Debates of Feb. 19th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week when I was travelling from my home riding to Ottawa, I happened to listen to a radio interview of the mayor of Cold Lake in northern Alberta, where our fighter pilots are trained. It was interesting to hear his somewhat reserved comments that he was glad that the fighter pilots were returning home, and they are always happy to return home to their families. Their families have lost a sense of meaning the fighter pilots are no longer going to be doing the job for which they had been trained. They had trained to fight when there was a fight that needed to be taken. I sensed the whole community was feeling some sort of loss because of the responsibility that was being taken away from these fighter pilots.

I often wonder now what incentive there is for new pilots who are entering the training system. How is the government going to incite new recruits into becoming fighter pilots, some of the best in the world, if they are never going to be given the chance to fly missions like this in Iraq and Syria?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the pilots. I look at my profession. If I am trained as an accountant, I do not just do debits and credits; I have to do a wider business assessment. Therefore, having been to Cold Lake, the pilots do not only focus on bombing people.

As the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has said, bombs do not clear out the problem. In fact, we could bomb civilians and create more problems. It would be better if the training the pilots have is used to train the Iraqi forces. We cannot be in other countries forever.

We need to train them. That is why it is important for us to refocus this mission. It is for them to sustain. They know the culture, they know the language, and they know the strategic thinking. It is very critical that we train them.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. We were invited a little earlier today by the parliamentary secretary to revisit our decision to oppose the amendment to the motion, and the main motion. I am sitting here, weighing whether I should do that.

One thing I am unclear about is whether this is a combat mission. We heard the Prime Minister the other day compare this mission to World War I and World War II. This member has now compared it to other combat missions. However, we have heard the Minister of National Defence say that it is not a combat mission.

I am confused about it. I am sure Canadians wonder what the exact nature of this mission is. Could the member clarify whether this is a combat mission?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for someone who regards combat as fighting on the ground or fighting in the air, it is important for us to understand that the fight for ISIL is going to be done by the Iraqi and the Syrian forces. We need to train them.

We need to provide intelligence. We have not had that type of sophistication on the ground with the Iraqi and Syrian forces. We need to train them. We need to show where the intelligence is for the theatre to operate effectively.

It depends on how one defines combat, but the mission is really to train the Iraqi and Syrian soldiers to take the fight to their own fighters.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is the member indicating that air strikes are no longer necessary and that we are not leaving a gap by not participating in the air strikes?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I make no such suggestion. I said that we were withdrawing our CF-18s.

I quoted the Americans saying that we were not going to bomb ourselves out of it. The coalition partners are using the air strikes, and they need us, as coalition partners, to help train the army on the ground. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Burnaby South.

Yesterday, like every Thursday, there was a peace vigil in downtown Regina. Activists distributed literature warning against endless war in Iraq and Syria. Some of those activists, like Florence Stratton, are adamantly non-partisan. Others, like Paul Gingrich and Stephen Moore, worked hard on my election campaign and I would like to thank them for their support.

Now whether we agree with a particular political party or not, the peace movement in Regina and around the world has been warning against misguided western intervention in the Middle East for years. I believe that the House should listen.

Some of the new MPs that occupy these fold-down seats in the outer reaches of the House were born at around the time that the Soviets started fighting in Afghanistan, and what did the west do in response? We started funding and arming the mujahedeen, which led to the Taliban taking over Afghanistan, which really enabled the September 11 terrorist attack and ultimately entangled us in a prolonged war in Afghanistan with decidedly mixed results.

Also in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq on the false pretext of there being weapons of mass destruction there. Of course, the Conservatives were clamouring for Canada to participate in this invasion. Although Prime Minister Chrétien ultimately decided to keep Canada out, it is worth remembering that Paul Martin and many other Liberals were also agitating for Canada to engage in that invasion. I am very proud of the fact that it was only Jack Layton and the NDP that provided a consistent and credible voice against that misguided war.

After years of death and destruction, what has been accomplished? Western countries validated the jihadist narrative that we are crusaders who want to invade Muslim countries. We created a power vacuum in Iraq which was filled by ISIS. We sent large quantities of arms to Iraq, many of which fell into the hands of ISIS. We laid off the former officers of Saddam Hussein's army, many of whom are now leading the ISIS army.

In Syria we see a somewhat similar pattern more recently. Western countries and allied Gulf monarchies decided to fund and arm rebels against President Assad, but most of the rebel groups in Syria are jihadist organizations that are not much different from ISIS. Unsurprisingly, many of the weapons and many of the funds sent to the Syrian opposition ended up in the hands of ISIS.

We are now left with a situation where ISIS controls large parts of both Iraq and Syria. And what solutions have been proposed in the House? We have heard calls for more bombing. We have also heard calls for more arms to the Kurds. What could possibly go wrong?

At least the Conservatives have been consistent in constantly calling for bombing of the Middle East. It seems that they hope that democratic governments will magically rise like a phoenix out of the embers of that bombing. However, the the Liberals campaigned against bombing. The Liberals campaigned against Canada playing a combat role, but being Liberals, they cannot just make a progressive promise and then follow through on it. They have to play both sides of the issue. I think it is in their DNA to campaign from the left and then govern from the right.

Today, we are looking a motion to keep their election promise to end bombing, but then to send in ground troops. We will not often hear the government describe it that way, but I was interested to hear the Minister of National Defence say almost exactly that just now in question period.

The Liberals cannot say they are ending Canada's military mission. They will not admit they are expanding Canada's military mission. Instead, they say they are “refocusing” Canada's military mission. It is a verb that we have heard from the Prime Minister and from the previous speaker, the hon. member for Don Valley East. However, it is an odd choice of verb, because the motion has absolutely no focus. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the motion is the opposite of focused. We have no clear objective, no way to measure success and, of course, no exit strategy.

What should be done to counter ISIS? First, Canada should be using diplomacy to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement. That would be very difficult to do if we are directly engaged in the fight.

Second, Canada should be stopping the flow of arms through the Middle East. One way of doing that would be to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty. I am concerned that the government's plan to arm the Kurds carries great risk of escalation. I am also concerned that arms that we may sell to Saudi Arabia will likely end up in the wrong hands.

Third, Canada needs to stop the flow of foreign fighters into the Middle East. That means real engagement with our Muslim community and a strong de-radicalization program.

Those are some concrete steps that we could take to counter ISIS.

I do not have a perfect or complete solution to the problems of the Middle East, but I do believe we need to stop making those problems worse. Therefore, I ask the House to vote against the Conservative amendment, to vote against the Liberal motion, and to vote for peace.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member attempt to twist, or possibly even rewrite, history. Canadians widely supported Prime Minister Chrétien's approach to Iraq. History will clearly indicate that the Liberal government did not participate in Iraq.

The member may want to try to portray divisions within a caucus. He should get his own caucus somewhat united on different issues before he tries to portray or rewrite history.

When we look at what the Liberal motion is all about, we are very different from the New Democrats. The New Democrats talk a lot about an exit strategy. Their exit strategy is a no-entry strategy. They do not recognize that Canada does have a leadership role to play in the world in combatting terrorism.

My question for the member is very specific. Does the NDP believe that it should be using the Canadian Forces in any way whatsoever in combatting terrorism in the world, and if so, how?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North that Prime Minister Chrétien, thankfully, did keep our country out of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I was one of the Canadians who supported his approach. All I noted in my remarks is that Paul Martin and various other Liberals were clamouring for Canada to participate in that invasion. As is so often the case, the Liberals were on both sides of the issue. I do not necessarily regard them as being a consistent voice for peace in the House.

The member for Winnipeg North also talked about the NDP's exit strategy being a no-entry strategy. That is true. We do not think we should get involved unless we have a clear path to success and a clear way of getting out of it. In saying that, the member avoided, yet again, explaining what the government's exit strategy is, which leads me to believe that it does not have one.

Yes, the NDP is very much supportive of using the armed forces to defend our country against terrorism and other threats, but we do not think that dropping more bombs, or having a greater military intervention in Iraq and Syria, is an effective way of doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I posed a question to my colleague who gave a very important speech on this serious issue. In recent weeks he met with NATO colleagues, so I asked him how our international allies perceive this important issue. He answered that our allies are very disappointed with the position taken by Canada and the current government with respect to our contribution and the withdrawal of the CF-18s.

What does my colleague make of the fact that all our partners believe that our contribution to the mission is lacking?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that our allies have different positions on this issue. I find that the Conservatives like to look for examples where our allies criticize our position. The Liberals sometimes have quoted our allies as saying that the government is doing the right thing.

I think that it is not a true assessment. We really have to figure out what will work to bring peace to the Middle East. That is the point of my speech.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand here to speak to this issue today. It is also a great privilege to be in the House in general.

As this is my first speech, I hope I will be allowed to thank my constituents in Burnaby South who elected me for the second time. It was a tough-fought campaign, but I am happy to be here to serve my constituents.

Burnaby stands at the centre of what I do in the House and it has an important place in this debate. Over 100 languages are spoken in Burnaby. It is probably one of the most diverse places in the entire world, in Canada definitely. I have meetings every week with people who have come from four corners of the globe. There is a huge refugee population in Burnaby. This motion specifically talks about refugees and that is an important component of what we are doing here in this Parliament. We are making sure that refugees are properly taken care of.

We have to be careful to represent the views of Canadians, and this debate is an important part of that. Most Canadians, and most of my constituents, would say that peace is a central component of our foreign policy, that peace should be the main driver of our foreign policy. That is why this debate is so important to us here today.

We know what the Conservatives think about our place in the world because we had 10 years of their government. This debate is really about defining what the new government will do for Canada, what will be our face to the world. The decisions that we make with respect to this mission will tell the world what Canada's new position will be and how the world should think of us. We in the NDP hope that the new government will be one of the main drivers of peace in the world and will get us back to our role.

The Prime Minister has said that Canada is back, but Canada is not back yet. We are not back to the point of previous Liberals like Nobel Peace Prize winner Lester Pearson, who was known for bringing peace to the world. We are not there yet. We are not at the point where the previous government was, but we are not back to where we should be and that is a driver of peace in the world.

The parliamentary secretary put forward an interesting invitation for us. He asked us to reconsider this motion. I have been looking over the Conservative amendment and the Liberal motion and they both have merit worth considering. The government's motion calls on the House to expand our mission in Iraq and have more boots on the ground. The second component of the motion calls for the withdrawal of the CF-18s and the third calls for more investment in humanitarian assistance. From my reading of the Conservative amendment it asks to reverse the decision to withdraw the CF-18s and then to limit humanitarian relief.

That is really what we are debating here. We are debating whether we should amend the Liberal proposal with the Conservative amendment. I have looked at this and I think we can safely reject the Conservative amendment to the motion. We did not think the jets should have been there in the first place and we definitely do not want them to go back.

It is disappointing that the minister did not wait for a vote to make that decision. That was raised here earlier in question period. We were promised a debate and a vote on this issue but the decision seems to have already been made. As somebody who tries to defend the institutions of Parliament, I think that does not seem to be the way we are supposed to work here. The minister should have carefully considered both sides of the situation, waited for the vote in the House, and then made the decision. Perhaps he is not used to how this place is supposed to work and that is why he made this early mistake.

With respect to the planks of the main motion, expanding the mission to put more boots on the ground is really the core of what we have been discussing here and something I cannot seem to get a straight answer on. We hear examples from the other side of the House about how we have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with people in other wars, but that is combat, that is us shooting at other people and people shooting at us. That is about killing other people and being killed. That is a combat mission. It is unclear as to how the government views this mission. We hear about training people and marking targets for other bombing runs and those kind of things. That sounds like forays into enemy territory where our soldiers would be at risk.

Of course if they are fired at, they will fire back. To me that is combat, otherwise there would be no shooting at people and no getting shot at. It is very unclear and the government needs to clarify. As the debate continues on for the rest of the day, I hope we will get that clarification as to whether this is a combat mission or not. That would be crucial to us deciding whether or not to change our minds and perhaps consider a different approach to this motion.

I believe that withdrawing the CF-18s is a good idea. They should not have been there in the first place.

Increasing humanitarian assistance is a key proposal. I hope that if the Liberals decided to entirely withdraw the troops from the region that they would always consider sending humanitarian assistance because the way that peace moves forward is by wealthy nations like ours investing in and helping people in troubled areas.

On balance, I have not heard anything here that would convince me that this is a good thing to do for either the Conservative motion or the Liberals' main motion.

We are talking a lot about Iraq. I think the Liberals have a right to be proud about Mr. Chrétien's decision back in the 1990s to not follow the U.S. and the U.K. into Iraq in a fighting capacity. However, right after that, Canadians put a huge amount of effort, money, and troops into Afghanistan. A lot of us saw that as a bait and switch. We do not go into Iraq and the Liberals get all the kudos for not doing so, and rightly reinforcing the idea of Canada as a peaceful nation, but then going to Afghanistan almost covertly and almost tricking Canadians into thinking that these two things were somehow not connected. I feel that this might be what is happening here as well, that they will withdraw a few jets but then greatly increase the number of troops and send them to Iraq. I do not feel like we are getting the whole story.

I asked a question earlier today of the parliamentary secretary about casualty counts. It is uncomfortable to talk about people dying but we need to have an estimate. The defence minister said that there was an increased risk. An increased risk to whom and by how much? What is the risk that I as a parliamentarian, representing the people of Burnaby South, have to consider? When I stand up to vote yes or no to this motion I have to answer to my constituents. If I said that I changed my mind and I voted for this motion, they would ask if I had all of the information I needed, to which I would have to say no. I do not have any. I do not know what the exit strategy is here. I do not know the constraints of this operation. I do not know whether we will have a lot of casualties or none. I do not know how much this would cost. I know that some of those things have to remain secret. However, I think the Liberals could divulge more information about this, and they are not doing that.

The last thing that is not in this motion is increased aid for soldiers who are returning and for veterans. My wife teaches at Douglas College, which is a good educational institution. A lot of soldiers who return there do so to get more education and go to her classes. They have been traumatized by what they have seen in these regions and suffer from PTSD yet there is very little support for these veterans. What I would like to see in the motions and the government actions going forward is a firm commitment for more resources for returning soldiers. If we in the NDP cannot stop the Liberals from what we think is a mistake in action, at least we can call for more assistance when these soldiers return to Canada.

Therefore, I will be opposing this motion and, unless I hear something very different from the other side of the House, I will be opposing the Conservative amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this debate began, we have been hearing people say that we should be there and others saying that we should not. On this side of the House, we have always believed that Canada must be present.

However, one thing I remember is that we decided to send the CF-18s because we did not want to put our soldiers at risk. Now, that is what is going to happen. We are going to put them at greater risk. We must always remember why we sent the CF-18s. At that time, we had just completed another military intervention.

How does the NDP believe that we can combat the so-called Islamic State if we do nothing and we are not even there? Should we send our soldiers flowers?

What does the NDP suggest the government do to combat ISIL, a group made up of bloodthirsty and barbaric people who kill women and children without remorse? I would like to hear a real proposal from the NDP.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member saying we send flowers is perhaps not appropriate for this type of debate. This is a very serious issue and we are talking about people dying. That is why we raise the point that we do. We have a legitimate concern that this mission is not thought through, that it has no exit strategy, that it really will not share any conception of casualties.

The Conservatives are keen to rush in any time the dog whistle is blown and they have to go off and kill people. That is fine, but that is not how we think in the NDP. We think that we have to have clear guidelines and parameters of missions. It is also very helpful to have clear directives from the UN Security Council, which we do not have in this case.

Again, we have hawks, always hawks, on that side of the House, and that is not how we work here in the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to flesh this out a little more in terms of when the NDP would feel it appropriate to get engaged.

I do not think there is any real surprise on this side of the House that the NDP will be voting against the motion. However, the challenge is trying to understand what role the NDP believes the Canadian Forces should be playing regarding combatting terrorism, particularly terrorism abroad. I wonder if the member could provide some sense to Canadians of the NDP's perspective. What does it take or to what degree are the NDP members at all inclined to use members of the Canadian Forces?

Members of the Canadian Forces do phenomenal work for us, and we are all very honoured by the things they do. However, to what degree and what would it take for the NDP to actually support using the Canadian Forces to combat terrorism? I think Canadians have a right to know that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my family has a long military history. No one in past generations related to me would shirk from any fight, especially when it comes to defensive wars, like World War I and World War II. I do think that the NDP would say in those circumstances that, of course, we have to have armed forces ready to fight in those circumstances.

However, it is the government's responsibility to convince us that this is a good mission, and it has not done that. It has waffled.

The one word I have not heard from the Liberals through this whole debate is “peacekeeping”. We have had this kind of light commitment to it during the election, but I do not hear it from that side. It used to be Canada's pride and joy that we were the peacekeepers of the world. We were the country that people came to when they wanted to settle disputes. I don't hear it from that side.

I hear combat missions and how we have to beat people into submission. That is not the image that I want to portray Canada to be, and my constituents do not want that either. I would like to hear more about peacekeeping from these members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

I am pleased to take part in this important decision regarding Canada's refocused approach to the situation in Iraq and Syria.

We must always keep in mind our ultimate goal: peace and stability in the region and the eradication of ISIL. As we debate our current and future involvement, we must consider how this conflict is evolving, the critical follow-on phases of the mission, all possible contributions the Canadian Armed Forces can make, and which roles and capability the coalition needs the most.

In past missions, following the initial military engagements, control of regions had fallen to extremists in some parts of the world. Part of the reason for this is because some may have underestimated the importance of those follow-on phases. We do not want to make the same mistake again. By taking a leadership role as we transition to the next phase, we will secure and safeguard all the gains made by our CF-18s and the other forces in the air campaign, and all the work that has already been done.

It is the overwhelming consensus of the coalition that a well-trained and properly-equipped local security force is of critical importance as we transition to this critical next phase.

We will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies on the ground by providing them with the appropriate training and tools to set the conditions for their success. While our support is necessary to set these conditions today, we aim to ultimately enable our local partners in the region to maintain this stability themselves.

This is why just last week, in consultation with our allies and consistent with the evolving needs of the mission, we made the commitment to tripling our training, advise, and assist capacity in Northern Iraq.

The Canadian Armed Forces has a strong record in training local forces.

While no two missions are the same, there are lessons to be drawn from past experiences.

From May 2011 to March 2014, Canadian Armed Forces members were deployed on Operation Attention, a training mission based out of Kabul, Afghanistan. They did incredible and invaluable work, establishing basic individual recruit training institutions and helping to train more than 160 battalion-sized units. Canadian Armed Forces members also provided specialized training in fields such as combat first aid, logistic signals, and target designation.

However, the mission provided so much more. The advice and assistance we provided helped Afghan forces become self-sufficient, so that they are now protecting their own national sovereignty.

We are also seeing positive results from our ongoing training efforts in Ukraine, through Operation Unifier, in which a contingent of 200 Canadian Armed Forces members is providing military training and capacity-building to Ukraine's personnel. Working closely with our allies, we are supporting the country with its efforts to maintain sovereignty, security, and stability in the region. The Royal Canadian Engineers are training Ukrainian forces in the skills they need to prevent the devastation from explosive threats, including unexploded ordinances and mines.

Due to the nature of the recent Ukrainian armed forces' operations, military personnel are required to operate in urban environments, a skill that the Canadian Armed Forces mastered during our tours in Afghanistan. We are also teaching them how to efficiently conduct searches for weapons, ammunition, and parts used to build improvised explosive devices that may be deliberately hidden or disguised. These practical and tactical skills will dramatically increase the effectiveness of the Ukrainian armed forces.

Through these missions, such as Op Attention and Op Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces is helping nations set the conditions for long-term peace, stability, and prosperity in troubled regions all over the world, and we are viewed as experts in just this kind of mission.

With the help of a training program designed by the Canadian Armed Forces members, and in conjunction with the United Kingdom and the United States, Ukrainian soldiers are learning advanced military skills.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been training, advising, and assisting Iraqi security forces since September 2014. The Minister of National Defence visited the region in December to spend time with our troops, assess the situation on the ground, and meet with coalition partners.

This trip provided the minister with valuable insight into hardships faced by those living in the region, the challenges our Canadian Armed Forces members are facing, and what precisely is required to achieve our goal: the eradication of ISIL and stability in the region.

The work our Canadian Armed Forces members are doing is absolutely essential. Without this work, the chances of long-term success in the region would be greatly diminished. We are extremely proud of their efforts and stand behind them 100%. First, they are aiding local security forces in operational planning. This has led to more precise and successful operations. Second, they are working with commanders to determine, design, and implement the skills they need to defeat ISIL on the ground. They are assisting local security forces by implementing a training regime to hone these fighting skills. Then our mentors will be able to create development programs to build on the skills that local forces have already acquired. The Canadian Armed Forces are also providing advice and assistance to local security forces on how to apply these valuable lessons on the battlefield.

We are also teaching Iraqi security forces in basic shooting and marksmanship skills, platoon, and indirect weapons support skills. This enables them to fire more accurately and more effectively and to engage targets farther than before. It also reduces the risk of casualties and collateral damage.

The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces currently deployed have also assisted by providing combat first aid training. Another focus of our training mission is providing tactical mobility by teaching the Iraqi security forces how to detect and avoid IEDs. We learned a lot from our experience in Afghanistan through our counter improvised explosive device task force, which focuses on disarming these explosive devices and dismantling the network responsible for financing, creating, and planting the explosives. I am happy to let my colleagues know that according to Canadian Armed Forces' reports, these local forces have successfully located and neutralized several IEDs, saving tens, maybe even hundreds, of lives.

Furthermore, our men and women in uniform are intimately aware of the need to respect the rule of law, and the tenets of the law of armed conflict are infused in every program of instruction they offer.

The success of our mission in Iraq will be determined by the effectiveness of local ground forces in co-operation with our security partners. We are proud of the progress to date. In other words, local security forces are manifestly better now than they were when we started, but more more is needed. They are now taking the fight to ISIL. We are helping, but they are the ones fighting, and that fight is more efficient and effective, thanks to our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, today in the valley it is known as Red Friday. During the Afghanistan mission, two military wives, Lisa Miller and Karen Boire, started a tradition that spread right across Canada, wearing red on Friday to remember every week the soldiers who gave their lives and spilled their blood in Afghanistan.

How can the member over there stand under the pretext of representing military families when today the minister admitted to withdrawing the CF-18s before putting other proper protection in place? The best way to ensure that military families are taken care of is to ensure that their loved ones come home all in one piece.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a military family. Using cheap political rhetoric to score points on the backs of military families is way below the dignity deserving of this House. That is absolutely unacceptable.

The honest thing to admit is that I got splashed yesterday. The nice gray suit I normally wear with my red shirt, well, I am afraid it was unsuitable to be worn this morning. Sometimes those kinds of things just happen.

I have been to Afghanistan. I have flown the skies of Afghanistan. I have driven the roads. I know what it takes to make these kinds of missions a success. This coalition needs Canada's leadership in these follow-on phases, because without it we will not be able to secure and safeguard the progress we have made.

This is Canada's role. This is the kind of leadership this coalition needs. We are stepping up to the plate to provide it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day, trying to find out what the end goal of this mission is. I think I have found it. It is to eradicate.

That is the word that was spoken on the other side of the House. Eradicate, similar to exterminate. Is this the end goal of this mission, to eradicate ISIS? Is it to have zero left?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we want the eradication of all of the evil that has been perpetrated by ISIL. This is what needs to happen.

As long as we leave them with territory they can control where they can influence the lives of the people who live there, there is definitely the potential that ISIL can return and start the fight over again.

We know these people will not give up easily, and neither should we. This will not be an easy fight. It will go on for a while, but what we are going to contribute to this mission is worthwhile. Without controlling, without eradicating that kind of ideology, the one that is spread by ISIL, we will not be able to create the kind of long-term stability and peace that we want in the region.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have stated regularly that we do support the humanitarian efforts, the efforts on the ground, that the government has talked about. We do support that.

However, I have yet to hear anyone say that these air missions are no longer needed. Did the allies say they have enough capacity and can do it without us?

What we are missing, and I have not heard a good explanation for this, is the still critical role of air strikes. How can the parliamentary secretary justify stepping back from combat when it is perhaps needed the most?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I worked in the NATO air headquarters for four years in Germany. I understand the power of the coalition. I understand their capabilities and what they have to offer.

I also know what role Canada is prized for. Our F-18s, our air power, yes, it is recognized as amongst the best, top of the scale, but so is our ability to go on the ground, train soldiers, and create the long-term stability.

We are just saying that we are changing our focus, because we need to get in there and protect what we have gained. That will not get done unless we are there training local security forces.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Canada's diplomatic engagement in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. As the Prime Minister and members of cabinet have said, we are approaching the fight against ISIL through a comprehensive, integrated, succinct plan strengthened by active diplomacy.

Our diplomatic engagement builds on military efforts, and on humanitarian assistance and development support that we will be providing to the region. Our comprehensive strategy will contribute to the security and stability of the entire region, both in Iraq and beyond Iraq. Our integrated strategy will bring together resources and experience drawn from throughout government and Canada's international partners. Our multi-year commitment addresses the nature of this complex and protracted conflict, and enables us to seek and support long-term solutions.

Diplomacy is a long-term proposition, and so too is our diplomatic engagement strategy which seeks lasting political solutions. After all, the Syrian crisis we are facing today started as part of the Arab Spring, when the Syrian people called for freedom and dignity. We all know that they need our help. They need our support as they work to repel ISIL, and to build a better future for themselves. The people of the region need our help in ways that are non-military. They need our leadership to engage with key players in the region to support efforts at mediation, reconciliation, and peace negotiations. They need our assistance to strengthen local conflict management and local governance. If we are not doing these things now, we cannot defeat ISIL over the longer term. Canada is well placed to play a strong diplomatic role. We have expertise from years of hard work at the centre of peace negotiations, regional security initiatives, conflict prevention programming, transitional justice, and institutional reform. The international community welcomes our engagement in this way.

Turning to our diplomatic effort in Syria and Iraq, it is quite clear that without a broader political settlement in Syria and without inclusive government in Iraq, together with the greater capacity of Iraqi forces, the crisis will continue. This has been mentioned by every member of the House over the course of this debate. Our approach recognizes this fully and recognizes that this has been raised very well by everyone. Without ongoing diplomatic effort, the sources of instability will remain and will re-emerge, even though the threat from ISIL may have been defeated. In Iraq, we will work with the Iraqi government to ensure that our support reflects our desire to respect and protect the territorial integrity of the country.

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi inherited a daunting set of challenges when he was appointed over a year ago. Since then, he has made notable progress on the political front. He has established a balanced government that is inclusive of major ethno-religious groupings. He has undertaken reforms in the security sector, improving the collaboration and recruitment of Sunni tribal forces in the fight against ISIL. He has reached out to leaders of the Kurdistan regional government and taken steps to resolve long-standing tensions related to revenue sharing and oil exports. More recently, he has undertaken an ambitious reform agenda, aiming to root out corruption and improve the delivery of basic services. Though progress has been made on the political front, significant challenges remain. Obviously, years of division and mutual distrust cannot be undone quickly. The Iraqi parliament remains heavily polarized, which has slowed the pace of reform and impeded the advancement of key legislation.

Iraq's internal fragility is exacerbated by the conflict in neighbouring Syria. Syria requires a lasting political solution as well, endorsed and supported with the full weight and intent of the international community. Otherwise, we cannot create the conditions for the Syrian people to withstand extremism. To that end, Canada will remain a steadfast partner for the United Nations and the International Syria Support Group in our mutual ongoing effort to reach a solution. We urge all parties to undertake necessary steps to make it possible to return to the negotiating table to save lives and to advance peace. We will stick with Syria in this.

The conflicts in Syria and Iraq continue to destabilize the very neighbouring countries that are key to ensuring broader regional stability. Jordan and Lebanon are among the countries of the region most affected by the Syrian crisis. Along with Turkey, they have absorbed the burden of hosting millions of refugees, with thousands more arriving at their borders every day seeking shelter from the horror.

This is the greatest human crisis since World War II. Lebanon and Jordan are struggling under the weight of a crushing burden. Lebanon currently hosts over one million refugees from Syria, and yet its population is barely more than four million. As such, Lebanon has the highest rate of refugees per capita in the world. This unprecedented flow of refugees threatens the stability of the Lebanese state and its institutions.

Tensions in adjacent host communities are heightened, as people experience the strain of severe competition for underfunded services and the stress of scarce employment opportunity. The Jordanian and Lebanese people need the support of the international community. These continuing pressures threaten to widen the sectarian fault lines in Lebanon, with consequences for the precarious political and social balance that holds this country together, barely.

The influx of refugees also presents challenges to Jordan's ability to respond to the expectations of its own population, and this fuels the type of socio-economic and political marginalization that can potentially drive individuals toward extremism. Countries such as Jordan and Lebanon need sustained support. Their ability to withstand pressure from the crisis in neighbouring Syria is integral to the wider stability of the region.

The recent outpouring of generosity by Canadians welcoming refugees throughout our country reflects Canadians' desire to act and to make a difference, in the same way that Canadian individuals, families, associations, and communities have become actively involved. This government is making a positive difference to our concerted regional engagement effort to strengthen economic, social, and political resilience in Jordan and Lebanon. We will encourage those political leaders to embrace compromise and work together to secure a stable future.

Only realistic and lasting political solutions, achieved through sustained diplomatic efforts, will help to resolve the challenges that Syria and Iraq face. Moderate, tolerant, local voices, supported by Canadian diplomatic efforts in concert with our international allies, can help to stabilize the region. A Canadian policy of diplomatic engagement utilizes our strength and complements the wider coalition efforts.

Canada is among the foremost humanitarian donors to this crisis. We are a leader among development donors in targeting assistance to building the resilience of the region. Canada has set an example by opening our doors and committing to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees. We have demonstrated that this can be done efficiently and without compromising our security or values. In the process, we have strengthened Canada's role in the world.

The warmth and generosity of Canadians has not gone unnoticed by the Syrians, nor by our Turkish, Jordanian, and Lebanese partners in this operation. The broader international community has recognized Canada's compassion and contribution.

In conclusion, our strategy recognizes the scope and complexity of the ongoing crisis. It recognizes the need to reinforce Iraq's capacity and to assist Jordan and Lebanon. It recognizes the role that Canada has to play in this effort, and increases our contribution to the coalition. Diplomacy is a fundamental part of our comprehensive plan for the fight against ISIL, and I am very pleased to share that with members of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her intervention. As she knows, we support the parts of the mission that involve more humanitarian relief. It follows on what we started as the Conservative government in the last Parliament, making sure we are there to help those who are most in need: displaced people, refugees; and providing education opportunities, shelter, clothing, food, and working with all of the credible agencies in the region.

Our concern with some of the comments from the Minister of International Development are around whether aid dollars may end up in the hands of some of the terrorists. I am trying not to be discriminatory in how aid dollars flow, but I do not think there is a single Canadian who will accept any of their tax dollars being used for humanitarian relief that flows into agencies that direct them into the hands of ISIS terrorists, Hezbollah, or Hamas. We know of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, which has taken dollars and aid and generated revenues to put back into the Assad regime so he can continue his civilian war: bombing, poisoning, and killing his own citizens.

I want to receive assurances from the government that will not happen. If the Liberals continue on the path of saying they will not discriminate or try to dictate how Canadian dollars are spent on relief, I want them to rethink that. I want them to make sure we are only providing humanitarian relief to the most needy, those who are being displaced and persecuted by ISIS and the other terrorist groups in the region.