Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said the $1.1 billion in humanitarian assistance should go to civilians. Given that ISIS members are not military personnel per se, since they do not belong to a particular country, does my colleague consider ISIS members to be civilians and could they potentially receive Canadian assistance?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been working with the same large humanitarian organizations for decades. There has been no change in that regard. The main difference between our government and the previous government is that we are proud to do so. We are proud to contribute humanitarian assistance and to work with those large, multilateral organizations. Our department is conducting all the appropriate checks, both during the analysis phase of the projects, the analysis of the applications we receive, and later as we monitor the projects to ensure that assistance goes to the people and civilians who need it most. There is absolutely no doubt about that. All the necessary checks are done. If my colleague thinks that the previous government made a mistake in the past by giving as much as we do to the Red Cross, for example, he should let us know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on her appointment to what I see as a very important position.

Earlier today I heard her colleague from Winnipeg North say that we, the second opposition party, had it all wrong in this debate and that we had nothing to suggest. I have been hearing that since Friday. We have suggested humanitarian assistance and measures to block the resources going to terrorist groups, such as cutting off their weapons supply, their funding, and their capacity to recruit overseas.

If the NDP has it all wrong in this debate, I am wondering if the minister would say that Norway, South Korea, and New Zealand also have it all wrong, since their contributions are strictly humanitarian in nature.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I believe that every country has a duty to consider how it can best contribute in the fight against this crisis.

In Canada's case, we consulted our allies and partners. We determined what our greatest strengths are and where we could make a real difference. What is being presented in our strategy is in fact the fruit of that consultation and the proper leveraging of our strengths.

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

Mr. Speaker, what are the next steps when it comes to dealing with the number of refugees coming from that part of the world?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the year, we received all the requests for humanitarian assistance from various major organizations. Our department is currently analyzing all those requests.

We are also in talks with the countries involved and other major donors to develop our three-year strategy for determining how we will deal with the arrival and growing number of refugees in the neighbouring countries. Some of Canada's contribution will go toward a three-year action plan; another part of the contribution will be reserved for emergencies and adapting to the crisis as it evolves.

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

Mr. Speaker, all sides of the House agree about the importance of Canada playing a humanitarian role, but it does not make much sense to me to only contribute to the humanitarian side of it while there is ongoing violence against the innocent. Why not stop the violence, as well as attend to the humanitarian considerations? We are addressing the humanitarian part, but, at the same time, people are continuing to be victims of violence by Daesh. Could we not do both?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing both.

The strategy presented in our plan incorporates military, diplomatic, and humanitarian and development assistance, and development components, so I do not understand my colleague's question when he says that we are not doing both.

I truly believe that we are acting on a number of fronts at the same time.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I rise today to speak in support of the government's motion and the overdue reorientation of our mission against Daesh to reflect a more comprehensive, robust, and effective contribution to the international coalition against this heinous and barbaric terrorist group.

There is no more serious thing that a government can do than deploy its armed forces overseas. As the daughter and a sister of army officers, I know firsthand the stress and the worry that deployment places on service members and their loved ones back home.

We in this House owe it to our military members and to their families to make this a substantive and respectful debate, to ensure that this mission is both necessary and important, and that our armed forces members are supported with the equipment and resources they need to succeed.

Any time we deploy our armed forces overseas, there will be risk. However, the threat we are facing is especially grave. Daesh is a threat to peace, and global stability and security. It must be defeated. Its list of crimes and barbarous acts is long. It targets the most vulnerable and has uprooted the lives of millions. According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 6.5 million people have been internally displaced within Syria, and over 3 million have fled to neighbouring countries.

Such a multifaceted crisis and threat requires a comprehensive whole-of-government response, and that is just what our government has proposed. We will increase military training, increase our humanitarian and development assistance, and work to enhance regional stability.

Canada is part of a broad-based international coalition determined to defeat Daesh and end this humanitarian crisis. We are proud to stand with our international partners and allies, each of whom makes a unique contribution based on their capabilities, experience, and capacity. Canada cannot do it all ourselves. As part of the coalition, we do not have to.

This motion proposes that Canada make a more comprehensive contribution to the international coalition in the fight against Daesh, based both on our capacity and what we are able to do well, and what is necessary to defeat Daesh once and for all.

It is clear to me that the solution to the crises in the region must, first and foremost, be political. Accordingly, we will increase our diplomatic role in working for a political solution to the crisis in Syria by supporting the UN-sponsored peace process as well as the reconciliation efforts of the Iraqi government.

In recognition of the worsening humanitarian crisis, we will undertake a $1.1 billion, multi-year commitment for humanitarian and development assistance that targets the most vulnerable, including children and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

It is that feeling of desperation, of lack of options and opportunity, especially by young people, that hate groups like Daesh feed on, and it is that instability that allows them to flourish. So with our local partners, we will work to build the capacity to provide basic social services, foster inclusive growth and employment, and advance inclusive and accountable governance. We will also expand our capacity-building efforts with Jordan and Lebanon to help stop the spread of violent extremism.

We must also respond militarily. By tripling the size of our training force in northern Iraq and significantly increasing our intelligence gathering resources, Canada will make a more substantive and effective contribution to the military effort against Daesh.

Like all Canadians, I am proud of our Canadian army and the success of their training mission in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are among the best in the world when it comes to training, and this new, expanded training mission will build on the hard-won lessons of Afghanistan and make a valuable and much-needed contribution to the international coalition.

As I have said, Canada cannot do everything. Our resources are limited. We must be strategic in choosing the most effective contribution we can make to the international coalition, and that is exactly what this government has done.

We are proud of the contribution that our CF-18 fighter pilots have played in the fight against Daesh and we welcome them home with thanks and appreciation. However, Canada cannot do everything. As we promised the Canadian people in the election campaign, we will bring our fighters home so we can focus on an expanded training mission.

The ground seized by Daesh, displacing millions of refugees and throwing the region into turmoil, will only be taken back by efforts on the ground. If our local allies are to retake that ground, they need better training and support. We must build that local capacity to take the fight to Daesh directly and allow people to return to their homes. That is what Canada's training mission would do.

This is a more substantive and comprehensive military contribution. Our complement of military personnel taking part in Operation Impact will increase from approximately 630 to 850 and will be focused on operational planning, targeting, and intelligence.

The size of Canada's training, advice, and assist mission will also be tripled and will include equipment such as small arms, ammunition, and optics to assist in the training of Iraqi security forces. Our CC-150 Polaris aerial refuelling aircraft and up to two CP-140 Aurora aerial surveillance aircraft will continue to make key contributions to the international effort.

This is a comprehensive and substantive contribution by Canada and not one that we take lightly. We make this contribution to bring stability and peace to a region in crisis and in recognition of the threat that Daesh and other such extremist groups represents to the world, including Canada.

We are not an island. Canada is not immune to the growing threat of global extremism and the hatred that groups like Daesh seek to breed and exploit. However, we will not be deterred. We will remain a strong member of the international coalition overseas and at home. We will continue to welcome Syrian and other refugees displaced by this conflict. Canada is on pace to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees to the country by the end of February and to reach the goal of 25,000 government-sponsored refugees by the end of the year. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have opened their arms and their hearts to these people who have had their lives torn apart by this conflict and are looking for what all of us take for granted, a safe place to raise their families and to give them a better life.

We are very lucky to be Canadians and to be able to live in peace and prosperity. We are privileged, and with that privilege comes responsibility. With millions suffering, we have a responsibility to act. The government's plan is in the best Canadian tradition, utilizing our capacity and our strength to make a real meaningful and effective contribution to the international coalition.

The road ahead will not be easy. I stand in solidarity with our military members, with our development and diplomatic officials, and especially with their families. They have made Canada proud and we stand with them.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that we need to recognize first of all. While the motion is proposing a comprehensive change to the mission, it backs down from a comprehensive approach to the mission, meaning that while the government is increasing our ability to train troops on the ground, it has stepped back from a piece of the mission that has been highly successful to date with over 400 successful missions.

There is one key item that boggles my mind when I look at the government's approach to this. I will read a bit from the throne speech: “In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.” That is except for one thing: the government has already changed the mission, so no matter what is said here about a reduction in the bombing mission, it does not matter because the decision was made by one person during a campaign without any information to support it.

Therefore, could the member stand in his place and please tell us how this would be any different? Does this change mean that this chamber does not matter any more?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign, we ran on a commitment to end our participation in the air strikes and refocus our contribution to the international coalition on training and greater humanitarian support. That is exactly what this government is doing.

We are proud of the contribution that our airmen and airwomen have made to the international coalition. However, as we move into this next phase, it is important that we focus our efforts and resources on where they can be most effective. This is the most effective contribution Canada can make to the international coalition, and it has been welcomed and applauded by our allies.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. What I am especially hearing from others—and certainly the UN Security Council resolution reinforced this—is that if we can stem the flow of foreign radicals going overseas that complicates this fight in the first place, we will all be better off and further ahead.

Can the member please describe what attempts the Liberal government is making to fight radicalization efforts right here at home in Canada?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what is the best solution right now in the present circumstances, and refocusing our combat mission. That is what we promised during the election campaign. We are changing it to being humanitarian based and providing more training and surveillance services. That is what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member paid tribute to the members of the Canadian Forces and their families. This is something that we often take for granted. A good percentage of the population is so very appreciative of the efforts of our men and women of the Canadian Forces, no matter what role they play. This is something that is really important, that as legislators we stand up and do what the member did in acknowledging and appreciating the efforts of the members of our forces.

I wonder if the member might want to add some additional thoughts on the great work that our men and women have done in combatting terrorism, whether abroad or here at home. That includes all the different branches of the Canadian Forces.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, I am proud of the work that our men and women in uniform have done in Iraq and in other deployments. I want to thank them all for all the work they have done. As Canadians, it is our responsibility both abroad and at home to provide them with the necessary support they need at the time.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by paying tribute to the excellent work done by our soldiers and veterans who fought overseas and who helped protect Canada. I also want to commend them for contributing so much to international peace and security.

In 10 years under the Conservatives, Canada's reputation on the world stage changed, and not for the better, as most Canadians know. During this decade, the Conservatives distanced themselves from a long tradition of responsible international engagement. Our country even skipped out on a number of major international talks. Canada lost its non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

I remember October 12, 2010, very well. We had to take our name out of the running for a seat on the United Nations Security Council after losing the first two rounds of voting. That was the first time that Canada had experienced that kind of loss for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Canada had won that seat every time since 1948.

The dismay was palpable on October 12, 2010. Like many people, I felt ashamed. Canada no longer represented a diplomatic force in the world. This did not come as a complete surprise. We were well aware that the then Conservative government's controversial position on combatting climate change probably had something to do with the reservations some UN countries may have had when they voted in October 2010. One thing had become clear: we had lost our reputation as a diplomatic force and a peacekeeper.

I went into politics for many reasons. First, I wanted to actively assist my region in getting the tools it needs to revive its economy. Second, I wanted to help rebuild Canada's international reputation.

Canada has a longstanding tradition of responsible engagement in international affairs, which is an integral part of our country's identity. Canada should be using its exceptional expertise to serve as a world leader in international co-operation. To be seen and heard, we need to enunciate clearly, speak loudly, and send a strong, clear message.

On October 19, 2015, Canadians sent a clear message that resonated throughout the world: Canada is back on the international scene after a decade of diplomatic disengagement under the Conservatives.

I will repeat: Canada is finally back. Canada will increase its support for UN peacekeeping operations and reinvigorate mediation, conflict prevention, and reconstruction efforts in the wake of these very conflicts.

Canada will do more, but in a different way. Our approach is clearly distinct from and more beneficial than the Conservatives' strictly military approach because of the emphasis on humanitarian assistance, welcoming refugees, and diplomacy.

The mission in Iraq and Syria will be redefined on the basis of this new approach. Our objective is very clear: improve the effectiveness and make better use of the Canadian Armed Forces in order to meet the coalition's current needs.

The Conservatives are surprised. However, we repeated many times that we would stop the air strikes by the CF-18s in Iraq and Syria and focus instead on training local forces fighting on Iraqi soil. The day after we were elected, the Prime Minister informed President Obama of our intentions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs attended many bilateral meetings to explain our approach and to contribute additional resources to help meet the need for training, transportation, and medical assistance.

We are expanding the humanitarian assistance component as promised. The diplomatic component will also be bolstered by increasing staff in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. We will also deploy more military personnel in the region to carry out different duties, including training.

I want to remind members of the House of the changes we will make. We will increase the number of Canadian Armed Forces members deployed as part of Operation Impact from 650 to approximately 830.

We will triple Canada's train, advise, and assist mission in northern Iraq to boost local security forces' independence. We will provide additional intelligence resources in northern Iraq and theatre-wide to better protect coalition forces and those of the host country. That will enable the coalition to develop a more detailed understanding of the threat and improve its ability to target, degrade, and defeat ISIS.

We will continue to support coalition operations with our Polaris aerial refueller and up to two Aurora surveillance aircraft. We will provide training in the use of military equipment supplied by the Government of Canada in accordance with Canadian and international law.

We will offer to participate in the coalition's ministerial liaison, which supports Iraq's ministries of defence and the interior. We will enhance our capacity-building efforts in Jordan and create a new program in Lebanon. Finally, we will deploy Canadian Armed Forces medical personnel to support Canadian security forces and their Iraqi counterparts.

The changes I just listed constitute an informed, clear plan. Our allies recognize that Canada continues to support the air mission by providing two surveillance aircraft and one refuelling aircraft. We will also be contributing something that is considered crucial to the long-term success of the mission, and that is training for Kurdish soldiers.

Let us be clear: we never said anything about a total end to military participation, which is what the NDP promised. We are focusing on training over air strikes. Canada will be more useful in this way, since it has developed real expertise in that area.

Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance recently pointed out that we should not fall into the trap of describing the Iraq mission as something other than a support operation. While air strikes can be useful in the short term, they do not offer any long-term stability. To achieve that, we need to provide the population with the means to ensure its own defence and security.

The decade of isolation under the Conservatives is over. Canada is resuming its diplomatic role in order to help find political solutions to the crisis in the Middle East by supporting the peace process backed by the United Nations and contributing to the efforts by the Iraqi government to promote reconciliation.

Our government is taking a pragmatic and modern approach. That is the promise of a responsible Canada that is engaged in the world in a positive way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member began his speech by criticizing Canada's record over the past 10 years; for example, citing the fact that we were not elected to a seat on the UN Security Council.

I have to say to the member that I am fiercely proud of our principled record in our foreign policy over the past 10 years. The Liberal approach historically was to underfund our military and to go along to get along. Our approach was reared in Canadian values.

Of course, our strong opposition to Iran and Russia, and our support for Israel and persecuted religious minorities, did not always win friends for us at the United Nations. We did not do those things because they were popular. We did them because they were right.

That is our record when it comes to a principled foreign policy, so why are the Liberals backing away from that record? Are they doing it again to simply go along to get along with the United Nations?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member of the opposition talking about stepping back. Maybe he has not listened to what I said earlier about the increases we are making in the redefinition of this new mission. We are increasing the number of military from 650 to 830. We are doubling the investment in humanitarian aid.

We are working in partnership with the coalition to identify the needs clearly. Having identified those needs, we defined an informed approach that takes into account all the requests we received.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support for our Armed Forces. We all share in that appreciation.

Our party has consistently said that the way to defeat ISIS, which is an objective we all share, is to cut off its supply of money, arms, and foreign fighters. However, this mission, as outlined by the government, does not include any domestic action against ISIS. Does the government intend to introduce or support deradicalization efforts here in Canada as part of its strategy?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said regarding the issue being debated today on redefining the mission in Iraq and Syria, the changes being made will help us support the coalition and the United Nations in this initiative that seeks to weaken and ultimately eradicate the armed forces of the Islamic State.

I listed a series of initiatives. Our approach is informed and based on the consultations that we had over the past few weeks with the coalition and our partners.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

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

One after another, the Conservative members would have us believe that the position of the Liberal government is to withdraw from the fight against the Islamic State. In fact, it is the opposite.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could take a few minutes to explain to the House how the integration of the principles of humanitarian assistance, training, and diplomatic assistance are three steps forward and a stronger, more integrated strategy.

When we talk about the fight today, it is not just a military fight; it is a fight for the hearts and minds of those who are under pressure to join the Islamic State. That is a vision that has to be created locally, endogenously within the populations of Iraq and Syria.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on those principles.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to support Iraq in its efforts. We said so earlier. We will be there to triple Canada's train, advise, and assist mission in northern Iraq in order to improve the autonomy of local security forces. We have also undertaken to increase intelligence capabilities.

These efforts will help the people and the coalition forces and will firmly establish a new strategy and our contribution and ensure that we degrade ISIL.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the motion before the House regarding the redefinition of Canada's role in the fight against ISIS.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

First, I am proud of the men and women of the armed forces. They defend not only our country, but also protect Canadians' interests and promote Canadian values abroad. Men and women in uniform are the backbone of our defence capabilities, following a strong and noble military tradition since Canada's conception.

It is never an easy decision to send our men and women into combat, and it should not be. When Canada is attacked at home and Canadians are attacked abroad, it is Canada's fight. Yet the Prime Minister has pulled our fighter jets out of the coalition effort to stop ISIS. No justification for withdrawing the CF-18s has been provided. We are willing to paint targets, conduct surveillance, provide fuel for our bombers, but we will not drop any Canadian bombs. Withdrawing from direct combat against ISIS sends the wrong message to Canadians and to our allies.

The proposed motion increases the risk to Canadian Armed Forces members, but reduces Canada's air support. Our Conservative Party strongly believes that our CF-18s should remain in the fight against ISIS. It is my view and that of my party that withdrawal from this mission is a step backward from Canada's traditional role as defenders for human rights and international security. We have a long and proud history of defending innocent and vulnerable populations by taking on those who commit mass atrocities.

In my previous career in the RCMP, having been part of a specialized emergency response team, we provided backup to members in the field during emergencies. As inert officers, we were there to assist in the successful resolution of dangerous situations, thereby enhancing public safety and the security of our regular members. It would have been irresponsible then for our leaders to remove us from that duty, leaving our members in the field to deal with situations on their own without specialized backup. Is that not exactly what the government is doing now with our men and women in uniform?

The air strikes now grounded by the Liberal government provided the necessary air support for our troops battling ISIS. If we are to provide more boots on the ground, we need to ensure that proper protection is in place. We should not rely on our allies to protect our soldiers. Should our troops come under attack now, we will be 100% reliant on allies to provide the backup support. This will lead to unnecessary multiple channels of communication instead of one direct line to our ground troops.

Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean.

In Afghanistan, in 2002 and 2006, miscommunications led to our allies dropping bombs on our troops.

I ask everybody to recall what transpired on the Hill in October 2014. At that time, there were multiple security services on the Hill. This created issues in communications and carrying out an efficient response. In an RCMP review of the events of that day, it was concluded that:

The working relationship between the House of Commons Security Service, the Senate Protective Services and the RCMP is inadequate....All three agencies work as separate entities, with limited interaction or sharing of information.

To avoid having to go through multiple lines of communication and to more effectively and efficiently respond to future events, security on Parliament Hill has since been merged into one single unit.

The above examples prove that the Liberal government will complicate the ability of any air support to respond and assist our troops on the ground. Our CF-18s provided that direct link to the safety of our soldiers.

On December 17 of last year, if we all recall, Canadian special forces that were training Kurdish fighters came under a major attack by ISIS militants. Two of our Canadian CF-18s conducted air strikes to take out the ISIS fighting position that was supporting the extremist offensive, helping our troops dramatically. This proves that our troops are at risk on the ground and need air defence to keep them safe. The CF-18s provided that backup.

General Vance has said that by tripling the number of special operation forces on the ground, it increases the risk. That was also confirmed by the Minister of National Defence in the House. If this is the case, why is the government taking us out of the fight against ISIS and putting our troops at risk? We believe in ensuring our troops have every tool available to directly protect them and get the job done. Fighter jets are one of the best tools.

Knowing that ISIS attacks have spread beyond Iraq and in Syria and claimed the lives of Canadians recently, halting and degrading ISIS is now more critical. Canada has been a key ally in the air combat effort. Canadian air strikes have been an effective element of the coalition's campaign in destroying ISIS and providing air support to Canadian and allied ground troops. It is extremely irresponsible for the government to downplay Canada's contribution, and all for political reasons.

Canada has the capacity to continue to contribute to air strikes alongside training and humanitarian support. Instead, the government is focused solely on humanitarian and security assistance already being done. There are many times when stronger military action is necessary and fighting is necessary. It is paramount that the government stands shoulder to shoulder with our allies to defend and protect not only our troops on the ground, but the safety and security of all Canadians as well as our allies.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence must ensure our troops are protected by our CF-18s. Let us ensure they come home, and may our troops on the ground over there take care.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the comments from across the way, one is brought to a set of observations that make us think we still ought to be invading the beaches in Normandy. In other words, no matter how the theatre of war changes, no matter how the conversation is modified with our allies, no matter what new developments occur over the course of the year, the first impulse must be sustained and repeated.

Will the members opposite not acknowledge that consolidating the gains, setting in motion training and intelligence support that protect populations on the ground and continuing to work with our allies to modify our strategy as the conditions change is the most appropriate way to proceed with prosecuting this military excursion?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that putting extra troops on the ground will help, but why would we remove our best fighting tool that has helped our allies and is one of the strongest fighting tools to protect our ground troops that are going to be assisting our allies? It does not make any sense. Keep the best tools there. Why bring them home?