Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2016

Procedure and House Affairs

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for her speech.

Over the years when Canada has gone to war, such as World War II, the Afghan war, Korean War, Gulf War, we have done all that we can to defeat the enemy, including humanitarian efforts, training, ground troops, and air strikes.

Does the member think that ISIL is a less serious threat than the Nazis, where we used everything in our power to defeat our enemies with our allies?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but it is spoken like someone who does not see Canada as part of a coalition.

We are not in this alone. I think that was the essence of the remarks that I just made. We are part of a coalition, and the members have various strengths. At this time, in the shape of this mission, the strengths we are offering are appreciated by the coalition leaders and members. I am proud that is what Canada will be doing to help contribute to defeating ISIL.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, for her very thoughtful and insightful comments.

I think back on the many missions that Canada has participated in with various coalition partners, including in Afghanistan, for example. After we completed a particular mission or mandate, it was not unusual for our troops to return home as a different coalition partner than stood forth. Yet, as announced by the Minister of National Defence, there are significant assets that have been inserted as part of our ongoing efforts to combat the situation in Syria and Iraq.

I would ask the parliamentary if she thinks that this is an appropriate approach for Canada to take.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, my answer is yes; it is an integrated approach.

Our Canadian government's approach recognizes that this is a complex, multi-faceted conflict in a very difficult region. It is important to bring a variety of strengths to bear. It is important to seek the end point of peace in the region and how we can contribute to that peace.

This is why it is appropriate to reinforce support for refugees in the region, because it can be a source of further conflict if they do not have the support they need. It is why it is important to focus on diplomatic matters, on stopping some of the sources of conflict, as well as bringing our military assets to bear to enable the local troops to protect their communities and take back their lands.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in favour of the motion moved by our Prime Minister last Wednesday.

The motion defines an integrated, comprehensive, sustainable strategy to tackle the complex problems related to the crises currently plaguing Syria and Iraq.

We have all heard the stories and have seen some horrific images, either in person or on TV. We know there are over 13.5 million people in Syria and 10 million in Iraq who require urgent humanitarian assistance. In addition, there are over 4.7 million registered Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries.

We also know that our allies in the region have taken on a tremendous role in welcoming refugees into their countries during this time of crisis. The numbers are astounding. In Lebanon, for example, one in four residents is a Syrian refugee. Our allies need our support.

It is this assistance, the provision of food, shelter, dignity, and a path toward a better life, that I would like to discuss today and how Canada will help its coalition partners achieve stability in the region. There is no denying that military and security efforts are vital to securing and achieving victory over those who are destabilizing the region and terrorizing local populations, but military efforts are not sufficient in the absence of a political solution to secure a lasting peace for the people of Syria and Iraq.

The strategy to respond to the ongoing crises in Iraq and Syria and their impacts on the region that was announced by the Prime Minister on February 8 will address in a comprehensive way the complex and intertwined security, stabilization, humanitarian, development, and political challenges stemming from the crises in the region. This integrated strategy demonstrates Canada's continued commitment to the global coalition's fight against ISIL while strengthening the ability of regional governments and local authorities to address the impacts of the ongoing conflict, defend themselves, build the foundations for long-term stability, and provide direct life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable.

As the Syrian crisis enters its sixth year and global population displacement reaches its highest levels since World War II, there is recognition that the protracted crisis warrants a response of global proportions. Our allies, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and Norway, all made significant financial contributions at the London conference that the minister attended last month. Last week, as part of our long-term, integrated whole-of-government strategy, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will be providing $1.1 billion in humanitarian and development assistance to the most vulnerable and affected countries: Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria.

Our new commitment builds on Canada's leadership in innovative development by increasing bilateral programming aimed at ensuring the resilience of refugee-hosting governments and communities and supporting them in their efforts to protect and care for the refugees they are sheltering. Our approach will allow us to be there in the long term, with forward-looking, predictable funding that will be available over the next three years.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that this is the first time in the history of our country that the Government of Canada will deliver humanitarian aid on a multi-year basis. This strategy will allow our partners to plan for and effectively implement initiatives, while also offering a much needed sense of stability to those displaced and suffering.

Moving forward, Canada's humanitarian and development assistance strategy can be summarized as follows. First, to address the immediate life-saving needs on the ground, we will provide vital humanitarian assistance, such as food, water, shelter, health, and protection services, to millions of conflict-affected people in the region. Second, we will provide long-term support to strengthen the population's capacity to thrive and rebuild their lives through education, employment, infrastructure, and governance, as conditions permit.

It is critical that these two elements be implemented simultaneously, when possible, for meaningful impact. Our interventions will aim to build the resilience of individuals, communities, and institutions to withstand and recover from the impact that protracted crises have on their lives and functioning. Our objective is to reduce the need for humanitarian assistance in the long term and, most importantly, our approach serves to help prevent the risk of yet more destabilization in the future.

Allow me to provide more detail on what each of these elements will entail over the next three years.

Our commitment of $840 million in humanitarian assistance over three years will allow us to meet the needs of more vulnerable people more effectively. Canada will continue to be among the top humanitarian donors to the crises in the region. Canada's contributions will continue to support the basic needs of all conflict-affected people in the region and prioritize reaching the most vulnerable, including the survivors of sexual- and gender-based violence, and children.

We have been assessing humanitarian needs on an ongoing basis to ensure that Canada's response is timely and appropriate. We have also been coordinating closely with experienced humanitarian partners, other donors, and the UN-led coordination system to ensure that the most urgent needs are addressed and gaps can be quickly filled. The response to these crises is a global effort.

Our new commitment of an additional $840 million in humanitarian assistance will build on the work Canada is already doing in the region, such as the $100 million contribution that the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie announced last November for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' ongoing efforts inside Syria and neighbouring countries to address urgent humanitarian needs.

We are also building on our government's commitment to match donations by Canadians through the Syria Emergency Relief Fund, and we have extended the deadline for donations to be matched until February 29.

Our government believes in the importance of ensuring that our humanitarian assistance fully respects the principles of neutrality, impartiality, humanity, and independence. These principles must be upheld to ensure that aid goes to those who are most vulnerable and that the workers who risk their lives to deliver it are protected.

The overarching objective for our development programming will be to build the resilience of individuals, communities, and refugee-hosting governments in the region to withstand the impacts of the crises today and into the future. We will improve the living conditions of conflict-affected people and help lay the foundation for longer-term stability and prosperity.

We will do this by focusing on building local capacity in four areas: by providing basic social services, by maintaining and rehabilitating public infrastructure, by fostering inclusive economic growth and employment, and by advancing inclusive and accountable governance. In light of this, our strategy includes the provision of $270 million over the next three years in long-term development assistance that will ease the burden on host countries and communities. It will also provide refugees, internally displaced persons, and others affected by the violence with the skills to withstand the impact of the crises and give them hope for their own future and for that of their country. For example, we will expand our efforts to work with our partners to provide safe and healthy learning environments for children who are in need of education, by rehabilitating schools and related water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities.

I can assure members that we will work in an integrated fashion and that our decisions will be informed by consultations with stakeholders and ongoing analysis of needs on the ground.

I would conclude by reiterating the importance of countries affected by this crisis receiving not just immediate humanitarian assistance but also long-term assistance to help them develop their resilience as a necessary pre-condition for successful political solutions to take root.

I also want to emphasize that Canada is ensuring that all of its efforts in the region are coordinated, complementary, and relevant to the needs on the ground. Our commitment meets strategic objectives and is designed to address immediate threats to life, promote regional stability, and strengthen the community and local governments.

Our strategy is one that we as Canadians can be very proud of.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. Obviously, all members of this House agree on the importance of a humanitarian response.

We need to think about this situation at different levels: in the immediate term, in the medium term, and in the long term. Of course, training and humanitarian assistance are all important, especially for the medium and the long terms.

In the short term we have what I would argue, and what we have said on this side, is a genocide. It has been recognized as a genocide by Daesh and recognized as such by figures like Hillary Clinton and by a resolution of the European parliament.

I wonder if the member is of the view that what is happening right now in Syria and Iraq does in fact constitute genocide. If so, does she think that we need to address that in the immediate term, as well as taking into account these longer-term considerations?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what is important to concentrate on right now is the fact that humanitarian assistance is something that we need to be doing in the short term. It is medium term and long term, but humanitarian assistance, as my hon. colleague well knows, should be developed in times of crisis to be able to assist those who are suffering at that moment. It is extraordinarily important that we deal with the people on the ground who are injured, who are looking for food or shelter, and who need those basic life services to ensure they can get those necessary needs taken care of so we can work toward those next steps.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the government's comments about having an integrated approach, working in partnership with our allies and collaborating with them. I wholeheartedly support that.

I have been trying to get an answer to the following question, that the government has promised to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, yet has not done so yet. To me this is a pillar of co-operation and collaboration, working with all our partners together, but I have yet to get an answer as to why we have not signed it.

I do believe the government has said that it is taking a whole-of-government approach, so my expectation is that the parliamentary secretary should know what is going on and be able to respond to my question as to why it has not signed the Arms Trade Treaty.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her support of our whole-of-government and integrated approach. I would like to reiterate the comments this morning by the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is seized with this issue and will be working on it quite thoroughly. However, we are focused right now on the three pillars of the strategy that we have put forward. I think we can all be very proud of our efforts in the humanitarian assistance and development portfolio.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the point that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan made relating to the whole issue of international assistance. Here I think particularly of the situation in which the previous government, for example, aggressively intervened in Libya, which ultimately led to a breakdown in that part of the world and to what is now essentially a failed state. Part of a broader approach is to make sure that we make strategic investments in international assistance, but here I would note mention that the previous government folded CIDA into Foreign Affairs. I question whether those were appropriate actions to have been taken.

What kind of investments do we ultimately need to make so that we do not get a repeat situation that we saw in Libya and that we now see as well in Syria and Iraq?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his extremely important question and note that our government has been very clear and very committed to the fact that a military intervention is simply not enough. We have to be there in the long term. We have to think about how that society will rebuild itself after this conflict. That is why we are making these investments to assist people with their basic needs right now, but also to think in terms of the future and how we can support them to be stable moving forward.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in this House to speak on important national debates, and the threat to Canada posed by ISIS or ISIL is one of those issues facing Canada and facing our Parliament. In fact, this is my fourth speech in the House on this issue, and I divide my time with the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

In the first debate on this issue that the previous government brought to this House, the Prime Minister, who was then the third party leader, laid out four elements that the Liberal Party would consider in deploying the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have to say at the outset that all members of this House are tremendously proud of the professionalism and dedication to service of our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is a given, and I am fortunate to have met and spoken with all of them, given my former role and given my 12 years wearing the uniform of our country. I thank the people, even those on their way home, for what they have done. We are all very proud of them, and the debates here in no way diminish the pride of anyone in this House, I would think.

At that time, the Prime Minister, who was then the third party leader, laid out four criteria: first, was there a role to play in the threat; two, was there a clear mission and a clear role; three, was there a clear and transparent debate; and four, how could Canada best help in this international mission.

Let us look at those things. In his speech in this House last week, the Prime Minister said that ISIS is a direct threat to Canadians; and that is when we deploy our military, when there is a threat to Canada or our allies or our values around the world, but in this case the Prime Minister agrees that it is a direct threat to Canadians and we have seen that.

Second, is there a clear mission and role? Yes, there was. The previous government, in conjunction with our allies, brought that clear mission and role to the House. The air strike mission that our six CF-18s have been participating in has been tremendously successful. With our allies we have limited ISIS to about 25% of the territory it once held. We have weakened it and degraded it, and that is why in fact our allies are stepping it up, because there has been success with this clear mission of which Canada was part, until the Prime Minister's election promise pulled us out.

Third is clear and transparent debate. We are failing on that rung as well. The CF-18s are already en route back home. We are still debating this in this Parliament, so it is actually not a transparent debate. The government had already said, originally, that today was to be the last day, February 22, but we learned last week that the final mission was flown and our men and women are on their way back home before we have even finished the debate in this place. The Liberals are not even meeting their own standard. Canadians expect more, and particularly our men and women in uniform, who cannot speak up with respect to their opinion, expect the debate to at least be completed and voted on before we hightail out of a fight our allies are still in.

The fourth pillar was how we can best help. I will spend a few moments on that, because I have heard ridiculous statements in this place that only Canadians are uniquely suited to provide humanitarian aid or training. The United States military would probably train more people in its own armed forces in one year than we could ever possibly train in the next two decades. Our allies in NATO in other countries are equally as professional in the training. We were playing that role before and we will continue to play that role, but suggesting that is the only role Canada is uniquely suited to is disingenuous.

We are also one of the largest per capita aid donors, but we cannot deliver aid until there is stability. That is why military force is required at times, to bring that stability so that humanitarian assistance can reach the people it needs to reach.

We have not had a clear, transparent debate, and we are not helping the way we could. Our men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force are some of the best pilots and air crew and technicians in the world. We have a history, from the early days of World War I and Billy Bishop to today, of being some of the best and most professional in the world, and what “most professional” means is that we assess our missions to make sure that strikes are appropriate and that there is minimal collateral damage.

We are able to interoperably work with our allies, namely, the Americans, the British, and some of the other participants. We seamlessly operate with them as members not only of NATO but of our Five Eyes relationship. This is an area where Canada is uniquely suited to play a role to ensure there is no collateral damage or death. I will quote U.S. Marine Corps Brigadier General Tom Weidley, who said this last year, on the Canadian participation. The CF-18 war planes are:

...an absolutely capable platform in this environment. They provide a great deal of flexibility in the ordnance they can carry in order to address different targets. They have a tremendous array of sensors and data sharing capabilities.

We are used to working alongside our allies. Canada is never usually the first nation in, but when our friends or our values are at risk, we are always, or have been in the past, standing alongside our allies and can work with them better than any other nation.

The previous government launched us on a mission of training, aid, and military force with our allies. This debate really is not about increasing the number of trainers. It is not about increasing the amount of aid. I am sure this debate would have come to the House anyway because our previous government set a timeline. We probably would have bumped those numbers up too. This debate rests solely on the decision to withdraw from the active combat role in this mission at a time when our allies are stepping up. That leads me to the subject of my previous three speeches in this place and an essay I wrote online that was called “The World Needs More Canada”.

Our foreign policy since our early days has been to align our interests on the security of our country, threats to our allies, and promotion of values and human rights and security for others around the world. I have quoted so many Liberals lately that some of my colleagues may start questioning my Conservative bona fides. I am using those examples to underscore how this was never a Conservative versus Liberal proposition. This was an essential vote that usually Parliament was unanimous on because it was greater than ourselves.

MacKenzie King said within Canadians there lies a deep-seated “instinct for freedom”.

Lester Pearson said that whether Canadians fire their rifles in Korea or in Germany, they are protecting Canadians just as if they were firing them here at home”. That is what our crews have been doing in their sorties.

I quoted John Manley and his inspirational words after the 9/11 attacks, saying we just need to look to the cemeteries of Europe to see if Canada's history is one of taking an active role.

Today I will continue in that vein and quote a few others.

Lloyd Axworthy last year said how disappointed he was about the then third party leader's position. He said:

You've got to realize that diplomatic niceties are not going to work, humanitarian aid is not going to work if people are going to be shot in their beds.... At times, you have to toughen up.

I hope the Prime Minister is calling Mr. Axworthy, who was our foreign affairs minister during the Kosovo air strikes of 1999.

Last week, I spoke with a Canadian veteran who fought as a CF-18 pilot in those Kosovo missions. I was struck by the fact that in Kosovo, the Liberal mission, we flew 2% of the sorties and we were the fourth or fifth largest overall contributor to the air strike mission. What are the numbers over the last year? We flew 2% of the sorties and we were the fourth or fifth largest contributor. That is our traditional role.

Art Eggleton, who was minister of defence at that time, said about Kosovo that it “is in every way consistent with our traditional approach to international security threats and the protection of human rights”.

What did their boss, my old legal colleague, former prime minister Chrétien, say about the Kosovo air strike mission? He said in this place:

We have entered into the campaign to stop President Milosevic and the ethnic cleansing, raping and murdering that are going on.

However, we are a member of a team and as a member of a team we have agreed on a strategy that the best way to...resolve...[this] was to have air strikes. That is what is going on....

The final quote is from the now Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who said in 2002:

So what does sovereignty mean in this context [of being minister of defence]? It means that our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign policy objectives....

Those objectives have been sound throughout our history until this debate. I hope the government sees the light.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for St. John's—Rothesay.

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

Madam Speaker, that should be Saint John—Rothesay.

I thank the member opposite for his speech, which was very passionate, but the member opposite and his party continue to confuse and distort this debate, as far as I am concerned. I mentioned in the House last week and will mention again that, likening it to sports and hockey teams, the opposing team being played will determine the best method of attack to beat the team. For one team it may be offence, but to beat another team it may be defence or another different style of play.

The Liberal government is coming up with the best plan that it feels will have the best result. Would the member opposite not agree that is the best way forward?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed my friend made sure to clarify that his riding is Saint John—Rothesay, not “St. John's”. I know in Atlantic Canada it is a big thing. I served on HMCS St. John's, and I am very proud of that time.

I know he was involved with the hockey team there, the Sea Dogs, which had a big Memorial Cup win a few years ago, but I am concerned. This is the second sports analogy I have heard today. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade use a number of them, saying he was a coach in hockey and soccer. This is not a game. This is an important debate, in which sports analogies do not apply. I have been quoting former leaders to show how Canada has a responsibility.

The member talked about the clear debate and said that Conservatives are confusing the debate. No, we are talking about what the previous government did and what the current government is changing. This debate is being held when it has already withdrawn the CF-18s. How is that a transparent debate? Canada has the ability to play a multi-faceted role—humanitarian assistance, aid, and an active military role—with our allies, just like Kosovo, which the Liberal government promoted and supported without a debate.

We play a role commensurate with our size, abilities, and values. Why has that now changed?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get the hon. member's comments on the fact that in the announcement and plan that the government presented around the action against ISIL, there was nothing included around domestic action, deradicalization efforts here in Canada. I am wondering if he would stand with me and ask the government to include this type of investment in helping people right here in Canada not become part of that terrible action.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quoting Liberals and now I am agreeing with the NDP. What is happening to me lately?

I can assure the hon. member that, in fact, the Conservative members of the public safety committee have been trying to get the issue of deradicalization on the agenda of that committee. Her NDP colleague will inform her of that and also tell her that each time it has been blocked by the Liberal majority on the committee, even though the minister is giving interviews and talking about setting up a deradicalization coordinator. They took the UN's Ban Ki-moon on a tour through a centre in Montreal. Why should parliamentarians not debate that very important issue as well? The Liberals are blocking it. Once again, the third pillar of the Liberals' plan, clear and transparent debate, is not happening on this issue.

Deradicalization and the terror networks, the use of social media, and these sorts of things need to be examined by parliamentarians, and I hope the government will soon open up and allow all sides of the House to explore important issues facing the safety and security of Canadians.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, for many years now, Sunni Islamist extremism has been identified as the principal terrorist threat to Canada's national security. This consensus among Canada's security institutions is reflected in the analysis and conclusions of Canada's counterterrorism strategy. Today, ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is the leading proponent of the most active and violent brand of Islamic extremism in the world. Indeed, ISIL is the most aggressive exporter, promoter, and inspiration of jihadist terror attacks around the world, including in Canada today. That is why, when ISIL began to establish and expand its own geographic base and territory, Canada joined with our allies in doing our share in a combat mission to address the ISIL threat.

Today, Canada's new Liberal government is turning its back on our tradition of carrying our share of the weight in the struggle to keep the world safe from this kind of threat. No longer will we engage in combat; we are expecting our allies to do the fighting for us. This is not because the fight against ISIL is won; it is not. It is not because air strikes have not worked. All the evidence is clear that allied air strikes have been the principal factor in halting the advance of ISIL and beginning to roll back its geographic gains.

The Liberal Party is pulling out of our combat mission because its leader made a foolish and immature pronouncement about deploying our CF-18s. His vanity apparently makes it impossible to acknowledge the error of that outburst. Thus, he will not acknowledge the subsequent successful contributions of Canada's CF-18 pilots and crews in taking on ISIL.

Despite subsequent ISIL-inspired terrorist attacks in Canada and horrific carnage in places like Paris and San Bernardino, there is a stubborn unwillingness to have Canada actually fight in what is civilization's great fight of this era.

Why is it so important to deny ISIL a geographic base of operations? History tells us why. In 1988, a then obscure character from a wealthy Saudi construction family named Osama Bin Laden, established al Qaeda, meaning the base. Before too long, with the retreat of the Soviets, al Qaeda moved from Pakistan into Afghanistan where, ultimately, the Taliban regime gave them safe harbour, and a free hand to operate.

Eventually, the Bin Laden family, and others essential to the al Qaeda organization, established a family compound in the Tarnak farm. Inside this small, modest, walled compound, Bin Laden lived with his three wives and many children, and directed the terrorist exports of al Qaeda.

Canada had a special place there, it should be noted. The Canadian Khadr family, including Ahmed and Omar Khadr, lived in the Bin Laden family complex at Tarnak farm.

The Taliban regime harboured and supported al Qaeda in those years, and they were able to organize and mount a range of increasingly violent terrorist attacks abroad. For years, the work of al Qaeda was followed closely by those interested in national security issues, but the broad public seemed unconcerned, despite an escalating series of attacks.

People soon forgot a 1993 bombing in the parking garage of the World Trade Center by an al Qaeda trained terrorist. After all, only six people were killed, and the building remained standing. The Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 killed 19 U.S. soldiers, but those kinds of things happen in the Middle East, so seemed the public to reason.

The 1998 al Qaeda bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam wounded over 4,000 and killed over 200 people, but only 12 of those killed were American. The public began to take notice of al Qaeda, but again, these were faraway places.

Ahmed Ressam, the millennium bomber, who lived in Montreal, trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. His plan to bomb the Los Angeles Airport was foiled by a skilled U.S. customs inspector as he crossed the border from Canada into the U.S.

Then, in the year 2000, the USS Cole was struck by al Qaeda with 17 U.S. sailors killed.

However, it was only with the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, that public recognition of the scale of the terrorist threat would really sink in. The global response was united. The Taliban regime, and the al Qaeda core group it harboured, had to be eliminated. The geographic base for the terrorists in Afghanistan had to be shut down.

Canada did its part. The Liberal government of that day, to its credit, recognized that Canada had its place in the fight. One could take issue with how well the government of the day supported the troops sent to fight. They had jungle camouflage in a desert theatre, were left vulnerable in Iltis Jeeps, and without helicopter transport, they were left exposed to improvised explosive devices and ambushes.

However, over time, those deficiencies would be addressed with proper desert uniforms, light armoured vehicles with improved armour, and helicopter transport for the troops, all of which saved lives. Ultimately, thanks to the superb work of thousands of members of the Canadian Forces and thousands of those fighting for our allies, the terrorist threat of al Qaeda, the core organization, was degraded and virtually eliminated.

However, despite the wishful thinking of many, the threat of Islamist extremism had not come to an end. Al Qaeda's core was symbolically finished with the death of Osama Bin Laden in May 2011. Various other Islamist terrorist groups, including several that had renamed to incorporate the sensationalized al Qaeda brand, continued. Among them, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula.

While Canadians had been kidnapped by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula was long viewed as the most likely affiliate that would export terrorism, it was al Qaeda in Iraq that would eventually evolve into the shockingly brutal terrorist army that is ISIL. In fact, its actions are so horrific, as many in this debate have reviewed, that they have been regarded by other al Qaeda affiliates as too extreme to be tolerated.

Therefore, with the benefit of that history, the world has recognized that the fight against ISIL is the fight of our times. Having seen what happened when al Qaeda had the security of a geographic base of operation, we know we cannot allow ISIL the same opportunity. The imperative is greater. Thanks to oil resources and geographic conquest, ISIL is now the wealthiest, best resourced, and most heavily armed terrorist group the world has ever seen. Its brutality is unlike any we have ever seen before.

Jihadist terrorism has been changing over time. ISIL does engage in the traditional terrorist activities of training and exporting terrorists to commit attacks and the bombing of civilian aircraft. ISIL has also embraced the more recent terrorist phenomenon of suicide bombers.

However, ISIL has also shown unprecedented skill at the art of propaganda and incitement. Its Internet presence, sophisticated visual production, and promotion of the destruction of non-believers has broken new boundaries. It repeatedly named Canada as a target for jihadist attacks.

That incitement has already led to two terrorist attacks here in Canada, in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and right here in Ottawa. As I have said before, ISIL has brought the terror war front lines right here to Canada. The threat is real.

Canada's responsibility is real. Many Canadians have travelled to join ISIL. For Canada to back out of the fight now can only be viewed as a failure of Canada to live up to our responsibilities. Countries like France and Great Britain acknowledge that their citizens have travelled to join ISIL and have stepped up their contributions to the fight. Despite over 130 Canadians having travelled abroad to support terrorist activity, the Liberal government is abandoning the combat, leaving our allies alone to fight the terrorists including the Canadians in the ISIL ranks. One can imagine how discouraging this is to our allies who are left to do the heavy lifting.

Our Conservative government recognized our responsibility, our Canadian tradition of doing our share, and the imperative of combatting ISIL today to prevent terrorist attacks on Canada in the future. We recognized that a failure to take on ISIL now would only lead to the need for a greater conflict in the future if the ISIL caliphate could take a geographic hold.

The decision of the Liberal government to end the combat mission against ISIL is a sad one. It marks an end to Canada's role as a leader in the global fight against terrorism. It means a failure of Canada to do our fair share of the work in keeping the world safe. The Liberal decision to end our combat mission against ISIL is a mark of our failure to assume responsibility even as young Canadians are fighting in the very ranks of ISIL.

Most of all, it is a decision that leaves Canada at risk. At best, we will be free riders, depending upon others to do the real work of shutting down the real terrorist threat to Canada. At worst, we will be leaders of a sort, the first to back out of the fight, an action which, if repeated by our allies, will leave the entire world, Canada included, vulnerable to terrorist attack by the worst, most fanatical, and export-oriented terrorist group in history.

The Liberal decision is not in keeping with the Canadian way of doing things. We are the true north, strong and free, standing on guard. We are a country of courage, of principle, of doing what is right. That is the Canadian way.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was talking about. He said a lot wonderful things in his speech, but the core of what we are actually talking about today is the potential involvement, or no involvement, of the CF-18s.

The Canadian Forces have done wonders historically for us. We are all immensely proud of the work that our men and women do in the Canadian Forces. However, there was an election, and part of the platform was that we would be withdrawing the CF-18s in favour of expanding other aspects of Canada's role in the Middle East.

The Liberal Party achieved a majority government. Surely to goodness the opposition would not be calling on the Liberal government to break a major election platform. If we factor in the New Democrats who want the CF-18s out, the Green Party who wants the CF-18s out, and a majority of Canadians who voted that the CF-18s have no role to play, that is the core of the issue.

My question to the member is: does he not recognize that the world coalition can do many of the things that the Conservatives want us to do?

It is important that Canada invest in terms of where we can continue to protect the coalition's interests and fight terrorism. One of the ways of doing that is by tripling the size of our advisory team in the conflict so that the Iraqis are better able to combat terrorism door-to-door virtually.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, the point of the position of the Liberal Party is to say that our CF-18s did not make a difference, that they were not playing a part of rolling back ISIL. In fact, all the evidence says otherwise. Air strikes have been the principal source of success in rolling back and containing the ISIL threat.

In terms of what the Canadian public thinks, well every survey makes it clear that they want to see Canada continue in the fight.

Sadly, there will be no more Canadians fighting after the Liberals implement this decision. Hold it, I take that back. There will still be Canadians fighting, but the only Canadians actually fighting will be fighting on the side of ISIL. That is shameful. That is an abandonment of our responsibility.

We have Canadian citizens who have travelled abroad, are part of ISIL, and are engaging in combat against our allies who are in the fight. We think we want to win the fight, and we will not even do our share. To me, that is a shameful abandonment of our most basic responsibility in this fight.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say how disappointed I am that the Liberal government has acted to withdraw the CF-18s without waiting for the benefit of a parliamentary vote and respecting the process. Our allies have asked us to leave our CF-18s in the fight, men and women on the ground want Canadian air protection, and the CF-18s do not have a mission as important as this to rush off to.

If we do not cut the head off the snake known as ISIS, we will have more refugees than we have the capacity to deal with. I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.