Debates of Feb. 19th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his assiduous attention to my comments. It is very good when members of the House come together in support of the fight against ISIL. Of course, I am happy to extend my assurances with regard to aid money that flows. We have said this repeatedly and we will pay strict attention to that, particularly because of the outpouring of support and confidence that Canadians have shown toward each and every one of us in the fight against ISIL.

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

Mr. Speaker, we truly are seeking clarity on the government's proposal to help Canadians decide if this is the correct approach, so I have three questions for my colleague.

First of all, stopping the flow of arms to ISIS is critical. It cannot fight a war without weapons. Why has the Liberal government not yet signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty?

Second, what criteria would the member use to gauge the success of Canada's mission, and, third, what is the government's exit strategy?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to be acceding to the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It is unfortunate that the previous government did not do that. However, once we have conducted our due diligence, we will absolutely be joining the original signatories to that.

The success of the Canadian mission will be gauged partly by our ability to work with the 65 countries that are in this coalition to make our contribution. As I have said in my remarks, this is a long-term strategy. We are making a diplomatic effort that we see going far into the future. As the military effort has success, we are there on the ground rebuilding civil society and working in advance around the areas of conflict to ensure that it takes hold.

With regard to our exit strategy, I would think we will be moving ultimately from our military effort toward attenuation, even with the humanitarian effort, because ultimately we have stable, independent democracies operating in that area. That is a long-haul vision for our government, and we are approaching it by this integrated manner which I described.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I am pleased to rise on this debate in part as the former minister of defence, to thank the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for their brilliant service to this country in her defence, in the defence of human dignity against a genocidal terrorist organization which simply must be stopped.

Daesh is not a traditional political movement. It is an organization that is trying to eliminate all peoples, including the oldest Middle Eastern peoples, who do not share their ideas or their theology of violence and murder.

This is a death cult that seeks the complete destruction of all of those who do not share its distorted theology, its effort to create a caliphate, and to impose on the entire region, and perhaps the entire world in their distorted minds, a particularly violent iteration of 7th-century sharia law.

It is always important in this debate that we remind ourselves of the nature of this organization. This is where the position of the Liberal government has gone wrong. Quite simply, if we listen carefully to many of the statements of the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of National Defence, and other members of the Liberal government, we will hear what I submit is a radical misunderstanding of the nature of threat that we face.

We heard in this place the bizarre suggestion by the Minister of Defence that the millenarian death cult of ISIL was somehow the creation of climate change. We recall the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister following the Boston bombing, which was motivated by the same kind of ideology and hatred. He suggested that somewhere there must be people who feel excluded. We have heard from Liberal MPs the suggestion that Daesh is just another manifestation of a reaction to western foreign policy, or an unequal distribution of wealth. All of these attributed motives indicate a radical misunderstanding of the nature of the threat that we face.

Let us be clear. Daesh does not seek a conventional political outcome. It does not seek a change in economic policy. It is not a reflection of climate. It is a death cult that is motivated by dystopian theology that seeks to impose a caliphate and to eliminate, in the most brutal fashion imaginable, all of those who stand in its way. This is why we, the civilized world, can have no quarter in, not opposing, but eliminating this threat.

Here is the challenge. As long as Daesh is seen by potential recruits, often young men who are seduced by its idea of a caliphate, as long as it is seen to be on the winning side of history, as long as it is seen to be the fulfillment of that Quranic prophecy, more and more will go to join Daesh. That is why we, the civilized world, must demonstrate that it is on the losing side of history, that it is not the realization of the prophecy of a caliphate but rather, just a bunch of murderous thugs, and incompetent ones at that.

It is in diminishing and eventually destroying the organization, and in the long run its affiliated organizations around the world, that we can stop the flow of new recruits, new energy resources, and prestige to that organization.

That is why the previous government in consultation with all of our allies, including the sovereign Republic of Iraq, the United States, and all of our traditional allies, decided upon a multi-faceted strategy to counter and ultimately destroy Daesh.

I find the current government's claim a bit puzzling.

That is why we invested. I find it puzzling that the current government claims to have invented the idea of a multi-faceted strategy to counter Daesh, including development and diplomacy.

The previous Conservative government was the fifth-largest donor of humanitarian assistance for victims of Daesh in Iraq and the region. The previous government welcomed nearly 25,000 Iraqi refugees. The current government, on the other hand, has closed the door to these refugees with its current policy. The previous government engaged all of the partners on the diplomatic front.

I was in Baghdad with the former prime minister to meet Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi. We were in Erbil, in northern Iraq, to meet Barzani and the leaders of the Kurdish regional government. That is why we organized the summit for the most important partners in the military campaign against Daesh last year in Quebec City. I think it is disgusting that Canada was not included in the same meeting this year.

That means the former Conservative government had a comprehensive strategy: humanitarian, diplomatic, for refugees and military. All of our partners called on Canada to contribute to the air campaign. I am very proud, and we should all be proud of the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who flew over 2,000 sorties since the beginning of the mission and conducted more than 200 air strikes.

Our men and women in the RCAF have successfully hit over 200 ISIS targets, degrading that organization, eliminating equipment, reducing its personnel and its power to inflict genocide on the innocent people of that region. Let us all express our gratitude to them.

However, the government has invented endless, often contradictory, and typically incoherent rationale for its policy of retreat from the combat element of this campaign. By the way, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister do not even seem to be able to answer the question to whether the mission they propose in the motion constitutes a combat mission. Of course, it does not, as clarified by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Vance, yesterday.

Let me be clear about this. The rationale is simple, crass, and political. When the previous Conservative government proposed to participate in the international air campaign against Daesh, the current Prime Minister, then leader of the third party, said infamously that the only reason for this was that the former prime minister wanted to “...whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are”. This was a juvenile, puerile, immature reflection on the most serious security question the House had faced in a very long time.

It was a political calculation in a competition with our passivist friends in the NDP not to participate in that mission. It was criticized by former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, by former Liberal leader Bob Rae, by former ministers like Ujjal Dosanjh, Jean Lapierre, and so many others who understood that the Liberal Party used to represent a spirit of responsible internationalism, that we never stood by idly when others were in the fight against evil, particularly of a genocidal nature.

The government suggests that an air campaign is not sufficient to defeat Daesh. Of course, it is not. Nor is a ground campaign led by the Iraqis sufficient to defeat Daesh. However, both are necessary. Both elements are necessary but not sufficient. This is why we will oppose this motion. Canada should have a strategy that operates at all levels, including at the level of combat, and it is not in keeping with the best values and traditions of our country to abandon the fight as the government is doing.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives talk extensively about their support of soldiers, of veterans, of wars, of fights. While pushing that agenda, the Conservatives attempted to destroy peacekeeping as a Canadian value. I suppose having peace is not good for those who prefer war.

However, it is very important to check with the member, the former minister of defence, why, if his leadership in war has been so good, if his vision in war has been so clear, did every one of the Afghanistan war veterans in the House, and there are four here who served in that theatre under that former minister of defence, choose to endorse his brilliant leadership by running against him as Liberals?

Does he doubt the wisdom of those military personnel to whom he claims to have listened?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election. I would point out that I did not have the honour of being minister of defence during our mission in Afghanistan, a mission that was launched by previous Liberal government, under the premiership of the former prime minister, Paul Martin.

However, if he wants to talk about military-serving personnel, when I visited our Royal Canadian Air Force personnel at our two bases in Kuwait, every one of them, the pilots, the ground personnel, the junior and senior officers, all said that this was the mission of their lives, that this was why they joined the Royal Canadian Air Force, that this was why they donned the Canadian uniform. It was precisely to fight against a genocidal organization like this on behalf of Canada.

Does the member suggest that this party prefers war? Does he really believe that? Does he really believe that peacekeeping is the appropriate response to the genocidal terrorism of Daesh? That speaks volumes about the mentality in today's Liberal Party. It does not share the values of Canada's historic defence of human dignity.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a s I mentioned before in the House earlier today, I am the parent of two Canadian Forces members. As such, I understand the role they have decided to play in protecting our country. I understand that Canada is playing a part in a coalition, and that is part of a team. We have something to bring to the table and therefore we are.

Why is the hon. member so convinced that he has to send my sons to war?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her election. I would like to thank her sons, through her, for their service to our country. Of course men and women who join the Royal Canadian Air Force, the army, and the Royal Canadian Navy do so because they want to serve our country and they are prepared to serve when Canada's interests are at stake and when they are deployed.

However, quite honestly, I find the member's question somewhat confusing because the policy of the government which she supports, reflected in the motion before the House, actually elevates the risk for our military personnel.

There is no contention, I believe, that the air campaign is an extraordinarily low-risk campaign. There is no aerial threat to the operations of the RCAF, and the government proposes to continue most aerial operations, though the Polaris refuellers and the Aurora reconnaissance aircraft. However, the government proposes to increase the number of ground personnel that are situated close to the forward line of our own troops, which is clearly where there is an elevated degree of risk.

If the member is concerned about the level of risk in Canada's participation in the fight against ISIL, I cannot understand why she supports the motion.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today. Those of us who have been here for a while have almost seen this conflict roll out in several chapters. Some of us will remember 2003, the beginning of the Iraq War, when the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the conflict that took place in Iraq over the period of time following that. It ended up with almost a civil war in the country.

In 2005-06 I believe it was then that Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister of the country. There was some hope when he was elected that there would be some elements that would put peace in place, and that he would build some institutions there that would serve the Iraqi people very well.

Unfortunately, he chose to be a leader who was more divisive than helpful. The Sunni minority was soon alienated there, and many of the problems that we are still facing today came out of the activity of that government and the failure of that government to be able to welcome and bring people together within Iraq. It came at a time, as well, when the support the government needed there, the strength that was being supplied by some of the military from outside Iraq, was reduced as well.

We saw those kinds of conflicts begin to re-emerge in Iraq. We are all familiar, as well, with Syria, and the fact that the Assad family has been in power there for many years. If I remember correctly, I think we are all aware that was considered one of the rogue governments. It was on a par, basically, with North Korea and some others that were seen as sponsors of terror, but also basically terrorist governments that were holding their own people hostage, threatening them, torturing them, and had one of the worst human rights records in the world.

In 2011, when the Arab Spring unrest began in the Middle East, Syria was impacted by that as well. It took a little longer than with some of the other countries, but certainly unrest spread there, and soon it began to respond as it always did with violent crackdowns, and basically a civil war has emerged out of that.

We find that area in the conflict that it is in today, the conflict that has been so much a part of its past. Through all of this time, there were different organizations that were arising, kind of forming and reforming within the area. In 1999 to 2003, we saw the development of a number of organizations that ended up coming together and then forming what is now known as ISIS or ISIL.

In 2013-14, virtually everyone was surprised by the sudden emergence and the surge that this organization was able to show and the amount of territory it was able to take over.

It was interesting that in July 2013, I believe the Syrian government had approximately 40% of the country's territory and 60% of the population, and two years later it had shrunk to an area of about 30,000 kilometres, and only 16% of the country was controlled by that government. That was an example in Syria, but it was similar in Iraq, the area and the territory that the government lost because it was not able to provide security for its people.

We are familiar with the situation that took place in Mosul, the massacres that took place when ISIL moved through there, and particularly in the Sinjar Mountains with the Yazidis who were living their lives. They had their own religion, their own culture. ISIL swept through there, slaughtered as many of the men as they could find, and took the women and girls hostage. Many of those young women and girls have been turned into sex slaves. They have been traded, bought, and sold.

I had the opportunity to be on the foreign affairs committee last Parliament, and that was a topic of conversation. Several of our meetings were talking about the situation that particularly the Yazidis found themselves in. However, many other minority groups in the area were obliterated by ISIL as it moved through the area.

Through all of this, we have been partners in a coalition that has been trying to push back ISIL, and particularly recently has been very successful in that. We can see the area that ISIL had earlier on and the area that it has now. We can see that it is being forced back. It cannot happen any too soon.

We have been very effective. We have been a part of a coalition that started in 2014, kind of on the sidelines of a NATO meeting. Countries came together and put the coalition together. Canada was proud to be part of that. Our contribution has been large. It has been in a number of areas. It has covered most of the areas that we see mentioned in the Liberal motion today. I want to talk about that a little later, if I have time.

We have been particularly successful in terms of how we have been able to use our fighter jets.

Our CF-18s have been a major part of the coalition. Canada has been a major contributor to it. From the information I have received, we have run almost 1,400 sorties, 800 aircraft flights, over 250 air strikes, and over 400 ISIS targets have been destroyed.

One of the reasons this is critical is because ISIS depends so much on oil revenue. It depends on foreign currency and being able to buy and sell that oil. Canada has been effective in destroying those targets. We have seen recently that we have been able to disrupt that supply line.

My colleague talked a couple of days ago in the House about how those supply lines have finally been disrupted, to the point that ISIL fighters are now fleeing to Libya and other places. ISIL has lost its money. It has lost its source of revenue. It is not able to pay its fighters and it is starting to break down. It is unfortunate that just at the time when these things are taking place, our government has decided that it is time to cut and run. This is not the appropriate time to do that.

I want to talk a bit about the government's motion. From those of us who have been here and understand the situation, a lot of this looks like window dressing. Most of what the Liberals are suggesting we have been doing effectively.

There is one place, among others, that we would completely disagree with the government, and that has been the government's focus on changing the mission. When I read in the motion that the government wants to refocus, I do not see this as refocusing a military contribution. I see it as weakening the military contribution.

We have talked here in the last few days about why the government would elevate the risk. The last question that was asked in here was about the risk that our troops would be put under. Why would the government want to elevate risk? There may be good reasons why we need to elevate risk if we are engaged in a situation like this, but why would we reduce our combat capability at the same time? It does not make any sense. The government is going to move ahead with putting people in place who will be at risk. The government does not seem to be able to answer the questions that we have been asking in the House. It cannot tell us how it is going to protect our troops there. We completely disagree. This refocus is not a refocus but a weakening of our military capacity that will put our troops at risk.

The motion talks about improving the living conditions of conflict-affected populations. We have been a big part of that discussion over the last few years on the foreign affairs committee. We talked a lot, particularly to refugee communities, and asked them what they would like, what we could do to help.

In light of our discussion about our refugees over the last few months, it is interesting to note that virtually all witnesses who came to committee said they would like to go back to their home village. They would like to have peace. They would like to go back to the life they had before. Whether it was Yazidis, Syrian Christians, or Kurds, they wanted this settled so they could go back and live their lives as they did before.

We needed to build strong institutions. That continues to be a need in the area. That was one of the reasons why, when the Arab Spring broke out, a lot of people in that area had great hope for what would happen. However, the institutions that needed to be put in place at that time were not strong enough to handle the opportunity that they had.

We talk about investing significantly in humanitarian assistance. We have done that in the past. We are proud of the commitment that we made. There is a challenge. In order to deliver that humanitarian assistance, we need to have a secure situation. We have heard time and time again about the challenge to deliver, for example, food aid securely. We heard that food aid was being hijacked. We heard that in Syria in particular the government would take over the food aid. There was no idea where it was going. Without a strong military presence, without that strong military capacity, we cannot even guarantee that humanitarian aid will get to where it needs to go.

It is all fine and well for the government to talk about these things but we need to understand that it is not going to have the capacity to be able to deliver on the kinds of things it is talking about.

We have heard from the other side that there are all kinds of reasons why this has happened. Climate change was mentioned. The defence minister talked about how this is a criminal organization, that this is all about criminal activity. The reality is that in order to deal with this death cult, as my colleague called it, we need to have a strong military capacity, a strong military response. We need to be part of a coalition that can do that.

I am afraid we are just not doing our job. We are not pulling our weight. We did in the past and we need to do that again. The Liberal government needs to reconsider the direction it is going in.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague on many committees here in Ottawa.

We heard a rather extraordinary statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs just a few minutes ago. She thought the whole purpose of the Liberal mission was to eradicate ISIS. I used the word “exterminate” and she did not disagree. It seems that eradicate seems to be the end goal of the Liberal mission.

Could the hon. Conservative member tell me if his party agrees that is the objective of this mission?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to get rid of ISIS. We need to get it out of that place. This ideology is not going away easily.

I spoke earlier about having witnesses at committee who talked about their status and the fact that they wanted to get back to their communities. What people in these war-torn areas want to see is peace and quiet so they can go back to their lives, raise their children, and put their families back together. We will not be able to do that as long as this ideology is being permeated throughout the area.

One of the ways that we can deal with that is with a strong military capacity. The government wants to weaken that, and it will be unable to deliver the things it has talked about, such as institutional strength and humanitarian aid without a strong military capacity.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear a number of phrases being used by the members opposite, such as the weakening of our military contribution, and cutting and running. I fear this seriously diminishes Canada's contribution to this, and the strong contribution we continue to have. By suggesting that removing our jets means we are no longer providing a constructive contribution to this is seriously concerning.

Could the member opposite explain his comments? Does he think our contribution now, and others who are contributing, is not worth anything?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the difference in the reaction of the government over the last few months to that of other governments around the world, governments that we consider to be allies. For example, after the November 13 Paris attacks, France thought it was important to expand its air strikes. The United States has expanded its air strikes against ISIS following the attacks on Paris, Beirut, Mali, and San Bernardino. It is committed to investing more into the forces working on the ground as well. The United Kingdom recently approved a motion to expand its air strikes.

Therefore, while our partners understand the need for this, the Liberal government has completely failed to understand that. It is pulling back instead of participating in moving ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect back on the comments from across the House this morning made by the parliamentary secretary who admitted there would be an increased risk for the troops on the ground and that simply increasing that number would multiply that effect. He seemed to show no regard for what that risk might lead to or the number of casualties that might cause. I was as if the Liberals had no concern with respect to that.

I want to ask the member on this side if they would have a different concern about that increased risk and what his thoughts would be on that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is an increased risk in at least two places.

The first is the increased risk it poses for our troops. Yesterday my colleague asked the minister if he was prepared to take full responsibility for removing the protection that our troops needed.

The other place that the increased risk shows up is on our territory, in our country. Clearly, ISIS has called for attacks against Canada. It wants to operate here. Thankfully, to this point, we have been able to hold it back, and we expect that to continue. My question for the government is this. If it does not believe that threats like these require some sort of military participation and a strong military response, when would it fight?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to stand in the House to address many of the issues that come before us. Let there be no doubt that on the issue of putting our men and women of the Canadian Forces in harm's way, we should all take this very seriously and, where possible, try to contribute to the discussions.

I have listened at great length to members on all sides of the House who have contributed to the debate and in many ways we will have to agree to disagree. I like to think of some of the strengths on the government side.

I served in the Canadian Forces, which was a great privilege, for just over three years. That is a rather small period in number of years when compared to a number of my caucus colleagues. Whether they are generals or leaders of regiments performing in Afghanistan or anywhere around the world, there are Liberal caucus members who have been engaged. As indicated earlier, mothers of young adults are engaged today.

There is a great deal of interest in the issue of when we call upon our men and women to go abroad or even to perform work within Canada. We cannot express enough gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices they and their family members make.

I want to specifically comment on a number of issues, to which the Conservatives need to listen. They seem to be of the impression that for Canada to be engaged, there have to be CF-18s, and that if the CF-18s are not engaged, then the Canadian Forces are not engaged.

I am very proud of our CF-18s and the many people who flown them over the years. In fact, I served in Edmonton, in Lancaster Park, which had the longest runway at the time, 14,000 feet. I was an air traffic control assistant, which means I watched CF-18 after CF-18 touch down and take off. I was also afforded the opportunity to meet with numerous pilots. No doubt we have some of the best-trained pilots in the world, but along with that, we have technicians and engineers, and many different personnel in occupations within the Canadian Forces. We should be proud of each and every one of them and the contributions they provide when it comes time for Canada to get engaged.

Here is the difference between the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party, and the New Democrats. The Conservative Party, on the one hand, says that there is no such thing as getting the Canadian Forces engaged unless the CF-18s are there. On the other hand, the New Democrats seem to be of the opinion that Canada has no role to play when it comes to fighting terrorism or, at the very least, fighting ISIL. That is what is becoming very clear and apparent in the debate.

We disagree, and it is not only Liberals in the chamber who disagree. We just went through an election and there was a very clear indication from the Prime Minister that if Liberals formed government, the CF-18s would not be part of the Canadian Forces' contribution in fighting ISIL in that area. It was very clear that we would support the combat of terrorism in a different way, a more appropriate way, based on what our coalition partners had to say and possibly ask us to do.

Members of the Conservative caucus have stood and said that Liberals did not get 50% of the vote plus one. No, we did not get 50% of the vote plus one, but on this issue, the Liberals, the New Democrats, and the Greens, which far exceed 50% of Canada's population, believe the CF-18s should not be engaged any longer with regard to what is happening in the Middle East.

It was a very clear platform issue, and I listened to Conservative after Conservative say we have to have the F-18s. What they are asking us to do is to break our election platform. Time after time, the Conservatives stand up and ask about our election promises. I will remind each and every one of them that this was an election promise, and it was a good, sound election promise.

I was here for those debates, and I participated in the debates when the government brought in the CF-18s and its approach to combatting ISIL. When the Conservatives did that, even prior to the debate—and Hansard no doubt will show it—I made reference to the Kurdish community that I met in Winnipeg. Their take on this was really interesting. We know that bombing plays a critical role, yes. However, bombing is not going to determine the issue finally and bring it to rest. It is going to be the infrastructure, both social and capital infrastructure, the buildings and so forth. The individuals I met reaffirmed what many are being told, not only here in Canada but all over the place, which is that we have to look at other ways in which Canada can contribute and to question whether providing the CF-18s is the most effective way for Canada to participate.

There is a huge expectation that Canada demonstrate leadership in combatting terrorism, and Canada will do that. A Liberal government will ensure that takes place. Let us look at what the Liberal government is actually doing. It is significantly different from what the previous Conservative government did. We are saying that it is time that we pull the CF-18s out, but that does not mean the bombing will end. There are coalition partners, many of which are very content with Canada's new role in combatting terrorism.

What is Canada actually doing? We are tripling the size of our training force in northern Iraq. That is a significant increase. We will be increasing our intelligence-gathering resources. Intelligence is absolutely critical when combatting terrorism, especially in that region of the world. Actually, all over the world it is critical. We will be increasing our diplomatic role in helping to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria by supporting the UN-sponsored peace process and assisting the efforts of the Iraqi government to foster reconciliation.

More specifically, we will expand our capacity-building efforts with Jordan and Lebanon to help stop the spread of violent extremism. Our humanitarian assistance is going to increase by hundreds of millions of dollars, with a special focus on those who are vulnerable, including children and survivors of sexual- and gender-based violence. We will be looking for international partners to build local capacity to provide basic social services, maintain and rehabilitate public infrastructure, foster inclusive growth and employment, and advance inclusiveness and accountability in governance.

I listened to the former Conservative government's minister of defence. He talked about ISIL. I would not question many of the comments that he made about it, but who is he trying to kid? I do not think there is anyone inside the chamber who supports ISIL. We all want to see the demise of ISIL. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that she was in favour of the eradication of ISIL; I think all Canadians would like to see it eradicated. We are familiar with the horrific, barbaric actions that it takes. No one here supports it. However, we have to acknowledge that sometimes there is a better and more effective way of using our Canadian Forces. We have a lot to offer.

The parliamentary secretary referred to Ukraine as an example. We have members of our forces and others participating in Ukraine today. I am very appreciative of that. As we know, the president of Ukraine also wanted to see Canada involved, and this government has responded to that need by using the Canadian Armed Forces.

I often hear about the issue of peacekeeping. Canada at one time had a very strong reputation in peacekeeping throughout the world. That was greatly diminished by the Conservative government. However, a Liberal government under our leadership is also committed to restoring Canada's leadership role in peacekeeping. Let us not just sell our Canadian Armed Forces short by saying, well, if it is not the CF-18s, we are not contributing.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces cannot be fooled. The forces operate as a team. It is not just one branch here and another branch there and so forth. Even though I was in the regular force for three years, I never participated overseas. However, I had the opportunity when I was in the forces to support that. All members of the Canadian Armed Forces are a team, and that can be extended to include members of their families. All participate in ensuring that we have the most effective forces in the areas we engage in. That is really what is important.

When we talk about tripling our contribution to assisting other forces become better at what they do, we actually have the expertise, the numbers, and the support service to make sure that will happen. Other coalition partners maybe do not have the same qualifications or qualities that we can provide or bring to the table, so why would we not do that?

I believe that the bombing is important and will continue, but it is not necessarily the role that Canada needs to play. We have enhanced significantly our contribution, not only in terms of people resources but also in terms of financial resources, equipment resources, and departmental resources in making our world a safer environment.

That is why we in Liberal caucus recognize that when we talk about world peace, we just cannot stand by and do nothing. That is the attitude of many New Democrats. They do not think outside of Canada's borders. We believe that Canada does have a role to play that goes beyond our borders. If we are going to fight terrorism, we do not wait for it to occur here in Canada. There are other things we can do that will make a difference and that will ultimately make our backyards safer. However, that is not the only motivation.

Canadians have very strong values of compassion and caring, which is one of the reasons we are increasing dramatically the amount of humanitarian care we provide to the region. Not only are we sending resources into the region dealing with that issue, we are also taking in and fast-tracking a significant number of refugees. Some would say that we are fast-tracking them a little too much; others might say we are not doing it fast enough. We will maintain, at the very least, the numbers that we committed to in the last federal election.

We said we would take in 25,000, and I can tell the House that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, other ministers, and many members of the Liberal caucus have talked about how many refugees we have coming to Canada.

We do it because it is the right thing to do, and it is something that Canada has done over a hundred some years. We are getting very close to our 150th anniversary as a nation, and I expect there will be a lot of wonderful events for it, but when we talk about Canadian heritage and values, we have members of this House who came to Canada as refugees. Most individuals here, at one point or another, have come through generations of immigration. We are a very diverse country. We are a country that understands and appreciates our role.

As a relatively young country, we carry a great deal of influence. Based on our population, we do exceptionally well in being able to contribute to what is happening in societies around the world. I think that we should, as much as possible, encourage our government to continue to demonstrate leadership on this issue.

I was very proud of what took place yesterday in the debate on foreign affairs and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs's comments about reaching out and providing education. There is so much more that we could be doing as a country.

At the end of the day, this is a motion that people should get behind. We want to indicate to members with the motion that the issue we are debating today will in fact come back to the House. It will come back two years from now with a new motion on Canada's contribution to the region and on where we might want to go at that point.

One of the things I have noticed, in the name of transparency and accountability, is that members, whether Liberal or from other caucuses, should feel free to communicate what they believe should be taking place, not only formally on the record in the House, but also in the standing committees, or the informal discussions after question period with other ministers. We very much want to build a consensus on this issue.

At the end of the day, I believe everyone agrees that ISIL is a problem in the world today. I believe that most recognize that Canada does have a role to play, and if there are ideas out there, then we should encourage them. We should look to what is taking place with our global partners on the coalition and work with them. I am confident that the coalition will be there going forward, making sure that nations of goodwill that want to be engaged will in fact be able to participate in a way that is most effective.

I would like to conclude my remarks with what I started off with, which is recognizing the fact that our men and women of the Canadian Forces have done phenomenal service for our country throughout the years, and they will continue to do so in whatever is asked of them by the House. However, let us not just limit the applause and give thanks to one small faction. I believe that every one of our forces has contributed to combatting terrorism. I believe that whatever it is that we ask of them, they will do it in an honourable fashion and represent our country well in doing so, keeping all of us safe in our homes.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening, and it happens that I am from the region. I am from Lebanon. I do understand, in great depth, the conflict in the Middle East, and the threat that ISIS is to the region and the whole world. I am amazed and concerned by how short-sighted the government is in the approach it has taken to fighting ISIS, and to finding a solution to being part of the world community in fighting an evil called ISIS.

With all due respect to the insight of members opposite, it is very light. It has no depth whatsoever as to the historical background in the region, how much that is going to affect the whole world, and how we can tackle that. How can it be fought? Instead of trying to pull the CF-18s, which are usually the most effective tools we have, we are pulling our most effective tools and putting troops on the ground for so-called training. It is going to take more than training. It is going to take a battle and fighting. We need to have the power and force in order to fight and win this battle.

Election promises do not win a battle. Election promises do not eliminate ISIS and its threat to the world. This is a great reminder. I would appreciate if the government would stop operating on election promises and its election mood, and move to the real world to work with others to make sure we can fight and win this battle with our allies across the globe.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would have more confidence in the abilities of the global coalition that is there today to fight ISIL. If he did, I am sure it would address many of the concerns that he just expressed.

However, I want to pick up on the point where he indicated that he is of Lebanese heritage. If the member were to read the text of the motion, it states:

(b) improving the living conditions of conflict-affected populations and helping to build the foundations for long-term regional stability of host communities, including Lebanon and Jordan;

The Government of Canada's approach is far more holistic than the Conservatives' approach. When I debated their motions sending our men and women into combat, I do not recall any consideration of that nature being incorporated into their motions. What we need today is a holistic approach when it comes to issues of this nature.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Seeing that it is 2:30 p.m., the next time this motion will be debated, the hon. member will have 6 minutes and 50 seconds remaining for questions.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 22 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)