and security of all Canadians.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant continues to threaten world peace and security. That threat has not changed.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for her passionate remarks and her almost two decades of advocacy in this place for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and, particularly, the base and military family community in Petawawa. There is no greater champion than that member of Parliament.

She also has a unique role, having done a lot of work internationally as a NATO parliamentarian. So, my question for the member would be related to her experience internationally.

Our participation in NATO was forged in Canada's active participation and sacrifice in World War II. What do our NATO allies really feel when Canada pulls back, as she said, like we did in the mid-nineties in the decade of darkness, and like we are doing now, withdrawing our active combat role fighting ISIS? What do our allies really feel about the absence of a traditional Canadian part?