Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence did two tours in the area to discuss with our coalition partners the needs on the ground and determine Canadian capacities for the different forces in the area.

It is important that we communicate with them, and that is what we did. That is what we promised Canadians that we would do: engage with our coalition partners and have a discussion of where our resources could be best placed. That is what our government has done, basically making sure that we are capacity building in the area and training the local forces so that we can ensure a better future and a long-term commitment.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sudbury for his speech. I worked at the United Nations for more than 23 years and I noted during those 23 years the erosion of our country's reputation because of certain behaviours by the Conservatives. We must improve Canada's image and win back the reputation we once had. There was a time that when Canada spoke, the world listened. That was not so under the Conservatives. I have a simple question for the hon. member for Sudbury.

Does he not think that in this context, it would have been better for this mission to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, or NATO?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In this context, when it comes to the United Nations, where some parties have veto power and make decisions in the region, everyone has their own take on the matter. In the region, there is a coalition of people who want the people on the ground, the Syrians, the Iraqis, to have a better future. In the meantime, there is the fight against ISIL. We are standing with our coalition partners. The Minister of Defence went to the region to discuss the needs and we changed our tune and planned a few changes to the way we provide support. As far as NATO is concerned, I think there is an immediate need and we cannot wait for large organizations like NATO and the UN to come and take part. I am very proud of the government for deciding to change the formula. I strongly believe this will be a winning formula.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech.

We just talked about Canada's reputation. Our intervention in various situations earned us a reputation as a peacekeeper.

How are we going to help these people from a humanitarian perspective?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are going to increase the number of military personnel from 650 to about 800. We want to be sure we can provide training. At the same time, we need to provide immediate humanitarian aid on the ground. In providing that aid, we need to identify what sort of help is needed most. That is why we need people on the ground to identify the immediate needs. That is what we want to do. Those are the results that we will see from the investment that we are going to make in the region.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I would like to begin by thanking the government for providing the House the opportunity to debate its ill-advised decision to diminish Canada's contribution of Operation Impact in the war against Daesh, ISIS, ISIL, call it what one will. I am talking about the death cult that delusionally self-identifies itself as the Islamic State in the Levant.

I also join with colleagues on both sides of the House because we know there are members on the government side who are embarrassed, indeed frustrated, by their leader's “fight fade”. I join them in protesting that this debate is taking place after the fact. It is taking place not before the significant change in Canada's military contribution to the coalition war effort but after the CF-18s were grounded and began staging back to Canada.

Members may have noticed that I used the word “war” twice in the first 30 seconds of my remarks, and that is because I am offended, the official opposition is offended, Canadians are offended, and our coalition partners are most certainly offended by the government's double-talking, hairsplitting rhetorical pettiness in trying to diminish our past and future contributions to the coalition with euphemisms. The Prime Minister, the defence minister, the foreign minister, and the rest on the front benches across the aisle are trying to characterize the military operations in Iraq and Syria without using the word “war” or other clearly spoken characterizations.

It reminds me of Churchill's famous characterization of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. What we have from the government is a non-combat mission wrapped in a combat mission inside a war. The ministers contend that the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed on a non-combat mission, that our expanded ground forces, though operating in and around the front lines of this brutal, destructive, deadly unconventional war are merely trainers, that these trainers will only participate in engagements—in other words, shooting to kill members of the death cult that exists only to murder those they consider apostates—if necessary. The defence minister says that this is the Iraqis' fight, not ours—in other words, as if to say it does not really count.

Believe me, notwithstanding the defence minister's meritorious service in various combat theatres, our men and women in the air and on the ground in Operation Impact take their mission very seriously. On this side of the House, their service and sacrifice does count.

All of the government's explanations and excuses are, of course, befuddling bafflegab because Canada is not withdrawing entirely from the air war. Canadian aircraft and air crews will continue to courageously refuel the strike aircraft of other coalition partners. Canadian aircraft and air crews will continue to courageously provide surveillance for the strike aircraft of other coalition partners and to assist in identifying targets on the ground.

Let us talk a little, if we could, about the ground. The defence minister has made a perfectly logical point that, in the end, Daesh must be defeated on the ground, but he makes that point as if the ultimate victory will not require the absolutely essential multidimensional combination of air support of the ground forces. Our expanded ground forces will bring skills and technology to the Kurdish and Iraqi troops they are training and they will show them how to target enemy positions, to paint targets at close range, to guide bombs and other smart ordinance to those targets. I do not wish to offend any of my Liberal and NDP colleagues, but our special forces professionals will be active participants in killing the enemy. I expect the government would prefer the euphemistic characterization of “threat elimination”.

I have participated in any number of media panels over the past few months with Liberal and NDP colleagues. There have been civil disagreements. The NDP, of course, has never supported Operation Impact and articulates its traditional isolationism as one would expect, but my Liberal friends contort themselves with incoherent attempts to justify exactly why Canada has withdrawn the CF-18s and the skill and daring with which they have contributed to the war against Daesh. We still have not heard anything more logical than keeping a campaign promise, which is illogical when we put it up against the dozens of campaign promises the Liberal government has already broken.

Some of my Liberal colleagues say there are more than enough fighter bombers provided by other nations, by the U.S., by France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Jordan, Morocco and others, and they are correct. In truth, the United States could carry out all of the bombing mission, but the idea of a coalition, the strength and the credibility of a military coalition, comes from the shared participation, the shared risk, the shared commitment to fight evil, to defend democracy and the rule of law and to perform the ultimate humanitarian act of making Iraq and Syria safe again for the millions of displaced civilians who long for the day they may return to rebuild their shattered lives.

By withdrawing the CF-18s, the government has, on one hand, reduced Canada to the second rank, the outer ring of coalition partners, despite the polite offerings that we acknowledge from coalition partners, recognizing our diminished participation.

At the same time on the other hand, Canada is putting more of our ground forces into the war while withdrawing life and death air cover that our ground troops will require now more than ever. Colleagues will remember, I hope, specifically December 17, 2015, when Canadian and Kurdish troops came under unexpected attack by Daesh terrorists near Mosul and were protected by air support from Canadian CF-18s and American, British, and French aircraft.

The next time Canadian special forces fighters need assistance defending themselves—and by expanding the number of Canadian ground troops, as the government has, there most certainly will be more incidents when they will come under fire—and call for air cover protection, their skilled and courageous Royal Canadian Air Force comrades will not be there for them.

In closing, I would also like to briefly return to the remarks I made last year in response to what I considered insulting comments by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that demeaned our CF-18 crews' contribution to the air war. He said, dismissively, in different words, but more or less what the Minister of National Defence has said in his statements recently, that Canada had only flown 2% of the coalition bombing missions. I ask the government again, is 2% trivial, unimportant, or is 2% a lot?

The government seems determined to whack Canadians and the Canadian economy with billions of dollars in carbon taxes over the barely 2% of global greenhouse gases that Canada emits every year. I would suggest respectfully that if the Liberal government believes that 2% is so important to Canadian values and global responsibility, then why is the 2% of Canada's previous commitment to the air war against Daesh so unimportant?

I would again like to thank the government for allowing this opportunity to debate the diminished contribution to the war against Daesh, and I would like to close by reiterating the official opposition's protest that this debate is taking place after the fact.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. He is certainly very knowledgeable about these issues and makes a good point that it seems that on the government side, the Liberals perceive our position as being that bombing will solve every problem and that it is all we need to do. That is not our position at all. We see the importance of a ground response as part of this, but also with air support as necessary for an effective ground response.

We think the humanitarian components is critical as well, yet we must stop ISIS, because if we do not, the humanitarian disaster will continue to grow and we will see more victimization, even as we try to address the humanitarian consequences of past victimization.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak further to just how important the air component is in the context of many other things that are going on as well.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his insightful questions, not only to me but to all members of the House, and for taking part in the debate again today.

The basic answer to the question is that the war against Daesh will only be won with a multidimensional approach: the air war, combined with the training, the ground war, the humanitarian aid to be offered to displaced civilians outside of the two countries where the actual war is taking place and, where possible, to the six million displaced inside Syria.

As I said in my remarks, the strength of the coalition is the participation in all levels of the coalition's work. On this side of the House, we in the official opposition still fail to understand the government's incoherent explanations of why the CF-18s are being withdrawn.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the CF-18 pilots should be commended for their efforts and the contribution they have made to our military mission. However, I would also like to point out and ask the member this. What happens if the situation on the ground changes significantly? The last few years have demonstrated that anything can happen rapidly in this region. Should our strategy not be responsive to the developments on the ground? Indeed, the commander of the Netherlands armed forces calls Canada's anti-ISIS contribution “major” and that Canada is “very wisely” looking ahead to a sustainable post-ISIS scenario.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a reasonable question and an accurate quote. However, I am afraid that my colleague is premature in anticipating that the fight against Daesh is going to be achieved any time in the near future. There is a great deal of heavy lifting in this combat mission yet to come. There are economic sanctions yet to be applied against those who are enabling the ISIS forces to get oil onto the international market to fund their terrorist operations.

My colleague is quite right in saying that conditions on the ground can change with the turn of the wheel, which is why we believe that a balanced contribution to the coalition mission in the war against Daesh requires participation in all aspects: in the air and on the ground.

Certainly our thanks bears repeating once again, as we have offered in retrospect, to those who have flown the CF-18 mission. There were 1,378 missions over two years; 251 successful air strikes; 399 targets destroyed; and the recognition by our coalition partners in the air war that Canadians have flown with great courage and skill and, as my colleague from Calgary mentioned earlier, without civilian casualty.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House, but certainly today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Battle River--Crowfoot. I will be speaking against the Liberal government's efforts to reduce Canada's contribution to the international effort to fight ISIL.

My constituents would want me to thank the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces for the outstanding job they do. I do not have an air base in my constituency, but I do have Camp Wainright where members of the Canadian Armed Forces personnel are trained. They are the ones who are taking the fight to ISIL.

The Liberal government's motion is titled “Canada's contribution to the effort to combat ISIL”, a title which is putting a veil over what the Liberals are trying to do. On the one hand, the Liberals are causing Canada to be seen as cutting and running from the battle with ISIL. The Liberals honestly are leaving the fight to our allies. On the other hand though, the Liberals are increasing the risks to our Canadian Armed Forces personnel on the ground in the fight against these barbaric jihadi terrorists. The Liberals claim that our troops on the ground, which are training Iraqi soldiers close to the combat theatre, will have air support from our allies, the same same allies that we have just abandoned in the air strike mission.

We hope our troops will still have air support. Canada had CF-18s that would have protected our troops not that long ago when we came under attack, as my colleague just mentioned. We called in the Canadian Armed Forces and our allies responded as well. When Canadians come under fire, our CF-18s will no longer be there to do that.

In the past, the Liberals pleaded with us many times to have the debate brought to Parliament. We are debating after the fact. Today we stand here debating this mission after the decision has already been made and our planes are on the way home. Following the Liberals recent announcement that Canada was cutting and running from the international mission to combat ISIS, our planes were on their way home.

Our Conservative leader was the first to respond to this. Everyone in Canada heard her say that it was shameful that our allies would have to fight without us. Our fighter jets will no longer be eliminating ISIS targets. The Liberal Prime Minister is withdrawing from this fight and is leaving the combat mission to others.

In reply to questions, our leader diplomatically suggested that Canada's allies were being polite by not criticizing Canada. Every right-thinking Canadian felt the emotion, the outright disappointment, disgust and anger that Canada had abandoned its allies.

I went throughout my constituency and talked to people at open houses or at meetings. Even people who did not support me in the last election told me they were very disappointed in the Liberal government for abandoning the fight and our allies. Every Canadian was proud of the role that Canada played. Now there is disappointment.

Canada's CF-18s have made a tangible impact against ISIL. They have strategically eliminated hundreds of targets, including ISIL fighting positions, weapons caches, critical infrastructure, and command centres. Together with our coalition partners, the Royal Canadian Air Force helped to take back between 20% to 25% of areas that were previously controlled by these terrorists.

These people have barbarically beheaded Christians, children, and even other Muslims who did not see life exactly the way they saw it.

Media were reporting that the air strikes had reduced ISIL's ability to spread the influence throughout the region and around the world. Our CF-18s were helping to target cash stores, oil infrastructure, and supply lines.

As a result, ISIL now only has access to a fraction of the financial resources that it had in order to fund, recruit, and keep those who are fighting and carrying on the battle. ISIL can no longer offer lucrative salaries to its soldiers and to benefit ISIL fighters. Why? Because a lot of its cash and resources have dried up, thanks to the air attacks of which Canadians were part.

It is shameful that the Prime Minister is making this easier for ISIL by withdrawing Canada's fighter jets. Canada should continue to take the fight directly to ISIS with our CF-18s, not only because it is the right thing do to but because it is working.

Our previous Conservative government answered the call from our allies. We agreed to engage in the hard work of degrading ISIL's capabilities, eliminating its equipment, reducing its personnel and its power to inflect genocide upon innocent people of that region. We showed unity. We worked together with our allies.

The Liberal government is struggling to somehow justify its withdrawing Canada from the fight against ISIL. On one hand, when the Liberals speak to those who are leaning left toward the NDP, they talk about this not being a combat mission. However, when they are talking to our military, when they are talking to their blue Liberals, they talk about the importance of what we are going to do now. It is shameful.

In this debate so far, we have heard contradictory and incoherent arguments from the Liberals on their policy to have Canada retreat from the combat element of this mission to combat ISIS.

The Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister cannot even answer the question. In fact, I noticed that the NDP and others from the Conservative Party were asking different ministers and different people whether it was or was not a combat mission. It was almost fun to watch how they would try to wordsmith it so they could keep sitting on the fence.

Of course, last week the Chief of the Defence Staff admitted we were withdrawing from the combat mission.

Canadians remember the Liberal Prime Minister mocking the mission, mocking the air force, mocking our combat against ISIL, before he became prime minister. It was unbelievable. I remember when he said it. We could hardly believe it. Was it a bad joke, a joke gone bad, another bozo moment? One of the members said that some Canadians thought this was a lame attempt at making a joke or just being plain silly. Yet, we know that this is the way our current Prime Minister thinks of it. He responds to these serious situations with some flippant comment.

The same Prime Minister promised that he would only have $10 billion deficits for the next few years, and then he would balance the budget. We found out he broke that promise, too.

Canadians are now learning exactly what type of government this is. It is one that can say anything and back away at a moment's notice.

Unfortunately, the government is backing away from a mission against what I believe is the world's greatest threat at this time, and that is ISIL. There are not too many, even on the Liberal side, who would disagree with that. They would see this as a common enemy. However, they would just rather not fight. Rather, they would train someone else to fight for us. That is not the way Canada has done it in the past.

I hope the time will come that Canada will again stand with our allies shoulder to shoulder, not just in a minor role, and I know our soldiers will do an amazing job in whatever role they are given, when there is heavy lifting to be done and when there are other roles the Liberal government would have us play.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was really shocked to hear the remarks from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

How could he be so far off base in terms of where Canada is at with respect to the ISIS mission? Canada is not withdrawing from a combat mission. Canada is strategically looking at how we can be best placed to defeat ISIS. That is what we are really doing. There still will be air support.

For the member to stand up in the House and say that because we are withdrawing from air support, there will be no air support at all is absolutely not true. We are working with our coalition partners to ensure there is air support, support for our troops that are training on the ground, and support for our people who are doing humanitarian aid.

We are not just standing around looking at nice aircraft and military weapons, as the previous prime minister did. We are strategically looking, with our coalition partners, at what is the best approach to defeat ISIS. That is exactly what the government is doing.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, now we have the member for Malpeque saying that the government is going to defeat ISIS. There is not an ally out there that believes the Liberal government is going to defeat anybody when it comes to fighting terrorism or acting against terrorism.

The man from Malpeque said that we were not backing away from a combat mission. Maybe he should have listened to the defence minister today in question period when he told this Parliament and Canadians that this was not a combat mission.

This is the Liberal way. The Liberals would have some believe one thing, others believe another thing, but no one is surprised and no one is persuaded any other way than to see Canada stepping back, and it will not be long before we are falling back.

We are putting our troops into a place where there is still a massive threat, as they train the Iraqis. It will be a matter of time, and we will hear about ISIS members who have infiltrated the Iraqi force and have carried out an attack against, maybe Canadian soldiers, and certainly their own. That is the ISIS way. We saw that in Afghanistan. I had the privilege of chairing the Afghan committee for all those years. That is the way ISIS operates.

The minister, or I should say the member, as he is not a minister and he will never be a minister in that government, I am sure, says that this is still a combat mission. The defence minister has said that it is not a combat mission. They need to get their stories straight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I remind the members to keep personal attacks out of the House of Commons. Maybe do it out in the lobby, but not in here. Try to keep it as civil as possible.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing seems clear: my colleague's speech is very relevant, despite what the member opposite said.

The worst part about this situation is the grey area. During our mission, it was clear. We were conducting air strikes and some of our troops were on the ground providing training. Our soldiers' situation was clear. I still have many friends who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and right now, their biggest concerns are related to the grey area. People do not really know what the objective of the mission is.

From what I understood, we are transitioning from a combat mission to a peacekeeping mission. In the meantime, the government is trying to combine the missions. Some people are saying that there will not be any combat while others are saying that there will. Nothing is clear. We are committing to a mission that is not clear and that is the worst thing for our soldiers.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member, and I thank him for his time in service in the Canadian Forces. He gets it. This is the problem. We see the government stepping back, falling back, pushing away from the table. That is what Canadians see. As we go around the country, that is what we hear from them.

Training is important. Many countries can be training. It is hard to know how much training Canada will be doing. When we have the air strikes, we know what is happening, what is going on. It is hard to judge success in training. I know our troops are very good at fighting and at training.

It is a multi-dimensional fight. We know that. We need to train. However, in the past, when we have seen an enemy, whether it is in a war or like now, Canada has been there standing on the front lines. Now we have walked from our allies.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on government Motion No. 2.

I do want to follow from you, Mr. Speaker, your recommendation to all members that we take the tone of the debate down a bit. This is in fact a serious issue that needs to be contemplated by the House. I would apply this to all members on all sides of the House, that when we are dealing with issues fundamentally about sending our men and women into combat, that we give it the seriousness it deserves, that we do not engage in excessive rhetorical flourishes but that we debate the issues that are before us.

This gets me to some of the comments that I have heard from all sides of the House. I want to use the time I have been given to contribute to this particular debate, to look at the principles that had been enunciated by our leader, now the Prime Minister, when we were originally debating the decision on whether Canada should commit military resources in the fight against ISIL, against the Daesh, and also to look specifically at the details of the government's motion before the House, namely the five elements of the things we are attempting to accomplish.

I go back to the comments from my friend from Durham. To be fair, he clearly enunciated the fundamental principles that guided the decision of the Liberal Party, now, of course, of the government, in terms of whether we would support the motion that was presented in October 2014. The four principles that guided us in terms of how we decided not to support the government of the day's mission to send six CF-18s into combat were the following: first, whether Canada had a role to play; second, whether there was a clear and defined mission; third, would there be a clear debate; and fourth, was this the best use of Canada's resources? On those particular elements we felt, at least on some of the principles, that the government of the day did not fully make the case.

With respect to the first issue of a role to play, it was fairly clear. The government had set out that it would be providing a contribution to the proposed air campaign from the coalition and that we would be providing military trainers on the ground.

The second element became a bit more difficult for us at that particular time. It was the nature of whether there was a clear mission. One of the things we were struggling with as a caucus was whether there was a defined end point. What were the actual objectives of the mission? It would say that the obvious objectives of the mission were to stop and degrade the advancement of ISIL in claiming territory throughout Iraq and Syria. However, from our perspective, what was not clear was whether there was a specific end point to the proposed mission advanced by the government.

The third issue was on a debate. I am going to deviate a bit. I want to again express my appreciation to the government of the time for giving parliamentarians the opportunity to debate this matter. This is why we have done the same today. However, there has been a suggestion from the other side that the decision by the Minister of National Defence and by the executive council was somehow demeaning to Parliament, that by making the decision to end the military mission a few days ago with respect to withdrawing the six CF-18s, we were essentially debasing Parliament. I would object to that from the point of view that with respect to both debates, it is important that parliamentarians express their views. However, it is ultimately an executive decision with respect to whether we go into war or participate in this type of activity; the decision is one that is ultimately made by the political executive.

Fourth is the element in terms of principles that primarily drive the conversation, and that is whether this is the best way in which Canada can contribute to degrading and ultimately stopping this threat of ISIL or Daesh. This is the primary reason we took the position that we could not support the government of the day's motion back in October 2014. We did not feel that the case had been made that contributing six CF-18s was appropriate, as we felt that there were better resources that Canada could put into the field as part of our contribution to our coalition partners.

This brings me to the five elements that form the basis of the government's motion that is before the House today.

The first element is refocusing the mission. Canada is not withdrawing from the fight; it is simply redeploying its forces. Part of the natural evolution of all situations where there is an engagement in theatre is that different coalition partners will change the nature of the assets they put into a particular field of endeavour.

The second element is that we want to make more significant contributions to improve the living conditions of the affected populations, namely in Syria and Iraq. That is why we have made significant ongoing and additional contributions to support that particular region.

The third element is ensuring that we invest in humanitarian assistance. Again, Canada is stepping up in ensuring that it provides the necessary supports to those who have been displaced by this unfortunate situation taking place in that part of the world.

The fourth element that we are advancing is the importance of engaging the political leadership and putting more diplomatic resources into the region. I want to talk about that particular element a bit more in a moment.

The fifth element is Canada's very generous response in welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees who have been displaced by the conflict.

I want to go back to the fourth point and get into a broader discussion of the issue of risk and of Canada's approach to foreign affairs broadly. I want to use this debate to frame that issue, which I think is an important one that we need to put on the floor of the House of Commons. If I have any fundamental or ideological opposition to the approach of the former government, now the official opposition, it is that it had a clear ideological view of the world. That ideological view of the world meant that it made certain policy choices that increased risk globally.

I will provide some specific examples. I tried to highlight them in some of the questions and answers I had asked the parliamentary secretary for international development.

For a long time, I have had significant concerns about the decision of the previous government to fold CIDA into the Department of Foreign Affairs and to reduce our foreign policy engagements around the world. From my perspective, that was a fundamental mistake. It is a fundamental mistake not to make strategic investments in areas of the world that may become future hot spots or areas of political conflict. I will contrast that to some of the decisions made by previous Conservative and Liberal governments to make those strategic investments, which I think have paid long-term dividends to Canada as well as ultimately improving stability around the world.

I will give some examples. For example, I had the privilege of travelling, in late 2014, with the member for Calgary Nose Hill and the Governor General to Chile and Colombia. On that trip, one thing I noted was that Canada had made early investments, particularly in Chile, as well as in places like Colombia, and had invested heavily in terms of assistance, particularly in the Chilean case over 20 years ago during the transitional period away from the dictatorship of General Pinochet.

Those long-term investments we made on the ground in providing humanitarian assistance, dealing with adjustments regarding the transformation of its economic conditions, and dealing with the ultimate reconciliation that took place within Chilean society ultimately paid significant dividends for Canada. Now we are one of the significant investors in that particular region, but, more importantly, we have gradually been able to infuse the values that all of us in the House espouse, which are the Liberal democratic values that drive all of us in terms of trying to promote that around the world.

I use that as an example and look at the situation, for example, where the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. John Baird, engaged in Canada's decision to participate in the coalition to throw out Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. I raise that particular instance because I think one thing we failed to do is recognize that it is one thing to displace governments that we ultimately do not agree with, but we need to think very carefully about the consequences of those types of actions. That was one where I felt Canada acted far too hastily and, as a result, we now have another failed state.

As we are dealing with the motion before us, we need to think more broadly about what kinds of engagements we need to make not just as a government but as Canadians writ large in making sure that we do not get in other situations that we see now in Syria and Iraq. How do we get down to the root causes of actually allowing that kind of situation to arise?

I think of many other places around the world where already those conditions are starting to brew. That is where I think I have a significant fundamental objection with the previous government in terms of its choice of investments or its choice of its actions in withdrawing from certain parts of the world. We will be less able to have influence in those particular areas. In the long run, we will actually contribute to greater instability that could lead to the situation in which we now find ourselves in Syria and Iraq.

It is really important, from my perspective, that we have a clear sense of where we want to go. That is why I ultimately support this motion. It recognizes that it is not a simple black and white issue. It is not a simple function of bombing them to stop them. Yes, we will contribute in terms of participating as part of the coalition, providing our strategic assets. We have decided to provide strategic assets in terms of additional military trainers, we will continue to leave our surveillance aircraft in the field, we will continue to leave our refuelling aircraft in the field, so we will continue to make an important contribution.

What matters to me, and why it is something I feel we ultimately need to think carefully about, is making sure we have a broad-sectored approach that deals with the fundamental root causes that lead to this kind of instability. We need to also think about how we place ourselves in the post-conflict environment.

By working hard together with all of our coalition partners, it our hope and aim that we will ultimately defeat ISIL. However, it is also important to think through the post-conflict scenarios and how we as Canadians, within an increasingly multipolar world where there are different players in the mix, have the capacity to influence the decisions and actions of those great powers.

We have to be mindful of the role that Canada can ultimately play. We are admittedly a small middle power, and so there are limited resources that we can put in the field. I recognize that my friends on the other side have argued that the air contribution we made is significant, given our relative size. We are not arguing against the important contribution that our Royal Canadian Air Force has made today. It has been part of that particular contribution. However, from my perspective, we have to have a clear sense of what the end game is. That is why I think the decision the government is making in terms of refocusing and rebalancing our mission, and putting different assets into theatre, is important.

Ultimately, we want to have an important role today with our coalition partners, but we also need to have a role in the future in terms of influencing the kind of post-conflict scenario that will be facing this region. This is why we have a multi-faceted approach. It is one that adopts a series of steps, which involve investments on the ground, taking in refugees, and also diplomatic and humanitarian actions on the ground and in the broader region in terms of trying to make sure we will have a continuing influence in that post-conflict era.

I will wrap up my comments by saying that the motion before the House today is an important one. Again, I would go back to the beginning of my comments and urge all members to adopt a more civil tone in debating the important issue of sending our men and women into combat or into an area of the world where there is significant risk. There will continue to be significant risk despite the fact that we have now rebalanced this particular mission today, and I think it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that, and recognize that this situation will continue. I would urge members to be mindful of that, regardless of how strongly they may feel about the government's position here today.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way has spoken eloquently on the world view and ideology and how they affect the decisions we make. It was interesting to see earlier today his decision on a vote for a motion that we had in terms of investment. That was interesting, and I just wanted to point that out.

We have seen multiple views on the other side of this room on where those members see this mission going.

I would ask the member for his perspective. Does he feel that this is a combat mission or not?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue at the end of the day is not whether it is a combat mission or not. What is particularly important is how we ultimately contribute to our coalition partners.

From my perspective, even with tripling the number of trainers we are putting on the ground, there is, of course, always the material risk that they may find themselves in a situation where they will be placed under fire. We already know of the earlier death of Sgt. Doiron through an unfortunate friendly-fire incident.

Therefore, regardless of what we call it, from my perspective there is substantive risk to any military personnel put into theatre. That is why I urge my colleagues to not be driven just by a particular terminology or phrase and recognize that, when putting these types of assets into theatre, there are risks faced by our military personnel as well as our non-military and diplomatic personnel.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who has given a very comprehensive explanation about what he thinks Canada's role is, if he is at all disappointed that there is absolutely no mention in the motion of ultimately Canada's role being one of giving assistance, monitoring, for crimes against humanity? There is no mention at all of Canada's role in the United Nations and our mandate as members. Is he disappointed at all in that?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the motion speaks for itself. Clearly this government and members on this side very much embrace a multilateral approach. From my perspective, it does not need to be within the motion for us not to recognize the important role that multilateral institutions, including the United Nations, will ultimately play in any future post-conflict scenario.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government and the member seem reticent to actually say whether or not it is a combat mission. In his earlier comments he said he does not see a need to define the mission as such, but for many of the men and women in uniform who are currently serving, it does make a difference. For example, there is what is called the post-combat reintegration allowance.

If the chief of the defence staff does not determine an operation is actual combat, they are not eligible. I have heard many times today from both sides of the House that people who put their lives on the line for Canada, whether it be in a hot situation or not, a risky environment as the member alluded to earlier, deserve our support.

Does the member believe that it is a combat mission and if the answer to that is yes, will he support this post-combat reintegration allowance being made to our men and women in uniform?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave the determination with respect to benefits that accrue to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces to the executive and the military itself.

The point I want to get back to is that we are putting significant assets into the field and those assets are subject to a certain type of risk. I recognize that the member is raising a very specific distinction, whether a certain benefit may or may not accrue. I will leave it to those who are making the determination of the kind of risk that members of the Armed Forces or our diplomatic corps are facing, whether certain benefits should accrue or not accrue.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, let me cite a few things. Since flying the first missions for the coalition on October 13, our CF-18s represent 5% of all sorties flown by coalition fighter aircraft over that time. Less than one-fifth of sorties flown by the CF-18s resulted in a strike against ISIS targets. That represents 2.6% of all coalition air strikes since Canada's involvement began.

Given those small numbers and small percentages, does my colleague not feel that Canada's best way is to send more training and support that way?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I might reframe my friend's question somewhat differently. My perspective is that we operate within a coalition and we play a particular role and that there will always be changing circumstances in theatre. At a certain point, no different than what we did in Afghanistan, we serve in a particular theatre for a period of time and then others carry on the burden as we rotate out.

That is essentially my perspective on this issue. The previous government had the right to make the decision. It made the decision and sent six CF-18s. We have pledged to remove those CF-18s, but not to remove our contribution to our coalition partners.

I do not want to diminish the importance of the contribution that the CAF has made to date, but that component of our contribution will now be carried on by others and we will carry a different burden as we move forward.