Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who has also been a great defender of veterans and the need for action when it comes to taking care of them, which is something that missing in the kind of vision we were discussing here today in the motion put forward by the Liberal government.

Once again, the mission we are debating here in the House. the mission put forward by the Liberal government, is a departure from a long tradition where Canada has been part of multilateral engagements and multilateral missions sanctioned by the UN.

Unfortunately, the mission being put forward, one that we have clearly said is ill-defined and would lead to greater instability rather than stability, is one that we simply cannot support. I am proud to be part of the only party in the House that is taking this stand in opposition to the military mission the Liberals are putting forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, Public Safety; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, The Environment; and the hon. member for Foothills, The Economy.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in opposition not just to the amendment but also the main motion. I have to start by expressing some disappointment, frankly, with the government's position.

Throughout the campaign, there was a clear and deliberate effort by the Liberals to tap into what was a very widespread feeling among Canadians that they did not support the kind of military action being taken in Syria and wanted a government that would take a different approach. A lot of the language the Liberals used in the campaign, I dare say, such as the commitment to withdraw our CF-18s, was meant to tap in to that sense of dissatisfaction with what was going on.

Then, lo and behold, when the Liberals became government, they have stuck to the letter of the commitment. It is not only the letter of the commitment to withdraw the CF-18s that I would say Canadians were voting for when they thought they were voting for change. They were also voting for what they thought that represented, what that commitment was designed to represent, which was a different approach from the government with respect to this mission.

Instead, what we hear from the government in the House is how it is just as committed as the previous government was to that mission, but it is going to do it and live it out in a different way, a way that it refuses to call a combat mission. However, from what Liberals have said in the House and the plan they have laid out, to the extent that they have, we know that it is going to involve putting Canadian personnel on the front lines more than before. It is going to increase the likelihood of engaging the enemy. I would say that really does not at all represent the kind of commitment that the Liberals were representing to Canadians during the election campaign.

It is disappointing to see how quickly that changed. For Canadians who were paying attention, they, too, are disappointed, because they really do not feel like the government is living up to the spirit that it presented on this issue or, I would say, perhaps in general, but that is for another debate.

We have heard different things in the House. We hear the Liberals saying even now that supporting the mission is not just about the CF-18 commitment and then they say all the ways they are going to support the mission. In the election campaign they said they were withdrawing the CF-18s. Canadians were supposed to know that was code for not supporting the mission. It is frustrating to watch the government trying to have its cake and eat it too. On issues like this, we owe it to Canadians to take a clear stance, but the Liberals, so far, are doing a fine job of practising the art of fence-sitting. I am just not sure that is the kind of approach that Canadians want to see on this.

Some in the House think that means recommitting to the CF-18s; New Democrats do not. We think it means honouring the spirit of the Liberals' election commitment to withdraw the CF-18s and to actually withdraw them from the mission and look at other things. Sometimes the hardest questions, when we talk about trying to undermine forces of global terrorism, are the ones that cause us to look in the mirror, to the extent that funds for organizations like ISIS are passing through Canadian hands, if they are, to the extent that Canadian arms producers are selling weapons directly to countries or parties, which end up being part of the global terrorist movement. Those are some of the tough questions, because they actually ask us to say no to our friends, to restrict our own behaviour that, in some cases, benefits some Canadians.

Once again, when we look at the Liberals on this issue, we see that kind of fence-sitting happening again. When New Democrats have asked questions in the House about the sale of arms and military goods to Saudi Arabia, we are met by a government that says it agrees with us that this is not good, but it is going ahead anyway, because that was done by some other government and it is too bad. I think Liberals would tell us, and certainly on other files they tell us, that they were elected to undo some of the most egregious things that the last government did and then, suddenly, on an issue like this, their hands are tied.

It is hard to buy and hard to accept. I think this is one of the things that Canada could be doing. It is concrete, and it would be far more effective.

We now have a long recent history of these kinds of military interventions in that region of the world, which, I think it is fair to say, have not produced the kinds of results that those who initiated them, or even those who did not initiate them, would have liked to have seen. They did not bring peace and prosperity to the region. They have not made people in North America or other parts of the world feel more safe and secure. Things have gotten worse.

The answer, typically, from some has been to say that we just need to ramp up our efforts and do more of what has not been working, instead of looking at some of those tough questions about arms traffic that either originates in or passes through Canada and what we could be doing in those instances. That is where I would like to see the focus. On this side of the House, we have been asking to see more focus on that, because we do believe in doing something about the threat. We would like to see that threat neutralized.

We just cannot be blind to recent history, which has shown that these kinds of undertakings by the U.S. government, and not NATO and not the UN, have not been in the tradition of peacekeeping. It is this tradition that the Liberals in their new government have been trying to invoke, saying that Canada is back and we are getting back into the old traditions. The old tradition of peacekeeping would have seen us participating in UN missions. This is not a multilateral mission, and it is not sanctioned by the international alliances and groups that we have traditionally undertaken these kinds of missions with.

I am disappointed in that. I do not think that de-emphasizing a military role, or even leaving a military role altogether, means not being able to do things. Therefore, I think it is the false dichotomy that we need to reject in this debate, and which I stand here to reject. There are many things we can do in terms of cutting the legs out from under terrorist organizations that do not involve the kinds of ultimately ineffective military interventions that we have seen; ineffective in the sense of not realizing the goals that they purport to realize.

Military intervention is a particular kind of tool. Like any tool, one has to know what job it is one wants to do and what the finished product would look like. It is why, when we use the military, we need to give a clear definition of what the mission is. We need to give a clear definition of what the end goal is and what completion looks like. We need to know how it is that we are going to extract ourselves from it once the goal has been realized. If we cannot do that, then it is a real mistake.

We have seen it before where countries, and in some cases even Canada, get involved in long protracted military missions where people lose their lives. At the end of the day, it is a messy exit, because there is no clear victory, because it was never clear going in what a clear victory would be. It pains me to sit on this side of the House and see our new government, having promised change, engaging in that same behaviour.

As I said, there were many people during the election who, on this issue, saw the Liberals and the NDP as of a piece, because the Liberals wanted to stop the CF-18 campaign, as did we. Canadians took it to mean that the Liberals meant what we meant, which is that this kind of military mission was not producing the results that its advocates said they wanted and said would happen.

Therefore, we need to do other things. We need to look at ourselves, and the way that these organizations are financing themselves. We need to look at the way these organizations are getting the arms they are using in the region.

Even though those are harder conversations to have, including the conversation that the Liberal government is refusing to have right now when we ask questions about the Saudi arms deal, they are the kinds of things that I think could be more effective. They may help us to actually realize the goals for which we have now had many years of military intervention with many lives lost. Therefore, I would urge the Liberals to take that approach rather than the one represented in the motion before us.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for his speech. It was interesting and certainly one-sided.

I just want to make sure that the member fully understands the proposal that has been in front of him and his team these last few days. We will be tripling the size of our train, advise, and assist mission, so that local people who live in the country can actually defend themselves against ISIL. We will be adding $145 million for counterterrorism in Iraq. We will be adding $840 million for humanitarian assistance for those who are affected in the most horrendous ways, who live in the Middle East, in Iraq. We will be adding $270 million to help rebuild local infrastructure, including water capacity and roads, so that people can try to get some semblance of normalcy in that country.

Is the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona aware of this?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the government is talking about train and assist. I am aware that the government has undertaken similar types of measures in the past. When I was talking about the types of missions that did not ultimately yield the outcomes we had hoped for, that was partly what I had had in mind.

That does not change the fact that when the government performs those kinds of roles, it is more likely to be engaging in combat. That is partly why we have been up in question period. We would like the plan to change. However, we are not telling the government to change the plan, just to confess to what it actually is, what parts of that train and assist really are.

Carpenters cannot be trained just in a classroom, a trainer has to go out on a job site with them to teach them to do the job. When the government is talking about train and assist, it is talking about sending Canadian men and women out into the field, and that means it will be more likely they will be engaged in combat. In fact, it is more likely than for some of our allies who are continuing with an air campaign.

What we are asking, in the most minimal sense, is for some recognition from hon. members on that side of the House. We want them to own up to the fact that this means that Canada is actually continuing in a combat role, granted in a train and assist capacity.

I do hear what the hon. member is saying. I would just like to hear him say what is being left out.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to comment on the speech from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I listened carefully to what the member said. Certainly the government has indicated there are going to be sunnier days and ways, and we are going to be more open and transparent. However, I find myself actually agreeing somewhat with the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and I am actually surprised to be agreeing with him.

During the campaign when the narrative was that we were withdrawing our six CF-18s from the conflict in Syria, the impression that was left with me was that we were also withdrawing from the combat, from the conflict completely. Now there seems to be a bit of an about-face on that.

I am wondering if the member has some further thoughts on that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my further thoughts on that are that this is part of an emerging pattern. We saw a number of places where the Liberals were making certain professions during the campaign that were designed to tap into a sense of malaise with Canadians about how the previous government was behaving and policies it had undertaken. To be sure, some of those have been acted on.

We have been happy to see the reinstitution of the long-form census, for instance. I was pleased to stand and speak in favour of Bill C-4.

However, on some other things, like EI reform, making a commitment to expand the CPP, those were commitments that the Liberals made to capture a spirit of reform, a different kind of reform, a left-wing reform. I do not want members beside me to get too excited as I talk about reform.

We now see that they are all too slow to act. I hope that does not mean that they will not act at all.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Lakeland.

I begin my comments about the motion by thanking the brave men and women of our armed forces for their contribution and sacrifices in the fight against ISIS. Our Canadian fighter pilots, indeed all our men and women in uniform, should never have to question Canada's commitment to the fight against ISIS. Unfortunately, with its motion, the Liberal government is asking them to do that, to question whether we have the stomach for this fight.

I have a unique perspective. Like a number of other members of the House, my background is from humble Mennonite roots. As a Mennonite community, our focus has been peace, peacemaking, living at peace with others around us in the community and our country and our neighbourhoods. We have taken seriously the reminder in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the peacemakers”.

I want to draw a distinction between peacemaking and peacekeeping. There are some on the other side who suggest that Canada has always been and is defined by who we are as peacekeepers. I will be the first to admit that Canadians have distinguished themselves as peacekeepers around the world, but that does not define who we are as Canadians.

In fact, Canada truly became a nation in World War I when we sent our brave men and women into battle to stand up against tyranny. We did the same thing in World War II, in which we stood up against hatred, against fascism, against racism, and we were successful in doing that. Imagine what the world would be like had we not engaged and had we lost that fight. Those conflicts were not about peacekeeping. They were about forging a lasting peace in which the rights of all were respected and in which the values of democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law were promoted and established on a lasting basis.

This whole canard about Canada simply being a peacekeeping nation does not do credit in any way to Canada's history and our forward-looking commitment to continuing to stand up for the most vulnerable people around the world. Close to 117,000 Canadians have lost their lives in combat, standing up for the very principles I just raised.

What has defined us as a nation is our willingness to stand up against evil, to stand up and identify right from wrong, not simply to turn a blind eye to the scourge of violence and tyranny against the most vulnerable around the world.

That brings me to the notion of responsibility to protect. That is something we have not heard from the Liberal side much.

The United Nations has adopted this principle of responsibility to protect. There is no situation that more aptly reflects what this is all about than the situation in Rwanda, when global community was called to engage in a situation where genocide was taking place. We did not engage, and what a horrific outcome that was.

The responsibility to protect simply says that when there is such a significant risk to a people group, to a group of human beings, and that risk is being generated by those who are truly evil, the world, the global community, has an obligation to intervene. I cannot imagine a situation more appropriate to apply that principle to than in the Middle East in the fight against ISIS.

ISIS hates our Canadian values. It is an extremist religious ideology that wants to impose a global caliphate upon our world that would govern both Muslims and non-Muslims. It is a violent ideology, one that goes after the most vulnerable, religious minorities, and ethnic minorities. Its members put people in cages. They burn them. They drown them. They behead young children who are listening to pop music. They rape women. They sell young girls into slavery. It goes on and on.

Canada has historically always stood up against and confronted these kinds of evils in the world. We are one of those targets.

I want to remind everyone in the House that the suggestion that this is a conflict in a far-off land on a distant shore is simply a false premise. The more successful ISIS is in the Middle East, the more Canadians will become emboldened and inspired. These are typically misinformed and vulnerable Canadians who then themselves become radicalized and commit horrific acts of terrorism against Canadians.

We have seen that in Canada right here on Parliament Hill. One of our soldiers was killed at the national monument. Another one of our guards was shot here. The same thing happened in Quebec. The long arms of terrorism reach into Canada. If we do not confront it in the Middle East, it will become even more pernicious and prevalent in Canada.

There are some who suggest that our allies are happy with our decision and very pleased that we have withdrawn our fighter jets from this fight against ISIS. The Liberals have suggested that they have consulted with our allies and they are completely okay with it.

In today's edition of the National Post, there is a headline that screams, “U.S. general heading air campaign against ISIL says ‘it was kind of sad to see’ Canada pull CF-18s”.

This three-star general, Charles Brown, goes on to say:

I realize that for your operators who fly the F-18s, your pilots, I think they are a little disappointed because I know if I was one of them at the squadron level and much younger, I would probably be feeling the same way.

He went on to say that he found out Canada's new government intended to withdraw its jets, not through consultations but by watching CNN, of all places. Is that what we do to our allies? These people and countries have been our partners in the fight against tyranny and terrorism, and this is how we treat our allies?

We have seen the evidence of terrorism all around the world. We have seen it in Paris, in the Middle East, in Africa, and now in Asia. Canadians understand the threat we face.

What have our fighter jets achieved? In summary, without going into detail, with all the sorties they have flown and the facilities they have destroyed, our efforts, and those of our allies, have essentially meant that ISIS is now on the run. Its safe havens are being eliminated one at a time. Its source of funding is drying up. Therefore, as we consider this issue, we must understand that there is a lot at stake here.

I am asking the government to reconsider its decision. There is general acknowledgement that the decision the Liberal government made to withdraw our fighter jets from the fight against ISIS was strictly a political one. It was a calculation made to allow the current government to wedge itself against a previous government. That is exactly what happened, and that is no basis for us to play our significant role within the allied effort to fight the scourge of terrorism around the world.

I do not want to in any way diminish the humanitarian efforts that have to take place in the Middle East, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world. Canada does its part. We do our part in welcoming refugees into our country. We do our part in robust diplomacy. However, when we are withdrawing our fighter jets from the Middle East in a fight against ISIS, we are also increasing the risk to our men and women in uniform who are on the ground fighting the good fight, providing training to the Kurds, doing intelligence gathering, and painting targets they can no longer attack. Rather, we will leave it to our allies to do the heavy lifting. We are leaving a shameful record behind for future generations.

I ask the government to reconsider its position and restore our fighter jets as part of the allied effort in fighting terrorism.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regrettably my colleague was explaining as a great military general in the region. We do have our commanders in the region and they know their job and they know exactly what they are doing.

Let me remind my colleague that in 2002, when the Americans went to Iraq, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to participate in the war, while the opposition members were applauding and pushing for Canada to be involved in the war.

A few years later, all Canadian citizens applauded the decision of Jean Chrétien at that time. We know what we are doing. The government knows what it is doing. Our generals on the ground know what they are doing. What our government is doing is in the interests of Canadians and of our men and women in uniform serving in our country.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a question. I believe the hon. member may not have actually seen his government's policy on this. He is hearkening back to Prime Minister Chrétien not sending our troops into Iraq, suggesting that is the model we should follow. Is he then suggesting that we should withdraw all of our troops from Iraq and Syria? Is he suggesting that this mission, which his Prime Minister is now proposing to triple, is wrong, that we should withdraw those troops?

The big fallacy of us pulling our fighter jets out of the region is that we already have Canadian men and women in uniform on the ground there doing valuable work in training the locals to fight effectively and to be able to confront ISIS in an effective way. They are doing intelligence gathering. They are painting targets for fighter jets to destroy key ISIS facilities to ensure that ISIS cannot spread, that it does not have a safe haven, that it cannot raise funds. Yet I hear the member now suggest that perhaps his Prime Minister and his government should pull all the troops out, as Prime Minister Chrétien suggested Iraq was a failure.

When asking questions or making comments in the House, we have to be consistent. If the Liberals want to triple the number of troops on the ground in Syria, then at least have our fighter jets protect them.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech he referenced his Mennonite heritage. I come from Manitoba where there are many Mennonites, many of whom came to exercise their right that Canada afforded them to conscientious objection. During the campaign, a number of Mennonites in my riding who had always voted Conservative told me that the previous government's policy on Syrian refugees was a turning point for them, as many of their families had come to Canada as refugees.

Does the hon. member share those feelings and if so, is there not an implicit criticism of the bombing campaign which is contributing to the massive outflow of Syrian refugees?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do I share the political persuasion of those who voted NDP? Of course I do not. I believe our Conservative approach is one that represents the best interests of our country. It represents the national interests.

I am very proud of my Mennonite heritage, but as an elected member of the House, the most sacred duty that is imposed upon us and upon me is to keep Canadians safe. We have always done our part to engage with our allies to ensure that the world is safe, that we continue to have global security. That global security is very fragile today.

I make no apologies for representing a party that stands for the vulnerable around the world, that understands the responsibility to protect. I would encourage the member to review that principle of responsibility to protect, a principle that has been adopted by the United Nations. I know the Mennonite Central Committee has had to wrestle with because it is very real. We live in a world where we have many vulnerable people and from time to time there is a good case to be made to intervene on their behalf and protect them.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for sharing his time with me today.

I rise today to add my voice on behalf of the people of Lakeland in the debate regarding the government's proposed mission against ISIL. This is among our most solemn and critical responsibilities.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces for their determination and for their bravery. I would also like to thank the Royal Canadian Air Force pilots and crew for their critical work and progress in the fight against ISIL.

As Canadians express their strong and steadfast appreciation to the thousands of men and women who continue to put their lives on the line to fight for freedom and human rights, the Liberal government's approach is incoherent. It seems to lack not only the proper consideration and evidence required for these types of tactical military decisions, but also to be devoid of common sense.

We should be forthright about the true evil that Canada and our allies are fighting. ISIL consists of extremist, barbaric terrorists who are executing unspeakable atrocities against innocent and vulnerable people. They are carrying out a systematic extermination of ethnic and religious minorities in Syria, Iraq, and the larger region, with bigger aspirations. They do not think twice about beheading western journalists, aid workers, and students, while filming their terror to proliferate their campaign of hate and fear. They are trafficking and raping thousands of women and using young child sex slaves for their own personal and perverted pleasure. They want to conquer the world, any and all religions that support democracy, and any individual group of ideology with whom or with which they disagree. They force their views upon others by recruiting the weak and exploiting the vulnerable. They use whatever and whomever they need to, in order to further their own agenda, and at any cost.

We cannot pretend we do not know. The world has witnessed the true devastation that ISIL leaves in its wake, ravaging entire regions with mass executions, beheadings, torture, and cultural genocide.

The events that transpired in Paris last November will be forever etched in our minds. The sheer terror that rippled through the streets of the world's most romantic city, killing at least 130 people, reached all corners of the world as it precipitated series of coordinated attacks on the rest of the civilized world. Suicide bombers have attacked innocent civilians in Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, and other places. In October 2015, a Russian Metrojet was bombed, killing 224 people. In December 2015, a couple opened fire on a holiday party at a centre for people with disabilities in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people.

These are just some of the unfathomable acts that ISIL perpetrates. It is only a sliver of its horrendous terrorism.

We, as Canadians, here in the most admired country in the world, have never turned our backs upon vulnerable people, victims of atrocities, blatant terrorism, and acts of war. We have always stood with our allies and punched above our weight in military campaigns against evil in defence of human rights and to ensure our own safety and security.

Take, for example, Canada's role in Afghanistan. For 13 years, brave members of our Canadian Armed Forces contributed to stabilizing one of the world's poorest countries, rife with political instability, human rights abuses, and a bleak economy. Today, Afghan girls proudly attend school, Afghan security forces are providing safety and security to its people, and the economy is moving in the right direction.

Standing with our allies to defend and to provide opportunities and hope for people in regions devastated by terrorism and for people who are under attack is the right thing to do. It is the Canadian thing to do.

As my colleague, the hon. leader of the official opposition has said, recently it seems that the Liberal government has not really understood the true nature of terrorism. Terrorists are not just thugs, as the Prime Minister has said. They are not simply organized criminals, as the Minister of National Defence has asserted. Terrorists aims to destroy everything we as Canadians believe in, our very way of life, including equality, the rule of law, democracy, freedom, human rights, acceptance, diversity, and self-determination.

I believe wholeheartedly that Canada has an obligation to protect our rights and freedoms and those of our allies. As a stable and democratic country, we must fight terror.

ISIL has also named, targeted, and threatened Canada and Canadians directly. An ISIL-motivated murderer killed one of our soldiers, in 2014.

In a November 2014 audio recording, ISIL's leader said that the group would fight to the last man. He specifically singled out Canada and other western countries as stumbling between fear, weakness, inability, and failure.

In November 2015, a magazine published by ISIL called for jihadi fighters in western countries, including Canada, to “Rise and defend your state from your place wherever you may be”. In fact, some Canadians have been recruited by ISIL and have made threats against our own country. In a video release, Farah Shirdon said he had a message to his home country of Canada. He said, “We are coming and we will destroy you....we will bring you slaughter”. Moreover, John Macguire urged ISIL sympathizers to carry out lone wolf attacks on Canadian targets, in a video released by ISIL.

While our allies are stepping up Canada is stepping back. The Liberals' changes to Canada's mission against ISIL are at best short-sighted and at worst inconceivable. As we send hundreds more military trainers into a war zone, we pulled our skilled and very successful CF-18 fighter jets from their role of providing much needed protection.

Once a well respected and integral ally, Canada is now abandoning our full fledged participation to other countries, like the United States, France, and Australia, who have committed to defeating this threat against all of us.

While no real tactical answer has been provided as to why the decision was made to pull our CF-18s from the fight against ISIL, we know for certain this was a political decision by the Liberal government to meet an arbitrary campaign promise, even before this debate today.

My Conservative colleagues and I are grateful for the contributions and progress made by the Royal Canadian Air Force pilots and crew in the critical fight against ISIL. They have made a difference.

We agree with the multi-pronged approach, including humanitarian aid, providing refuge for vulnerable people here in Canada, and training local forces. All were undertaken by the previous government. However, who is going to protect and support our men and women on the ground? If we do not participate in this combat mission, we will be dropping humanitarian aid on dead bodies.

Our international partners have asked us to stay in the air combat mission. Victims of terrorism have asked us to stay. The Conservative Party has asked the government to maintain our air combat contribution. These pleas are falling on deaf ears. While the government has already pulled our CF-18s out of this mission before the conclusion of the debate here in the House, I strongly urge the Liberals to re-evaluate, and prioritize the safety and security of the people they are putting on the ground, and of all Canadians.

As Canadians, we will always be committed to upholding human rights, religious freedoms, and the rule of law. These principles are fundamental to our Canadian identity. Standing with our allies to fight terrorism with all means necessary is the Canadian thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to ask a question here. If ISIL is everything the member just said it was, if it is a true evil, if it has committed unspeakable atrocities, if it has committed acts of war and trafficked in violence, hate, and fear and wants to conquer the world, why did the previous government provide 600 soldiers and 8 airplanes? Which is it?

If it is indeed this threat to the world, if it is indeed committing this kind of evil, then the member is right that it demands a greater contribution from Canada. In 2006, we went into Afghanistan and we took 2,500 troops there. It was not a token. We knew that what was happening in Afghanistan was serious, and we stood up to the plate and did something about it.

Again, it comes back to that experience. We saw how to make a success out of Afghanistan, and we are suggesting that we move the same way forward here, that the next phase of this operation is to provide the stability that can contribute to the rebuilding and reconstruction efforts that will follow over time. We are going to lead that direction toward stability.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Wow, Mr. Speaker. The member is completely out-of-touch with the values and concerns of most Canadians. I am not sure whether she is mocking or betraying her own position or her government's position on the threat that ISIL poses. I hardly know how to reply except to say that we on this side of the House believe, as we have demonstrated, that Canada must make the most robust effort we can in support of our allies in multiple ways, in a combat mission, in providing humanitarian aid, and in assisting refugees to come to Canada.

This is a time when our allies are increasing their combat activities and their military presence in the area. Canada should continue to provide that support to the best of our abilities as our allies have asked.

I by no means think that the brave and self-sacrificing efforts of members of the Canadian Armed Forces are a token. I am just shocked that the member would even come close to implying that in this debate. It is shameful.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking as well from this side of the House, the opinions of our party are quite different.

What I find really shocking when I look at the amendment put forward by that member's party is that those members wish to remove any engagement by the Government of Canada in improving living conditions in conflict-affected areas, investing significantly in humanitarian aid, engaging more effectively with political leaders in the region, and welcoming tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to Canada.

Perhaps the member could explain to this place why it is that her party feels it is not appropriate for the Government of Canada to assist in those kinds of activities.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course we support all of those efforts. Our government took that multi-pronged approach to this challenge and threat in the region.

We believe in a couple of other things, the first and foremost of which is ensuring the safety and security of Canadians as we welcome refugees to our Canadian family.

The key thing in this debate is what can, and should, Canada do in co-operation with our allies in this important fight to defeat these barbaric extremist terrorists?

I am just shocked by the hypocrisy of the parties on another part of the spectrum from me, who like to go on and on about their tolerance and their beliefs and the right of people like me to hold office and to advocate on behalf of people I represent. Terrorists are doing atrocious things to vulnerable and innocent people across the world, and yet those other parties would have us withdraw from fighting to defend and protect those vulnerable innocent people and to fight the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chilliwack--Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Lakeland for her passion for women and girls around the world who are put at risk by groups like ISIL, and for her great speech here in the House today.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

It was an honour to participate in this debate last March when our government at the time brought forward a motion for debate and a vote in the House of Commons. That is a hallmark of our Conservative government. That is something we started in this place.

The previous Liberal government, whether it was deploying troops to Afghanistan or redeploying them to Kandahar, under the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, did not consult the House.

I would have congratulated the Liberals on adopting that Conservative practice, but we have now since learned that, before the Prime Minister had even finished moving the motion, they had already made the decision without consulting this House. We thank them for the consultation after the fact, after they had already made up their minds, but at least we are having a debate here in the House, which is again a new phenomenon for the Liberal Party, so we congratulate them on that.

I want to talk a bit about previous Liberals in previous governments and their views. I want to quote from the former deputy prime minister, who said:

Canada has a good reputation...but let's make no mistake about it: Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or a neutralist country. Canada has soldiers that are buried all over Europe because we fought in defence of liberty.

That is a quote from John Manley, which he made after 9/11 when there was some concern about what the Canadian response would be, and there were some who were putting forward the response that Canada was a peacekeeping nation, that in fact we did not fight, that we did not get our hands dirty.

I heard that disturbing trend again from Liberal members today in debate. The Liberal member for Surrey—Newton, earlier in the debate, said this Liberal motion was, “...a return to Canada's...type of international engagement”.

That is an insult to all the brave men and women from across the generations who fought in World War I, the fight that shaped our nation; in World War II, responding to the Holocaust and to the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the world; in Korea; and in Afghanistan.

Again, there is this whitewashing of our combat mission in Afghanistan, when it is said that we just trained in Afghanistan. At the end of that engagement, yes, the focus was on training, but prior to that, there was a counter-insurgency in which armed men and women in uniform were involved, 158 of them paying the ultimate sacrifice with their lives to serve this country for the greater good and for vulnerable people who were under the thumb of the Taliban. Those brave men and women went to make life better, as the member for Lakeland said, for young girls who could not go to school, for those who were killed simply for not worshipping in the same way as the Taliban in their twisted ideology.

Let us not forget that the Canadian way has been to fight injustice and to protect the innocent, and we have done that throughout our history. We should not simply talk about the blue helmets and the blue berets. That is a proud part of our military history as well, but let us not diminish the work that our men and women in uniform have done across the generations of this country. They built this country; they fought for what was right.

When we brought this motion forward in the last Parliament, I remember respecting so much former member of Parliament Irwin Cotler, who refused to stand with the Liberal position, because he believed in the responsibility to protect, as does our government.

I cannot believe, as the member for Lakeland said in her speech, a Liberal member saying that our men and women, our hundreds of support staff, our trainers on the ground, and our six CF-18s were tokens, that this was somehow just a token effort that was not really worthy of support, and if we really meant it, we would have sent in the PPCLI or some light brigade.

That is what we were asked to do. We were asked to send CF-18s, and that is what we did. For the member to minimize that as tokenism is a disservice to the men and women in uniform who have been serving this country valiantly for the last 18 months. She should be ashamed of herself.

Perhaps there is a reason why that sort of rhetoric comes from that side. It starts at the top with the Prime Minister. When he was leader of the third party, he was asked about our mission with six CF-18s participating with the coalition. What did he say? I know Liberals do not like to hear it, but I am going to say it again. He said we were going to whip out our CF-18s to show everyone how big they are, and that is what the contribution of the Royal Canadian Air Force was. What an insult to the people of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Then again in the debate, when the matter was brought to the floor, perhaps having to tidy up his language a bit, he said the only thing we were contributing was a few aging war planes. Again, that is an insult to the men and women who fly those planes.

Let us talk about what they have done in their time acting on behalf of the people of Canada. What has the Royal Canadian Air Force done? It has flown 1,378 sorties, 783 support aircraft flights, and 251 air strikes, and 399 ISIS targets were destroyed. That is what we are here to debate. That is what we on this side of the House in the official opposition are here to say. Why do we support the continued bombing by the CF-18s? It is because it is working. Prior to the bombing campaign by the coalition, ISIS was rolling across the open country through Syria and Iraq with impunity. It was taking whatever it wanted. It was rolling like a standing army. What has happened because of the air campaign? Its supply lines have been cut off, its financing has been reduced, and its occupied territory has been reduced by 25%. It is working. The CF-18s are part of that.

Again, I heard government members today saying there are lots of bombers in the area and Canada is providing only 2.5% of the sorties. Then why is it such a big deal to keep them there as part of the multi-pronged approach? When the former prime minister, now the member for Calgary Heritage, brought forward the motion in the last Parliament, he said that we must respond with humanitarian support and we must respond militarily. We now hear the Liberal government saying it can go with training and it can bring in more refugee support, all of which the Conservatives supported when we were in government. However, the other thing we supported was the continued use of our CF-18s and the brave men and women who have done such a great job delivering for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada in this fight against ISIS.

What I find ironic or interesting in this motion is that there are some who are trying to portray this as a philosophical opposition to bombing. It is tough to be philosophically opposed to bombing when Canadians will still be painting targets, refuelling, and providing reconnaissance for selecting targets. Therefore, why would we not allow the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force to continue to deliver those bombs on behalf of Canadians? Why would the government not continue to degrade and destroy ISIS? We are supporting the bombing effort; we are just not supporting our men and women in the Royal Canadian Air Force to continue to do the job they do so well.

ISIS is a terrorist organization that deserves to be destroyed and degraded. Our brave men and women in the Royal Canadian Air Force have been doing a fantastic job in delivering for Canadians and for the Government of Canada. The CF-18s should stay there, and that is why I will support the amendment and oppose this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I feel it is disingenuous and unfair to suggest that the Liberals do not support our men and women in the Armed Forces. I think that is a very unfair comment. It really disappointments me to hear how much the rhetoric has increased tonight. I do not think it is accurate to suggest that our troops are at greater risk because we are going to withdraw our CF-18s. It is disingenuous to suggest that. It is a coalition effort, and the fact that we are going to pull our CF-18s will not put our troops at any more risk.

The Liberal Party has simply come up with a plan that it feels is the best way forward to combat ISIS. Will the member opposite not concede that Liberals are doing what we think is best? We think it is the best strategy. We think it is best way forward for our country and for our contribution to the effort.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Liberal Party does believe it is best, but I think it is wrong. I think the Liberals are wrong because our CF-18s have been delivering results.

As I mentioned, there were 399 targets acquired and destroyed. ISIS continues to see its occupied lands reduced and continues to see its supply lines decimated. It is running low on funds, because its oil sales are drying up because of the coalition bombing campaign.

I would simply say that we support so much of the motion, except for the fact that the government wants to remove the CF-18s, which are delivering a valuable contribution to our coalition partners.

Not a single coalition partner asked Canada to withdraw our CF-18s. The real tragedy here is that this is simply being done, not because it is good military strategy, not because it is good for Canada's international reputation, not because it will degrade and destroy ISIS, but because it keeps a Liberal campaign promise.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments, although I regret I do not agree with much of what he said, particularly with respect to his failure to acknowledge what is an appropriate refocusing of our military resources in the region.

One of the reasons I say this is that, in the member's comments, he simply failed to acknowledge that it is only 20% of the time that our CF-18s are actually dropping their payloads. Why is that?

There is a very obvious reason. ISIS, which we all agree in this House is a threat, is co-mingling with innocent lives. ISIS members are going into the mosques, markets, and schools, and they are doing that deliberately. It is because our pilots are so well trained that they will not drop their payloads unless those preconditions are met.

Therefore, in the face of that, we have decided to focus our efforts on training local individuals, so that they can defend themselves. That is why we have strong allies like the United States saying that we cannot bomb our way out of Syria. Now, I do not know about the hon. member, but that certainly gives us a lot of assurance and comfort that we are going in the right direction.

My question to the hon. member is this. Why will he not support this motion?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was pretty clear on why I do not support the motion. It is because the CF-18s are being pulled out of the fight.

The Liberals talk about refocusing and all of that, as if the Royal Canadian Air Force could not continue at the same time that we are training, providing humanitarian aid, and bringing in refugees. We have the capability. We have shown before that we can fight at the same time as we are providing those other services. We certainly did it in Afghanistan, and we certainly can do it here.

Therefore, I will disagree with the member and his party that it is necessary to withdraw the CF-18s in order to increase training or humanitarian aid, because the facts simply do not back that up.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin my comments today, I would like to take a moment to point out that it is profoundly disappointing to be having a debate on this motion when the government has already begun implementing some of the motion's recommendations before this place has even seen a vote.

Why bother having the debate, when the government cannot be bothered to at least show this House the respect of having a vote before it begins actions such as withdrawing the CF-18s? Of course, that is the point. It is so the government can boast that it did have a democratic vote, even if it was after the fact. We all know that this is part of the so-called new tone in Ottawa.

What also troubles me in this case is that the decision to withdraw our CF-18 fighters was made by this Prime Minister before the mission even began. Let me explain.

On October 3, 2014, the former Prime Minister came before this place and put forward a motion asking the House to confirm its confidence in a government decision to join our allies and partners—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates—in launching air strikes against ISIL.

During the former Prime Minister's speech, he also provided all of the specific mission details. If members happened to be in the House that day, they would also know that the then-leader of the third party responded to that motion, reading directly from a pre-written speech. The reason I point this out is that the pre-written speech opposed the mission to join our allies in the fight against ISIL. In other words, before the member from Papineau even knew the details of the mission, he had already written his speech opposing it.

As we also know, in an interview with CBC journalist Terry Milewski, when asked, “If you don’t want to bomb a group as ghastly as ISIS, when would you ever support real military action?”, our Prime Minister called that question nonsensical. As we all know, that is not really an answer.

To this day, we have never heard a clear or articulate answer as to why this Prime Minister does not support our CF-18s bombing ISIS. There is a reason I say our Canadian CF-18s. If we look at this motion our Prime Minister has proposed, Canada will continue to provide our Aurora aerial surveillance aircraft to, among other tasks, find ISIS strategic targets to be bombed. We will also continue to provide our Polaris refuelling tanker aircraft to help our allies' aerial bombers reach those same targets.

Finally, as General Vance has confirmed, our expanded training forces will continue to operate near the front lines, painting targets to be bombed. In other words, Canada remains actively involved in the campaign to bomb ISIS, only we are no longer willing to pull the trigger.

Last week the Prime Minister said that “on the beaches of World War II and in the trenches of World War I, Canadians have never shied away from standing up and doing what is right”.

The point is that in those campaigns, Canadian soldiers did stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, and we did share the burden of pulling the trigger against those who would do us harm. That is no longer the case here. The question is why. Does the Prime Minister not believe that bombing can be an effective part of the campaign to defeat ISIS?

Last week the Prime Minister said, “The air strikes by our allies and by RCAF members have been effective in a measure of impact against ISIL”.

It seems that the Prime Minister has finally recognized the effectiveness of our air strikes by withdrawing them. Of course, that is not a coherent explanation. When the member from Papineau, as the third-party leader, spoke on the original training mission, he had some interesting things to say.

I quote directly from the member for Papineau, who said:

We now know that Canadian troops have been at the front lines, calling in air strikes and engaging in several direct firefights. In a matter of months, despite assurances to the contrary, the government steadily and stealthily drew Canada into a deeper ground combat role in Iraq.

Now the Prime Minister seeks to increase the number of trainers on the ground. General Vance has confirmed that the expanded training force will continue to paint targets for air strikes and will return fire if fired upon, as we would expect them to.

If the Prime Minister considered that a “deeper combat role”, then how can he now claim that this new mission, which expands the number of soldiers doing the same work, is a non-combat role? Once again, this is not a coherent explanation or position.

In this regard, I can relate to the frustration of the New Democrats, who also see this blatant hypocrisy. However, what is also interesting is that back in March 2015, our Prime Minister stated that the work of our trainers “...should take place away from the front lines”. Yet we know that our trainers will continue to work near the front lines painting targets. Once again, the Prime Minister says one thing when opposing the original mission against ISIS and then does another when announcing his own mission. These are not coherent positions.

Let me also ask the House who said this: “The government owes it to Canadians to be more honest about how long this mission will truly last”. Once again, that was our Prime Minister, then, not now.

Of course, I could continue, but the more I study the Prime Minister's various positions on the mission against ISIS, ironically I am forced to use the term nonsensical.

Before I close, I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank our Royal Canadian Air Force pilots and their support team for the important work they have completed in this mission. I would also like to thank our Canadian Forces soldiers who are bravely serving as trainers. I give sincere thanks to the many support personnel who are also serving in this mission.

While we have much to debate in this place on the scope of the mission and how it has changed, let us not forget that while our CF-18s may be coming home, many of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel will remain. To them and their families, let us give thanks for their ongoing sacrifice. God bless them. May they all return home safely when this mission is complete.

I have one parting word. I was quite happy today to rise in this place during question period to ask the Minister of National Defence whether those people who are currently deployed in Iraq will be eligible for the post-combat reintegration allowance. This is an important benefit that allows members to stay and support their families, and it recognizes their great sacrifices while they serve abroad, not only in taking risks but also in the time it takes away from their families, something we generally all can understand. I was happy to see the Minister of National Defence say in this place that those men and women would be eligible for that particular allowance.

It is important that we as Conservatives, and taking away party labels, all members in this place, should support those who risk so much to protect those who need it. I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud of the efforts put forward by all of our Canadian Armed Forces members. Again, I wish them safety and security and wish them to be home with their families safe as well.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to comment on what my colleague said earlier, which was that Canada had a very good reputation. Regrettably, under the previous government, that reputation went to its lowest level. However, I assure all my colleagues that with this government, we are working hard to re-establish the reputation of Canada to the highest level.

My question for my colleague regarding this motion is this. Does the member know the difference between a weak army and a very strong army? The mission of our government, and the vision, is to make from the Iraqi army a very strong army by providing training, logistics, and help.

If we have 1,000 airplanes dropping bombs, and after that we leave a weak army, the next day five ISILs will arise. Restructuring an army and keeping it strong will eliminate the existence of a terrible organization like ISIL.