House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was military.

Topics

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were the government and approved this mission in the first place, they did not allocate any incremental funding to support the mission and that had impact. The forces had to find resources internally, and that impacted front-line workers and the navy.

Why was this mission not properly funded in the first place when the Conservatives originally committed our country to the mission?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, when going into a foreign country initially, it is very hard to have a full plan as to what we are going to do. Once our troops arrived there, they had a better understanding of the situation that was before them, they adapted to those situations the best they could, and they provided the best allied support they could. Things change continually in those types of environments.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member across found so funny, but I certainly hope he shares it with us later on.

Regarding the hon. member's comments, it sounds to me like he had something very significant to include in this debate. As members know, we are no longer partaking in the bombing mission.

As I said earlier, in the throne speech the government said 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.”

Was the voice of the member heard prior to the government ceasing the mission?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

February 22nd, 2016 / 12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed last week when we found out that the CF-18s had already been removed. Why are we holding a debate on something as important as this, looking at the protection of our troops overseas and having a debate after the fact? It makes absolutely no sense to me and it shows the government's disrespect for the House.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the service he has offered to Canadians through his career in protecting Canadians and for his passionate remarks about the value of our men and women in uniform, not only to our country but to world stability.

His reference to the importance of communication certainly reminded me of October 22, which I think we can all agree was a very difficult time on the Hill, and our security forces did the best they could do. Our colleague has pointed out some of the challenges that relate to that because of the communication challenges. He made a great connection to that incident on the Hill in relationship to the potential communications challenges that would occur in theatre.

Could he expand a bit on that point? Having our own CF-18s in the air protecting our ground troops, certainly to me seems a better communications operation than us having to rely on allies.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, throughout my 35 years in the RCMP, I was involved in many emergency situations, not in a military scope but emergencies within Canada such as major explosions, major fires, floods, etc.

One of the biggest problems in any emergency situation is a breakdown in communications. It does not matter where we are, when we have multiple agencies trying to work together, it does not work as efficiently as one agency integrally working within itself.

That is what alarms me here. We are taking away one of our strong tools, the CF-18s, that was there to protect our men and women on the ground if needed, and it was proved that it was needed. Relying on other allies to give that support to our troops will lead to a failure.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House today. I am pleased to rise to speak to the mission against ISIS and the contribution that Canada is making to the important international coalition fighting ISIS.

However, before discussing the details of this new mission, I would like to take a moment to ask us all to recognize the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, who unselfishly and willingly have fought to protect Canadian values around the world. There is certainly no greater service to our country, and I thank each and every individual who has fought overseas to protect us here at home.

Today I would like to talk about Canadian values. The Prime Minister and his colleagues seem content to use this term to justify this mission. However, their actions on the ISIL mission certainly do not back up those hollow words.

To me, the way to tell what someone's values are is not by what they say, but what they actually do. There is an age-old adage that “actions speak louder than words”. When it comes to the mission against ISIS, our international partners are hearing very loud and clear that Canada is content on leaving the heavy lifting to everyone else. That is not what Canadians do.

Let us look at what our international partners are gearing up for while our jets are coming home.

France has expanded its air strikes. The United States has expanded its air strikes. The British Parliament just recently approved a motion to expand air strikes. While our partners get ready to take the fight to ISIS, Canadian fighters are packing up to come home.

I think I speak for many Canadians in saying that Canadian values have never been to turn our backs when the going gets tough. Canadian values have never been to leave our friends in the dust, and they most certainly have never been to run from a fight to protect those who need our help.

Let us look at some past conflicts and what the precedent has been for Canadian responses when called upon to act.

World War I was a true testament to Canadian character and forged our identity in the global community. Nobody can dispute that. As a relatively new nation, and a nation that was largely viewed to be under British rule, many players on the world stage did not know what to expect from Canada. Canadian soldiers showed true strength during this conflict and were a crucial part of numerous missions.

I can think of no greater testament to Canadian strength than the Battle of Vimy Ridge. In this battle, Canadians were handed the task of attacking German forces and capturing the ridge that they occupied. In the end, Canadians soldiers did what over 200,000 British and French soldiers could not do; they captured Vimy Ridge. The victory at Vimy Ridge in 1917 was the single largest advance against German forces since the beginning of the war and paved the way for the end of the conflict. This victory did not come without a cost, though, as more than 10,000 Canadians were killed and wounded during the mission. When called upon to act, Canada did not cut and run.

During the Second World War, Canadians fought bravely at a lot of places, among them Juno Beach, and again showed true strength and determination in service to their country. At Juno Beach, Canadians stormed the beach during Operation Overlord, and ultimately seized control. Approximately 574 Canadians were wounded, and about 340 made the ultimate sacrifice during this operation.

However, the successful Canadian mission at Juno Beach would provide a crucial access point in bridgehead, which ultimately led to the liberation of Europe. Once again, Canada did not cut and run.

Most of us have a story that goes back to the Second World War or other conflicts. I have a great uncle buried in Holland, in Groesbeek cemetery. That was the sacrifice that he ultimately gave to help free Holland. There are a lot of brave moments like that, which show the example of what many soldiers did. They did not cut and run.

Then, there was the Korean War. Between 1950 and 1953, about 26,000 Canadian soldiers came to the aid of South Korea during the Korean War. There were 516 Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice in this effort.

Looking at the contrast today between North Korea and South Korea, it is clear that this was a battle worth fighting. Once again, Canada did not cut and run.

The reason that I presented each of these historic conflicts was to demonstrate that Canadians have never valued running from a fight that was worth fighting. When democracy, freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law are under threat, it has been the Canadian response to respond in a meaningful way.

This is no different today. An Angus Reid poll from February 6 found that 63% of Canadians said they would like to see Canada continue bombing ISIS at its current rate or to go even further. Furthermore, only 18% of Canadians polled thought that pulling our jets from the fight would have a positive effect on our international reputation. If 18% want to cut and run, that means that 82% do not.

Prime Minister David Cameron said it best recently when he stated, “We shouldn't be content [to outsource] our security to our allies. If we believe action can help protect us, then—with our allies— we should be part of that action...not standing aside from it”. The same logic should stand for Canada. If we truly believe that action is required to defeat ISIS, then let us take action. Let us not base decisions on campaign rhetoric; let us base them on the true needs of our international partners.

With that, I am going to close shortly. However, I want to thank many members in this House for standing up and trying to make the point on what Canada should be doing as our responsibility and obligation around the world. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, and many others on this side of the House have argued very clearly as to why Canada should not cut and run. It is not what we do, and it is not what we should do. With that, I am happy to take questions.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He gave us examples of where other coalition partners have increased their air strike capacity. I would be curious whether he has any information about other coalition partners increasing their humanitarian aid, their intelligence-gathering capacities, or their international development work on the ground.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating today is the mission as a whole and our responsibility there. We all know that the mission contained many aspects of humanitarian aid, and it should, but at the same time along with the CF-18 fighters that had a key role.

Once they take away a main component of it, which the fighter pilots are—our planes are a key part—they cannot expect the mission to go as planned. If the member across thinks about it and admits it to himself, he would agree that we are putting some soldiers in danger, and it is certainly not necessary to do that.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB

Mr. Speaker, I heard the term “cut and run” several times during the member's presentation.

Is the member aware that we are increasing our military personnel by 200 members during the upcoming mission and we are tripling the size of our train, advise, and assist mission? As well, we will be spending $145 million over the next three years to counter terrorism. We will be delivering $940 million in humanitarian assistance and spending $270 million over three years to rebuild the local infrastructure.

My question for the hon. member is this. Does that sound like cutting and running to him?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that the number of soldiers has increased. If they want to put the whole thing in perspective, they are pulling out the CF-18s, which are there to protect our people on the ground. There are people on the ground there today before this mission changes. They are increasing the number of people put at risk by pulling the CF-18s out.

To try to say that everything is okay is wrong; it is not. It is one thing to increase the numbers, but they cannot take away everything that is required to help protect them there. That is what we have done. I know the member does not like the term “cut and run”, but that is exactly what it is. As proud Canadians, all of us in here, that is not what we do.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passionate speech and for highlighting that our men and women in uniform are, and have been, doing a great job of protecting Canadian values.

It is particularly troubling to see the CF-18s pulled out. I do not think any of us in this room take any joy in the fact that we are in a military conflict. We would all prefer not to have military conflicts. However, when vulnerable people are being threatened by evil in this world, it is our job as a government to stand up and protect the most vulnerable.

One of the things I am hearing in the context of the refugee crisis is that many of the people coming to Canada as refugees, if they had the choice, would far rather be in their homeland in a safe and secure environment. That is one of the jobs we are trying to do.

However, when our CF-18s are pulled out, it makes that less likely. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that if we could bring more stability to that region, it would reduce the need for us to be accepting refugees. We are glad to do that, but many of them would far rather be back in their home country.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member definitely has a grasp on what is going on over there.

He is right in the fact that most people do not want to leave their homeland. If the option were there for them to stay at home and have reasonable security, that is where they would want to be, though there are always exceptions to the rule.

Again, the CF-18s being there and helping to stabilize the whole area is certainly the right way to go. I thank the member again for that question. It is just common sense.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Calgary Centre Alberta

Liberal

Kent Hehr LiberalAssociate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon.

I would like to begin this debate with a statement of gratitude to the many men and women who are serving in our military in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, and the many public servants who have offered and will continue to offer their service and dedication in the Middle East on our behalf and on behalf of all Canadians.

It is indeed a great privilege to discuss this important undertaking by this government and the people of Canada. There is no doubt that we need to play a role in the geopolitics of our time and support our NATO allies in the Middle East. I believe we are doing just that on this side of the House, moving forward in a bold and confident manner. We will not only play a role in the world and fighting ISIL, but will ensure that part of world builds itself and has the capabilities to fight on its own behalf and to develop a long-term approach to stabilizing the region.

Our motion has essentially five points to it, which I will address before getting into further merits of the debate.

First, we would refocus our military contribution by expanding the advise and assist mission of the Canadian Armed Forces in Iraq; significantly increasing the intelligence capabilities in Iraq theatre-wide; deploying CAF medical personnel; offering to provide the Government of Iraq ministerial liaison personnel for the ministries of defence and the interior; enhancing capacity-building efforts with our defence partners in Jordan and Lebanon to advance regional stability; and as mentioned by many in this House, withdrawing our CF-18s while maintaining air force surveillance and refuelling capabilities.

Second, we would improve the living conditions of conflicted populations, and help to build the foundations for long-term regional stability of host communities, including Lebanon and Jordan.

Third, we would invest significantly in humanitarian assistance, working with experienced humanitarian partners to support the basic needs of conflict-affected populations, including children and victims of sexual and gender-based violence.

Fourth, we would engage more effectively with political leaders throughout the region, increasing Canada's contribution to international efforts aimed at finding political solutions to the crisis affecting the region, and reinforcing our diplomatic presence to facilitate the delivery of enhanced programming; supporting CAF development; strengthening dialogue with local and international partners on the ground; and generally giving Canada a stronger voice in the region, which has to be emphasized. Without question, that is what we are doing on this side of the House.

Fifth, and this is not a minor thing, we are welcoming tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to Canada. This is an important commitment we made in the election, and we are following through on it as we speak. I believe 20,000 Syrian refugees have already arrived in this country, and we will be continuing with those efforts.

This is a strong signal to the world and to the region of our long-term commitment to support what is happening over there, and allowing a sense of dignity and humanitarian aid that I believe reflects well in the world community. More importantly, this reflects Canadian values of helping out, giving people shelter from the storm, and helping people in these regions rebuild their lives.

That is essentially what we as a government are doing, and I am very proud of those efforts.

I would point out what, in my view, we are losing track of when we focus only on the narrow issue of taking out our CF-18s. We have to look at this in the broader context of what we are doing writ large to support our NATO allies, the 65 partner nations that are over there combatting ISIL, and what we are adding to that contribution, and how we can best play a meaningful role. There is no doubt that Canada is fulfilling those commitments to our NATO partners. If we look at the comments coming from the American generals and our partners throughout the world, they are satisfied that Canada is playing a meaningful role. We can see that.

If weighed in their overall capacity, our contributions are superior to what was being offered by the former government. We are moving in with more personnel, more aid, more technological support, and the like. This will assist the region in the short term by enabling the Iraqis forces and others on the ground to develop more capabilities to take the fight to ISIL. It will also assist in the long run in the humanitarian, nation-building, and political contexts, and through our whole-of-government approach, effectively working throughout the region to hopefully secure it and to make it more peaceful. If one looks at our efforts compared to those of the former government, it is clear that we are actually doing more.

When we look at this situation, there seems to be much rancour about the pulling out of the CF-18s. There is no doubt that the reformulation of our mission has allowed our NATO partners to continue with the bombing mission. Clearly, this is not cutting and running. We are staying in the fight. We have just re-calibrated our capacity to do these things and move forward with a different approach, one that not only fits in with the kind and character of what we said in the election but will support the region over the long term, and is what Canadians have been good at throughout our history.

As we are coming up on our 150th year as a country, I would be remiss not to note that we have taken part in the events of the day going back to the Boer War, World War I, and World War II when we stormed the beaches of Normandy. I note our role in the Cold War, and our efforts in Africa, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Canada is not being isolationist, nor is it attempting to be at this time. I sense that our approach to foreign policy, and how we will develop that and work through our United Nations partners to play a meaningful role in humanitarian organizations, and the like, will serve this nation going forward.

The former government did not play that meaningful partnership role that governments in Canada have essentially done through Mr. Pearson, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Clark, Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Chrétien. That approach changed under the former government. Many people saw it retreat from what Canada was good at, which is being a true partner of the institutions around the world that are looking to see peace, order, and good government come to other regions of the world, and for Canada to take a meaningful part.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past few days I have been listening to the presentations by our government friends, who would have us believe that their plan is the best possible plan. I would like to start by telling my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that this is not a NATO mission. This mission is being conducted by a coalition of countries that is not headed by NATO.

I would like to know what sense today's troops and military members, especially special forces members deployed in Iraq and Syria, will make of this new mission? What will these elite members, who are trained to carry out special operations, think of the fact that they are being sent into the battlefield and told that they are not engaged in combat? How will a military member understand that?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kent Hehr Liberal Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would say very easily. General Vance has explained the mission very well. He explained how it is going to be a coordinated approach with the CAF and how they are going to go about their business and take part in a different fashion, help support what we are doing there in retraining and getting the systems up and running for the local forces to do a better job of taking the fight to ISIL.

This plan was not made in isolation. It was crafted over a period of time to allow our military men and women to get the information they needed from the top sources. General Vance has been here and he has been explicit. He has every confidence that our military men and women are up to this role, that it will lead to a better process going forward, and that it will allow us to do what Canadians have always done well, which is on the ground developing relationships going forward in a meaningful sense.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to figure out whether or not this will be a combat role. We have listened to speech after speech by members on the other side who have given evasive answers.

Are the Liberals ashamed to admit that this is a combat role, or is it simply a non-combat role? Which is it? Are we going to be in a combat situation or not?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kent Hehr Liberal Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it may be difficult for the member to understand that Canada has a role to play in the world and that entails being involved in a meaningful way in the Middle East. We are taking that approach. We are going forward with a well-thought-out mission that will allow us to do the things necessary to support local retraining efforts, that will allow us to build capacity in the region, that does service to Canadian values and how we are going to bring stability to the region in the long term. It will work on a diplomatic front to support Lebanon and Jordan and other areas that are going to be involved in long-term sustainability in the move toward a more democratic and safe place for those people who live there.

How the member cannot see this as being positive for the region and positive for Canada is a bit perplexing to me.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this should come as no surprise to anyone. Could the minister comment? This was an election issue. It is a well-thought-out plan with respect to what the Liberal Party, today's government, has talked about for quite a while. We said that the CF-18s were going to be pulled out.

This government has a caring attitude and we have come up with a plan for Canada to play a more prominent role in ensuring more peace into the future.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kent Hehr Liberal Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it should not be much of a surprise to anyone in the House, or anyone in Canada for that matter, that the role of the CF-18s was going to change. We have been clear on that. We have come up with a plan that will allow us to do things better in the short term and the long term. Our approach will allow for that to happen. Part of that approach is not only what we are doing in the Middle East right now, but what we are doing at home. Reaching out to support 25,000 Syrian refugees is an important and significant role for us and it will increase Canada's stature in the world and allow us to play a meaningful role in the geopolitics of our time.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are currently in Iraq and Syria. Their courage and their skill have made it possible for us to articulate a broader policy to help everyone in the region.

I would like to focus my remarks on three broad themes: first, our mandate; second, the nature of the team play, so to speak, in the mission; and third, some thoughts about leadership. I will use some sports metaphors not because this is not a serious issue but because we are trying to understand the nature of team play. It is often useful. I have been a teacher for 20 years at the university level, so I understand that sometimes, in order to make what we are doing clear to Canadians from different walks of life, it is useful to take analogies and metaphors from other areas, and that is precisely what I will do.

First, as regards our mandate, Liberals were clear during the course of the election campaign that we would withdraw our fighter jets from Iraq and that we would review our role generally in the fight against Daesh, and that is precisely what we are doing. We were clear as well on our condemnation of Daesh and everything it stands for and everything it is trying to accomplish, and that we would stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies come hell or high water—at the risk of being a little crude—and that is precisely what we are doing. In this reformulation of the mission, we are fulfilling our mandate; and in focusing on humanitarian aid, training, and intelligence gathering, we are providing the necessary means to help win this battle, as this battle has now evolved.

I am going to use some sports metaphors now, but it is to clarify in terms that all Canadians can understand.

I was a soccer coach for many years, and I have played hockey all of my life. I was a coach and manager, and I was responsible for selecting players. I therefore have a lot of experience in formulating team strategies and assessing players' strengths and weaknesses. It is very important that I tell Canadians that I have that experience so that they know exactly what we are doing with our mission against Daesh.

When I was the associate dean of my law faculty, people joked that I was a full-time soccer coach and part-time law professor. Every player on a team has a role to play, and every player has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes roles change, depending on the circumstances. It is important to always consider how the circumstances change on the field and over the course of a season.

I will give a few examples. I had a player named Benjamin on my team. During the winter season, he was my top scorer in a seven-on-seven league. During the summer, the team's needs changed and he switched positions to centre fullback, a very important position for the team. We lost our best scorer from the winter season, but that is the sort of thing that a coach has to do from time to time after assessing the team's strengths and weaknesses and the circumstances.

There was also Benoît, who was another great scorer. When our goalie was injured, Benoît had to take his place. Sometimes you do what you have to do.

I will now give an example that everyone will be able to relate to. Every four years, when it comes time to form the Canadian Olympic hockey team, top scorers from the NHL are sometimes asked to play defence. It is not necessarily because they are not as good as other players. Sometimes they are better at playing offence than other first- or second-line players. However, they also have other strengths that make them better able to play defence.

We win often enough. All of that to say that this is a winning strategy. The context also changes. We cannot ignore the context and what is going on in Iraq and Syria.

Here is another example. I put together a team focused on controlling the ball. One day, I got to the field and saw that the grass had not been cut. It was 10 centimetres long. I immediately told my players that our style of play would not work in these conditions and that we would kick the ball far and run to catch up with it. It worked well. We quickly picked up two or three goals and won the game.

Sometimes you have to take a look at the field, analyze what is going on, and then make a decision.

That is exactly what is happening here with our mission against Daesh. Not everyone can be a goal scorer, even if they are so talented. Not everyone will be the primary defender, even if they may be the best defender on the team. It is just the way it is. The team has to be filled. Different roles have to be played.

When I asked the hon. member a question a moment ago, about whether or not he knew of other allies who were putting more effort into the humanitarian mission, into the intelligence-gathering mission, he was unable to answer.

We are doing this, not because we are weak, not because we do not have a role, not because are not leaders within this action against Daesh; we are doing it precisely because we are leaders, can fulfill this role, and have seen the conditions on the ground change over the past number of months. We know that what is needed is intelligence gathering, training of local fighters, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy.

Make no mistake: this battle is going to be won ultimately by local fighters who are taking back territory. We are helping to train them. Yes, air strikes help. However, now we need people to perform a very necessary role of training and continuing to train local fighters in order to position ourselves for a final victory.

It is not a unidimensional mission. Sometimes it is, frankly, quite bizarre to hear the members opposite focus on air strikes, as if this were the only way to win, and not taking into account the capacities of the coalition where we are very strong on air strikes.

Let me give one other example, a little more academic. The 19th century economist David Ricardo gave us the laws of comparative advantage, on which our international trade mission is effectively based. It may be, according to Ricardo's observations on comparative advantage, that a country can have the best pilots and have the best training, humanitarian, diplomatic, and intelligence-gathering capacities, and still be asked to use that second set of qualities, simply because it fits better with the rest of the picture, in terms of the whole strategy for winning this battle against Daesh.

Our allies are not confused. Our allies have developed this policy with us, and it is a comprehensive one.

I now want to talk a little about leadership. Leadership can sometimes take different forms. Our leadership must be broad and wide-ranging, and we must remain aware of changes, which is exactly what we are doing.

The opposition takes a very simplistic view of this issue. Having only one approach would be disastrous, as we saw with the United Nations Security Council a few years ago.

I am a proud Canadian, confident in our soldiers, our men and women in service, confident also in our leadership capacities and in our ability to work with our allies in order to defeat Daesh. We stand should to shoulder with them.

This reformulation of our mission against Daesh is needed now; it reflects our capabilities and our capacities; it is what our allies want; and it is the best way to move forward.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member opposite today. Although we disagree on many of the game metaphors he used, I still welcome his comments, and I actually often tease the government and that particular member for their tendency to use consultation. If he does not have the answer to this question, I would actually encourage the member to consult with his government to maybe get the answer and perhaps bring it back at some other point.

I am going to ask a question specific to the post-combat reintegration allowance, called the PCRA, and the goal of that is to assist a member to reintegrate with family following repatriation from a deployment where the member was engaged in CDS-designated combat operations for all or part of the deployment and was not granted special leave.

The reason I raise this particular allowance is that I would like to know this from the member and from his government. Will current Canadian Forces operating in Iraq and Syria be eligible for this allowance, and if not, will the member please stand up to his colleagues in caucus and demand that this allowance be given in the set of circumstances, very difficult, very challenging, under which they operating?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will defer on the hon. member's question to the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence, and I do undertake to have conversations with them in this regard.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, although the UN Security Council has passed three resolutions on Iraq, none of them actually authorized the military mission.

The Security Council, though, is requiring action to prevent the flow of funds to foreign fighters and to suppress the financing of armaments in terrorist organizations.

The Arms Trade Treaty would provide such a block. It would regulate the flow of weapons across international borders, and if implemented on a global scale, it has the potential to starve the world's most brutal regimes of access to money for these insurgent and terrorist fights.

The Arms Trade Treaty came into effect more than a year ago, yet Canada is the only NATO country that still has not signed and committed to its principles. The new Prime Minister has indicated that the government will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which we will celebrate in this corner of the House when it happens.

I ask the minister if the government has taken that action, and if not, why the delay?

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and for the promotion.

I am sympathetic to the question and sympathetic to the issue. I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is seized of the matter, and I hope that we will be in a position at some point soon to inform the House of our stand.