Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after 2003, the Americans spent billions of dollars in Iraq trying to train Iraqi security forces. When ISIS came, the forces folded like a cheap tent.

These forces are not going to be effective if one-half of the population simply does not trust them. The problem is larger than just training forces on the ground. We have to arrive at a political solution. The fact is that in Iraq, the Sunni and Shia Arab populations do not trust each other. Until those two populations can come together, having Iraq continue as we wish it to is simply an impossibility.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two of my NDP colleagues raised new fascinating questions that we had not yet discussed. Therefore, I would like to go back to a question asked by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie concerning the type of training provided on the ground by Canada.

Since we do not know what kind of training will be provided, she asked whether it would be strictly military training or also humanitarian aid training. The last Liberal member to speak said, “We'll train them to fight”.

If that is the Liberal vision, how is it different from the Conservative vision?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague, and it goes to the heart of what I am saying.

The motion before us is blurring the lines even further. I think it is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. We are simply seeing the old Conservative mission changed somewhat. We are still having a military mission, still with boots on the ground. As I said before, I do think that is the most effective way Canada could be using its resources. Based on what we have seen in the region over the last decade and more, it is not going to be successful. We cannot have a military solution to this problem. It needs to have a firm political solution on the ground, and I do not see enough effort being put into that particular area.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important subject. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my neighbour, the member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

I am honoured to speak to this government motion, a motion that is extremely important, because it will broaden, redefine, and improve, which is important, the war against ISIL.

The significance of this war to the people of Nova Scotia, particularly in my riding, is extremely important. In my riding, about 22% of people are either veterans or active members of the forces.

In Nova Scotia, we are home to 40% of Canada's military assets. The Canadian Forces base in Halifax is Canada's largest military base. In addition, Nova Scotia is part of the Maritime Forces Atlantic, the largest naval presence in Canada. Nova Scotia has contributed to the defence and security of Canada and has participated in all of Canada's military operations, including both world wars, the Korean war, peacekeeping operations, the Gulf War, and our mission in Afghanistan. This is evidence that this country relies greatly on our brave men and women who have and continue to contribute to the success and security of our great nation.

We call on those individuals often to support us. I must say that during my campaign, when I knocked on doors, I met veterans and active members, and they are very proud Canadians who accept whatever the government asks of them with open arms. That is extremely rich and something I am not sure I could do personally. I am grateful for their contribution.

This debate is extremely important. I am confident, after long reflection, that this is the right direction we are taking. I want to talk about five issues in our strategy.

Our strategy has five components: expanding our training role, which is very important; reinforcing our diplomatic role; increasing our humanitarian role, which is extremely important; our role with respect to the refugees who continue to arrive in Canada; and the appreciation of the House for our armed forces, which is extremely important.

When seeking information and opinions, we often consult experts who are on the ground as sources of information. I would like to quote Colonel Warren, the U.S. mission spokesperson:

We are not going to bomb ourselves out of this problem, right? It's never going to happen.... and as we see nations like the Canadians agree to triple their presence, we find that extraordinarily helpful.

That is quite powerful. It is impressive to hear our allies speaking that clearly and supporting us with such confidence. Why are they supporting us? They are supporting us because Canadians have long been known for their expertise in training. They are also putting their trust in us because of our armed forces and the expertise they have on the ground. That is certainly very impressive. I agree with the colonel. Bombing alone is not going to end the war against ISIL.

That being said, if we want to make a difference, we have to strengthen and train local forces, and provide them with the tools they need to win the war against ISIL.

The second part of this broadened mission is an increased level of diplomatic involvement. As our Prime Minister has said, the solution must, first and foremost, be political.

We have to ensure that we engage allies on the ground in the discussion to ensure that we are a coalition working closely together. We must ensure that we speak with the international community if we are going to ever have lasting peace for the people in that region.

Third, I want to speak on the increase of humanitarian aid. We must do our part. Canadians have always been looked at as strong contributors in that area. We do so because millions of individuals have been displaced. We do so in order to support the most vulnerable people. That is why our government is investing $840 million over three years to support the basic needs of those hardest hit. When I speak of basic needs, I speak of food, shelter, health care, and water. Those are essential, and we are going to be contributing greatly in that area.

We will also invest $270 million to provide social services to rehabilitate local infrastructures, to help foster growth in the economy, to help support women, children, and newborns, in the areas of health, gender equality, and so forth. Those are extremely important issues to which we are going to be contributing as we move forward.

Fourth, there is the matter of refugees.

There is no question that Canada is a leader by far in opening up its arms and accepting refugees, which is extremely important during times of need. There is no question that now we are dealing with a crisis such as we have not seen in the world for at least 30 years. Nine million people have already been displaced. They are in terror and we need to support them. I am extremely pleased about the international community's support, but also about how our government is moving forward in doing that, and we are doing it very well. There have been well over 20,000 people so far.

I want to mention in my riding the RiverLake Syrian Refugee Project, co-chaired by Sue MacLean and Laura Jayne Hambly-Fournier. I mention them for their hard work in working with the community to raise funds, to find housing, and to accept families. It is those individuals and many individuals in the community who make us so strong, and I thank them for that.

As I said earlier, 22% of my riding members are very proud servicemen and women who work on the base, abroad, or serve in the conflict of war. The House needs to recognize their contribution in Canada. In Canada, we have the most professional, talented, and dedicated servicemen and women on the planet. Some of them are even serving in the House here today.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for an impassioned speech. I understand because our government as well administered humanitarian aid, food, water, and shelter.

The member mentioned the $850 million, and some of that going toward the rebuilding of infrastructure. Typically we must have peace in a region in order to be able to build infrastructure and have it stay intact. I would like the member to elaborate on what his government is intending to do when its members talk about building infrastructure over the next three years.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a one-pronged approach. This is an approach where we will be doing many facets of supporting this community. For example, I mentioned our expanded role in training, which is essential. If we are able to do that and also support families in need in that area, there is no question that once the locals are trained and continue the work we have started, then of course we will be able to contribute more in infrastructure areas. However, we are still able to identify some areas where we could begin the process at this time.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that has a large base in it, Base Borden. There are many families who obviously support our men and women in uniform, continually.

Now that the mission involves more risk, all Canadians, particularly the families of the soldiers being deployed, will want to know how Operation Impact is going. Will the government hold regular technical briefings on the mission for these families?

The families on the base that I represent need information.

Will technical briefings be given on a regular basis to these families so they know exactly what is happening to their loved ones on the ground?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her question. I do not know the details, but there is a protocol for information sharing between the military and the families. We will obviously see to it that the families are updated as often as possible and given as much information as possible.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for the very passionate discussion this afternoon.

I know he is an educator, and has been an educator for a long time. I would like to get a sense from him of what Canada could do in supporting the local community and educating and training the population toward anti-radicalism, as well as to ensure that they are able to engage in a proper process toward peace.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question because when we talk about education, we talk about the future. The strength of any society is through education, and it is extremely important.

We need to stabilize the situation first, of course. Local training will be effective and we need to ensure a humanitarian approach when supporting families with shelter and housing and health care. Education should be a main focus. I think that is an excellent idea and I will pass that message along to our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, I am honoured to rise today to speak on the motion calling for the refocusing of our Canadian mission against ISIL.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate that is very important to our government, our country, and our closest allies. I want to start by talking about the approach our government took in redefining our contribution to the international coalition against ISIL.

We distanced ourselves from overheated rhetoric and focused on a serious analysis of the current situation. We considered the needs of our allies and took into account our own military, financial, and diplomatic means.

Unlike the previous government, Liberals refocused our contribution to the international coalition by engaging our allies, by determining the most effective role we can play, and by allowing our Canadian Armed Forces and other departments, such as global affairs and international development, to contribute in the manner that can be most effective.

As the Prime Minister has said, our new policy in Iraq, Syria, and the surrounding region reflects what Canada is all about: defending our interests alongside our allies and working constructively with local partners to build real solutions that will last. We will work with allies to defeat ISIL and the terrorist threat it represents. At the same time, we will help address the needs of millions of vulnerable people, while helping lay the foundation for improved governance, economic growth, and long-term sustainability.

The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are well prepared and equipped to take on this new role. There is risk, but necessary risk, that can and will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible. Our commitment to enhance our train, advise, and assist role carries with it an increased likelihood of contact with the enemy while our troops perform their daily duties. This is not a combat mission. However, our troops will always possess the right to self-defence and will always take the necessary precautions to protect themselves, our coalition partners, and local forces.

As part of our new and expanded commitments to fight against ISIL, Canadian Armed Forces personnel are not the principal combatants, but are training, advising, and assisting those who are. To be clear with Canadians, our troops are and will be operating in a conflict zone, supporting local forces that are fighting to rid Iraq of the scourge of ISIL.

Based on the experience we gained during our military involvement in Afghanistan, Canadian trainers are particularly well equipped to provide support, advice, and training to local forces that will be combatting ISIL forces on the ground. Our international coalition partners have stressed the importance of this support and the need for training.

As our coalition partners have indicated, to paraphrase Colonel Steve Warren, the spokesman of Operation Inherent Resolve, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have to train local security forces. It is one of our primary lines of effort and our contribution is extraordinarily helpful to achieving the goals of the coalition. To say, as the official opposition has said, that we are cutting and running from the coalition's fight against ISIL is patently false. As Colonel Steve Warren has said, “everybody likes to focus on the airstrikes, right, because we get good videos out of it and it's interesting because things blow up -- but don't forget a pillar of this operation, a pillar of this operation, is to train local ground forces. That is a key and critical part.”

We are extremely proud of the critical role that our CF-18 pilots have played in limiting ISIS' movement on the ground, but the coalition has sufficient air power to continue this phase of the mission. Dr. James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said it best when he stated:

...you're going to shift to doing training, which is...perhaps the most important of all. So I applaud the fact that our Canadian military and NATO colleagues will be working on the training mission with the Iraqi security forces, potentially with the Kurdish peshmerga in the north because we don't want to send 100,000 troops, or 150,000 troops like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want local forces to fight ISIS. We need to train, advise and mentor them. NATO can do that very effectively.”

We will also deploy medical personnel and a helicopter detachment to northern Iraq to support and care for our personnel. Our surveillance and refuelling aircraft will remain active, addressing key requirements of the coalition. During 370 sorties, the CP-140 Auroras have surveyed over 3,200 points of interest, including some 20,000 kilometres of main supply routes. The CC-150T Polaris aircrews marked a milestone on January 5, 2016, when they passed 20 million pounds of fuel delivered since the beginning of Operation Impact, an incredible achievement, one of which Canadians should be proud.

We are also working with the Government of Iraq and the coalition to establish ministerial liaison teams to work with select Iraqi ministries. I am convinced that these measures will be welcomed. These teams would assist with the coordination, the planning, and the process in support of Iraqi governance. Canada will also provide capacity building in Jordan and Lebanon.

This is a broader mission, a whole-of-government approach that will involve a number of federal departments, and a mission that entails a military component as well as increased humanitarian assistance.

This is a broader, deeper, and more dynamic military contribution than we have had previously, and it is made all the more effective because it is integrated with expanded contributions in humanitarian assistance, development efforts, and diplomatic presence in the region.

We are part of a broad, international coalition. Air strikes are planned, coordinated, and executed based coalition priorities and tasks. Our CF-18s never operated exclusively in support of our troops in northern Iraq. Air support was there when needed, provided by whichever member of the coalition was in the air or planning cycle.

This will not change. Our troops will have the air support they need when they need it, but our military contribution is just one part of the mission.

As we have heard from my colleagues, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to achieve these goals.

With the hard work of our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Canadians have currently welcomed more than 22,000 refugees of this conflict to Canada.

These courageous refugees have beat the odds and found themselves a new home among us as part of a diverse Canadian social fabric. We welcome them with open arms and are here to support them in becoming an integral part of our Canadian society.

Furthermore, we will deliver $840 million in humanitarian assistance over the next three years to support the basic needs of those hardest hit by this conflict, including food, shelter, health care, water, sanitation, and hygiene. Assistance will target the most vulnerable, including children and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

We will also deliver $270 million over the next three years to build local capacity to provide basic social services like education, health, water, and sanitation; maintain and rehabilitate public infrastructure; foster inclusive growth and employment, including by enhancing women's and youth employment; and advance inclusive and accountable governance.

Our programming will focus on helping women and youth, improving maternal, newborn, and child health, and advancing gender equality.

We simply cannot accept opposition rhetoric that we are cutting and running from this mission. Unlike the previous government, we are taking a conscientious and principled approach to a complicated problem.

We are engaging in every area of this conflict. We are presenting a truly coordinated, collaborative, and integrated plan for a problem that deserves nothing less: a long-term vision and a coherent strategy to achieve our goals.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the multi-faceted approach that the Conservatives also put forward in terms of training, humanitarian aid, refugees, the CF-18s, intelligence services, and all of those things, understandably elements of those will be expanded.

I would like to come back to some comments that the member made on a couple of fronts. The comments referenced that the CF-18s make good video and blow things up. He also made mentioned the Aurora helicopters, so I would just ask whether the Aurora helicopters are armed, and whether the member feels that the CF-18s did not assist the coalition in the fight against ISIS.

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

First, Mr. Speaker, that was not my quote. That was the quote of a colonel who was active very close to the battle in Iraq. That was his quote.

I think what is important in this whole initiative is that we are taking a multi-faceted approach. We are increasing the number of soldiers in the area by 200. We are tripling the size of our train, assist, and advise mission to train local forces to fight their wars.

We are adding $145 million over three years to counterterrorism; we are adding $840 million for humanitarian assistance; and finally, we are adding $270 million to help rebuild local infrastructure.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, which was my home for the first 14 years of my 38-year marriage. It is a great place to come from.

The scale of the previous military operations is something the member mentioned. Something that I have not heard mentioned yet in the House was the type of operations previously and the scale of those operations.

Could the hon. member expand on the difference between the numbers of troops involved in this engagement versus previous engagements?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is actually quite interesting, the number of people I meet who were born at the St. Boniface Hospital.

As I previously stated, one of the things we are immediately doing is increasing the number of soldiers in the area by 200. We are tripling the size of the train, advise, and assist mission to train local Iraqi soldiers to actually fight the wars in their homeland. That is really the major difference.

We do not want to send 100,000 soldiers or 150,000 soldiers, as we did to Afghanistan. We want to train the local forces. We are tripling the size of the train, advise, and assist mission to achieve just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments the member has put on the record.

Could I ask the member to reflect on the importance of the debate we are having today? Within the motion, we actually have a commitment to bring this debate back to the chamber, at some point in time in the future—we are talking about around the two-year mark, or just before two years—and that is an important thing in the sense of what the Government of Canada is trying to do, to show accountability and transparency.

There is a lot of detail in the motion, and a lot of detail has been added in the debate. This is a positive way to deal with going into these situations like the one happening in the Middle East.

We appreciate all the valuable contributions our members of the Canadian Armed Forces provide, both abroad and here at home.

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot overstate the valuable contributions of all our veterans, from all over the country, coast to coast to coast. I think I speak for everybody in this House when I put that on the public record.

To me, this is really about accountability. We know that the people of Canada spoke loudly on October 19. The people of Canada have given us an endorsement to change the nature of the situation and make our involvement in it more comprehensive. That is exactly what we have done.

We are committed to bringing this issue back. I believe the member said it would be in two years or approximately that time. I want to read a pretty important endorsement we received a few weeks ago.

U.S. President Obama publicly endorsed Canada's decision. Through a state department spokesperson, President Obama said:

The new Canadian commitment is in line with our current needs, including tripling their training mission in Northern Iraq and increasing their intelligence efforts.”

That is a pretty impressive endorsement.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this important resolution. This is a difficult issue. Contrary to the implications in some of the speeches we have heard in this place since the government's motion was put forward, this is not a black and white issue. It is one of the most complex and intractable issues that has been debated in this place in many years, and that is because it is not black and white. It is not simple.

I want to start by paying tribute to a veteran, Captain Trevor Greene, who lives in Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. I have been inspired by him and his example. Many in this place will remember him as the Canadian soldier who in Afghanistan was attacked from behind. He had taken off his helmet as a sign of respect for the Afghani villagers with whom he was meeting, and he was attacked with an axe. He still struggles with the physical impacts of that attack. His brain is as sharp as a tack, but his body does not always co-operate. He spends most of his time in a wheelchair, as he learns to walk again. I have heard him speak publicly, saying that when he planned his career in our Armed Forces, he most wanted to wear the blue beret and become a peacekeeper. I read in the Speech from the Throne that the current government intends to return Canada to its peacekeeping role, and I want to apply that lens and look at those things that a young Trevor Greene wanted to see his country doing, for which he was prepared to risk his life, for Canada and for peace and for the peoples of the world.

This mission is intractable because it is so very difficult to figure out whose side we should be on, especially when it is described solely as a war against terrorism or a mission to get rid of Daesh. I do not like to call this group Islamic state. The resolution refers to ISIS and ISIL, but I do not like to convey any sense that this terrorism group has any legitimate claim to statehood.

Let us talk of Daesh. If this is a conflict solely directed at Daesh, then we have missed out all the complicated bits that make this so hard. This is a sectarian conflict. This is a Sunni-Shia religious war within which there are multiple proxy wars, with superpowers all over the place moving in and out of the region to their own advantage, and also neighbours in the region, for good or for ill. We have essentially a civil war in Syria.

The speech by the hon. leader of the official opposition made it sound as though this is simple. There is this group of horrific actors, a horrific army, a death cult, called Daesh. The official opposition says Daesh marauds at will. There is no context, no history, no understanding that this group would not exist at all except for the fact that the U.S. waged an illegitimate and illegal war in Iraq. This gave rise to the creation of this group, literally and physically. The people who founded Daesh met in a prison camp run by the U.S. army. They organized there. They saw their radicalization in what appeared to be the west oppressing the region.

Thank goodness Canada said no to going into Iraq at that time. The rhetoric in this place around why we should be bombing in Syria or Iraq tends to come with the tagline “Canada always steps up to do our part”. When there is a mission that is wrong-headed and contravenes international law, Canada is quite right to stay out of it. That is why I am so pleased that Canada did not overtly participate in the Iraq war. We used to think there could be nothing worse than al Qaeda until Daesh came along, which created itself through the Iraqi conflict. If we lose track of history and we lose track of context, how can we possibly know the right way forward?

Let me return to this issue of a civil war in Syria.

The current government of Syria, if we can still call it a government given that Syria is rapidly a failed state, is led by the brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who has killed far more people within his own country than has Daesh.

Bashar al-Assad, of the Shia minority and Alawite family, has led Syria with a fairly iron grip for a long time. In the Syrian civil war, Assad is supported by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. I read a lot of the journalists who have been covering this issue. Terry Glavin, a Victoria, B.C. area journalist, is right that when this first civil war began in Arab Spring, a lot of the people opposing Assad were people who deserved to have been supported because they represented an effort for democracy and against Bashar al-Assad.

However, the rebel forces now are an unsavoury concoction of al Qaeda's branch, al-Nusra, and of course Daesh, or as it is called in the motion, ISIS, working to defeat Assad. Therefore, as we take up arms to defeat ISIS, are we incidentally keeping Assad in place? We are in very tricky territory here.

I completely support the decision of the current government to withdraw the CF-18s. One of the reasons I voted against the bombing mission in the first place was that inevitably we would be responsible for killing civilians. That by itself is a horror, but beyond that every civilian killed is part of the recruiting for Daesh. It gets more people who might have been moderate to feel that they must go to war because their own people have been bombed by Canada or the U.S. Now Russia is claiming to have come in to bomb ISIS targets, but, incidentally, seeming to bomb more of those other rebel forces that are trying to unseat Assad. It is complicated.

Let us look at what has happened so far. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is an independent organization, coalition air strikes so far have killed 4,256 people, among which 322 were civilians. In Iraq, coalition air strikes so far have killed a further 1,000 civilians. This killing of innocent civilians is always described as collateral damage. However, in a situation like this, where we are trying to stop radicalization and create an argument against radicalization in a context that is so fraught with appeals to particularly young men but others around the world to come and join the fight, when there are large military efforts bombing targets on the ground and killing any civilians, we lose ground in the fight against radicalization. Therefore, I completely support the decision to withdraw our planes.

I am definitely affected by this by being the daughter of a dad who grew up in London during the blitz. He always said that there was no surer way to build the resolve of civilians on the ground to oppose an enemy than to see it come over in planes and drop bombs. It did not work to break the resolve in North Vietnam. It has not work to break resolve so far in Syria or in Iraq.

Therefore, the coalition air strikes are wrong-headed. It is a good thing to be out of them. However, I then am puzzled by the Liberal government's insistence that we stay involved in them by providing refuelling and reconnaissance missions. This muddies the waters. It can only be explained, because in stopping something that was not going to work and adopting more humanitarian, diplomatic, and even peacekeeping type of work, and training, we did not want to, in any way, alienate our so-called allies that are working in the region, including through continued air strikes.

Who are our allies in the region? We really need to talk about what is going on with Turkey. Turkey is more concerned about the growth of Kurdish nationalism than it is with ISIS at its borders.

We saw the frontier land along the Turkish-Syrian border being reclaimed by Kurdish fighters, and where Kurdish fighters were under siege by Daesh fighters, Turkey held back and did not go forward.

Turkey is ostensibly a NATO ally. Yet Turkey has also been accused of aiding, through its intelligence, extremist militants from China making their way across Turkey to join ISIS fighters. This is an allegation that is contained in a highly controversial article, and I know it is controversial. The article published in the London Review of Books by Seymour Hersh on U.S. intelligence sharing in the Syrian war was called “Military to Military”.

Seymour Hersh is a journalist of great renown. He was right about Abu Ghraib. He was right about the My Lai massacre going way back. However, he may be wrong about the central allegation in the article, which is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military chose to ignore President Obama's central effort to bring down the Assad regime. He felt that it was important to protect the Assad regime and so deliberately shared intelligence with other allies in hopes it would reach Assad.

Another claim in the article is that U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff replaced access for the rebel forces against Assad with less sophisticated weaponry, older weaponry, so that the Assad regime would be aided basically through neglect. These charges may not be true, but they also point to the enormous complexity of the fight in the region.

What of Saudi Arabia? We are still prepared to sell it armoured vehicles despite the evidence that those armoured vehicles are used against civilians within Saudi Arabia and in Yemen. However, we also have very consistent reports of Saudi Arabia aiding ISIS. Why? Well, it does not really like the idea of seeing Assad staying in power. Again, these proxy wars continue.

All through the region there is black market activity, selling black-market oil across the border, and selling antiquities. When I was discussing the matter with one of the leading journalists in the world on this subject, Robert Fisk who writes for the Independent, he said that he had reliable intelligence that the oil refineries inside Syria, which are shipping out black-market oil for the benefit of the ISIS coffers, were being run with Turks on the inside of the refinery, and Turks at the border turned a blind eye to the black-market oil.

This is surely a place where Canada could play a much stronger role, working with allies, particularly along the border. If we are going to have boots on the ground and put ground troops in the area, surely we should be prepared to say that we will make that border with Turkey less porous and ensure that we stop the flow and the sale of black-market oil. Interpol needs to play a stronger role.

Another place where the millions that fill the coffers of Daesh come from is the horrific destruction of antiquities in the region. Before it blows up a temple, Daesh takes out valuable artifacts. Apparently, there are art collectors, speculators, and billionaires of no conscious, who are prepared to buy these black-market antiquities. The sale in black-market antiquities also funds the horrific activities of Daesh.

Again, we have a civil war with no real good options for good guys. There is al-Nusra, ISIS, versus Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia trying to support Bashar al-Assad. In all of that, I can see why the Minister of National Defence and the new government think that the only good guys they can find on the ground are the Kurdish forces. At least one knows that Kurdish forces are not likely to do what other so-called more moderate rebel groups have done when they have received training, weapons, and equipment from the west. Some of those moderate groups have just sold it to ISIS. They can get good coin and they are not that committed to being against Daesh.

We know one thing about the Kurdish forces: they have a real commitment. However, their commitment is not solely of getting rid of Daesh; their commitment is to a Kurdish state.

With Kurdish nationals and a Kurdish dream of nationhood that extends from Iraq to Syria to Turkey to Iran, one can see that our efforts here must be made with great caution because our allies will not thank us when they find, having been emboldened by military victories pushing back the horrible Daesh forces, that the Turkish state turns its own guns on the Kurds instead of on ISIS.

This is a complicated mess, and I am not saying it is simple. If there is anything I am saying today it is that it is anything but simple, and our debate about it should not pretend it is black and white.

I have one last point about the damage we have done in other countries.

When that illegal war ended In Iraq and the U.S. installed some puppet governments, it decided to ban any members of Saddam Hussein's former Baath Party from office. As a result, there are a lot of people who have skills, who know how to run a government and an army, and who are not allowed to have a job. We have created a group of people that was ready to go to work for Daesh, because through its black market activities, it had money to pay people. It is time that we talk to our allies about removing the ban on the Baathist forces and Baath Party members, whether they were part of Saddam Hussein's former government or former army, from having legitimate jobs in a new Iraq. We must stop the flow of people who were not previously radicalized to the Daesh army just because it could pay for them.

There is more here than one can possibly scrape the surface of in a 20-minute speech.

I am honestly torn about how I will vote on this resolution. I support much of what is being proposed. I support the increase in humanitarian assistance. I am pleased to see any discussion of diplomacy, because this cannot just be about how to get rid of Daesh without a strong focus on how we bring peace and stability to the region. If that is not our goal, we will never get rid of extremist factions in an ongoing Sunni-Shia war in the context of a civil war and in the context of a brutal dictator like Bashar al-Assad.

Where does Canada stand in an argument with no easy solutions and no easy answers? There is only one safe place to stand, and that is on international law. Bombing a country at which we are not at war is illegal under international law. We should not be in a bombing mission. Helping where we can on the ground makes sense, but we need to do much more in this country to oppose radicalization. We must not do anything to increase the propaganda value of those who want to recruit youth from any country anywhere in the world to come into this sick world of a death cult thinking they have gone for some higher moral purpose.

Canada can play a significant role in the world. We always did, and I hope we always will. However, we should move with great caution. We should be constantly reassessing what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are doing, and what we can do by working and creating much better diplomatic channels with Russia. The U.S. Secretary of State, in this very inadequate partial ceasefire, would never have gotten anywhere if the U.S. had not established the ability to at least talk with Russia. We need the help of Russia, China and the U.S. together to end the conflict in Syria. We must not allow it to become yet another failed state like Libya.

I was the only member of Parliament in June 2011 to vote against the bombing missions in Libya. One of the reasons was I simply did not buy it when our then minister of defence said that although the government did not know what would follow Moammar Gadhafi, it could be sure that it could not be as bad. A failed state in Libya, the rise of ISIS, and all of those warehouses full of armaments in Libya going into the hands of terrorists are worse than Moammar Gadhafi.

We must find our role in diplomacy. As hard as it is, we must work to stop the flow of money to Daesh. We must ensure that when we ask Canadians to go into as problematic a region as Syria in the middle of a civil war that they are adequately protected at all times, that we do everything possible to ensure their safety, and that as they train other forces, we are very careful about who we decide wears the white hats and the black hats in a war that really does not have any good guys.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her contribution to the debate and her support for the government's decision to withdraw the six CF-18s.

However, in her comments, I also noted that she did question some of the other additional contributions the government is making to the coalition efforts. On my part, I support a lot of those efforts, for example, as they relate to the humanitarian front, the diplomatic front, on which I think she eloquently outlined some of the very challenging issues in that particular region.

However, does she not think it is still appropriate to contribute military assets as part of an effort to contain a very unstable part of the world?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that we should not have military forces engaged. Not at all. I do not believe the situation is one where we should stay on the sidelines and watch this horrific organization increase in its capabilities. However, as I said before, sometimes in looking at these issues, it is almost like a physician's credo: first, do no harm.

We had all the good intentions in the world when we went to Libya, but we did harm. When there was a peace plan on the table and Gadhafi was willing to accept it, we should not have said, “At this moment, we recognize the rebel forces of Libya as the legitimate government of Libya”, knowing that al-Qaeda was in that group.

When we look at an issue like this, if we completely withdraw from efforts by our allies to contain Daesh, do we incidentally allow them to increase the black market trade in oil? I think there is a legitimate role for Canada and our military in stopping the flow of black market oil. This is a devilishly difficult problem. I am not suggesting, for a moment, that there is not a role for our military.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her contribution. Certainly, she has given this a lot of hard thought to and has struggled with a very complex issue. It is in no way simple. I think all of us in this room struggle with this issue of military involvement and what our contribution should be.

The one comment she made in saying that we should not continue with the CF-18s is the risk of possibly killing innocent civilians. I share that concern. However, the struggle I have is how do we balance, on the one hand, the risk of having innocent civilians killed from the mission of our CF-18s with, on the other hand, seeing many hundreds of innocent civilians killed if we stand by and do nothing to try to protect the most vulnerable in these situations?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the position that I take on this is that air strikes are never going to end the war in Syria, nor will air strikes ever end the horror of Daesh.

What do we do instead? I would say, for example, since I have an opportunity with this question, that we should do much more to support those few governments in the region that still bear the name “government”. We should be doing whatever we can to support Lebanon and Jordan. We should be working and normalizing our relations, and I support the new government's decision to normalize relations with Iran. We need to do much more to prop up and support whatever legitimate governments we see.

However, air strikes in Syria are not the way to stop Daesh. I believe very strongly that as long as a civil war is taking place in Syria and there is confusion on the ground, including the fact there are still al-Nusra fighters present, a branch of al-Qaeda, fighting alongside Daesh, we just cannot single out one rebel force against the government of Assad and hope to come to a successful conclusion. We would still have the problem of collateral damage and killing of innocent civilians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Green Party of Canada for her excellent and well-informed speech.

We do not necessarily agree on everything, but we completely agree that we must not use the term “Islamic State”, since this gang of barbarians and terrorists cannot dare think that they represent Islam.

My colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie said that the best way to eliminate Daesh was to cut off the flow of money, weapons, and new recruits. The leader of the Green Party pointed out that there was nothing in the Liberals' plan regarding the sale of black-market oil from the oil fields under Daesh control.

Why does my colleague think that the Liberal government left out this key factor in the activities and the civil war going on over there?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for his question.

The government's plan does not say anything about curbing black markets. I asked that question when members of the opposition parties participated in a teleconference with National Defence experts. They replied that battling black market activity is one of the objectives of all parties belonging to the coalition against Daesh.

I hope that Canada will do more on that front. It is also very important that we sign and ratify the arms trade treaty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the leader of the Green Party. Just listening to her comments, I can really appreciate that there are certain aspects of the resolution she is fairly supportive of.

I just want to reinforce a couple of those points. She talks about humanitarian aid and development and the commitment by the government to increase our diplomatic role in helping to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria by supporting the UN-sponsored peace process and assisting the efforts of the Iraqi government to foster reconciliation. We are looking at expanding our capacity-building efforts with Jordan and Lebanon to help stop the spread of violent extremism. There will also be a great effort made to increase our intelligence-gathering resources, and there is the increase of our training force in the region. I should say that there is also the idea of withdrawing the F-18s, which happens to be a commitment we made in the last federal election.

If I can call upon the leader of the Green Party to look at this as an overall package that is being proposed, how does she believe Canadians are inclined to want us to vote on this particular motion, from her perspective?