Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress three things in my speech with regard to ISIS, our mission against ISIS, and the Liberal government's altering of the initial mission that our side began with.

First, I will start off by speaking of my son. He is 18 years old and an air cadet. He wants to serve our country, which has been his ambition since he was a little guy. I disagree with the other side who say we are war mongers, or that we go into war frivolously, or that we just want to go to war. I love my son, and I know a lot of parents across this country love their kids who serve in the military. We do not go into war ambitiously. We do it cautiously and do so when we have to as Canadians.

I want to see that my son is protected on the ground. I respect the Minister of National Defence and his military past. It is a great past, and he absolutely has my respect, but to pull out air support for on-the-ground troops, to me, is not good military strategy, especially with our sons and daughters on the ground over there. I think pulling out our CF-18s is a huge mistake. Regardless of political promises made during campaigns, I think we need to do what is best for our military on the ground.

I would also like to mention a few quotes by some respected leaders in Canada about the air mission against ISIS.

Every single ISIS leader should never have a single moment in their life when they're not worried about looking at the sky and having a missile come out and end their life, or go to bed and have that door blown in and have some commandos come in and capture or kill them.

They should be worried because if they're not, they're going to have more time to plan. And I believe Canada has to be a part of that.

That was from former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier. I would say all sides in the House respect him greatly for his past experience and what he continues to do on the world stage today. This is one of the greatest military minds, who I respect, with his Canadian past, and he said that we need to be in the air against ISIS.

Another one of our international allies, the British Prime Minister, also spoke about involvement in a campaign. I think as Canadians we need to make sure that, if we are expecting to have some sort of role in the fight against ISIS, we are not going to let some other country take our responsibility and do it for us. We need to make sure we are there, doing what Canadians expect us to do in that fight against ISIS, because ISIS has affected us in our homeland in Canada. Prime Minister David Cameron said:

We shouldn’t be content with outsourcing our security to our allies.

If we believe that action can help protect us, then—with our allies—we should be part of that action....

...not standing aside from it.

I think that statement says it all. Canadians have never shied away, and our men and women in the military still do not shy away. They are ready to do what is necessary when called upon to defend interests against ISIS.

Another topic I would like to address on the military mission against ISIS is one that is not talked about very often. Our critic on defence spoke about it last week. It is how much of an impact the actual bombing mission has had on ISIS and to its finances.

There was an article in the National Post, and it is an Associated Press article. It talks about the impact of air strikes against ISIS. They are hurting ISIS financially. I think any strategy that would pull back from something that is crippling ISIS and putting it on its knees is failed strategy. This is from the article I mentioned:

The extremists who once bragged about minting their own currency are having a hard time meeting expenses, thanks to coalition air strikes and other measures that have eroded millions from their finances since last fall.

To me, when we have somebody on the run, we keep going after them at their weakest point. I'm a former rugby guy, and I coached and played it for many years. One thing that was part of a winning strategy was that, if we saw a team's weakness, we went after the weakness and kept hitting it until we were successful. I think that is what we are doing in this military bombing strategy. We have ISIS on its knees and we need to keep going at it from the air.

This is another quote from the article:

“Not just the militants. Any civil servant, from the courts to the schools, they cut their salary by 50 per cent,” said a Raqqa activist now living in the Turkish city of Gaziantep, who remains in close contact with his native city. But that apparently wasn’t enough close the gap for a group that needs money to replace weapons lost in airstrikes and battles...

Again, this quote states that air strikes are impacting ISIS and its weapons and its cash.

According to an estimate by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, a researcher with the Middle East Forum, who sources Islamic state documents, those two expenses account for two-thirds of its budget.

ISIS is retreating. It is on its knees. We need to keep going at it.

This is another quote from the article, referring to the fighters, states. “You can sense the frustration. Their morale is down”. It goes on to say:

In Iraq, where Islamic State has slowly been losing ground over the past year, the Iraqi government in September cut off salaries to government workers within territory...Between the loss of that money- and the U.S.-led bombing of cash warehouses - American officials are optimistic that the effect could diminish Islamic State's wealth.

As I am giving a speech, it is not for me to ask a question of the other side. However, I would question its withdrawal of air support. We have seen the impact it has had on the cash reserves and the military ability of ISIS. Why would we stop that?

Certainly, we can say that the Americans can keep doing what they are doing and that all the other allies that are providing air support to the mission against ISIS are having an effect. Why would we not be part of that? We have F-18s ready to go. We have airmen and women who are ready to go over and attack ISIS even further. Why would we reduce that effective strategy?

My last quote from the article states:

I don’t think this is fatal for IS...I still don’t see internal revolt as what’s going to be the outcome. It’s more like a scenario of gradual decay and decline.

We need to keep part of that ongoing air strike day after day, year after year, until the morale is so bad that ISIS is defeated. A good military strategy does not quit in the middle of good strategy. It keeps going until the mission is done.

Right now the mission is not done. We need to keep our F-18s in the fight. I think our airmen and women know that. I think our military knows that. I understand political promises, but the government needs to understand that good strategy is good strategy. It needs to send the F-18s back into the fight against ISIS.

I implore the other side. If those members care about our men and women who are serving on the ground over there, and my son may be there in the future, give them the support they need. These are our sons and daughters. The government should provide the air strike support so our kids are protected in the best way possible.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member's son for volunteering to serve our country. Like the member, I had a son who served a mission in Afghanistan with 3RCR . As a parent, it is always worrying to know our sons and daughters are in harm's way, but it is also comforting to know that the government is taking the right strategy to ensure it is effective.

Leaders in our country and across the world have said that ISIL has somewhat adapted to a lot of the air bombing missions. It has infiltrated with civilians. I also agree that the air power needs to continue, but at this stage we still have a lot of air power. Russia now has joined in, and the skies are pretty much crowded. Therefore, would he agree that the adjustment we are making now on the ground reflects more the reality of today's mission?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his nice comments. We appreciate his son's service to our country. As members, we are all here to serve our country.

However, I do not think it is accurate to say that the air is too crowded over ISIS. There was room for us before, and there certainly is room for us in the future, especially as it is having an effect on the cash stores, on military aspects, and on the decline in the morale of ISIS. Probably the biggest thing we are doing is impacting the morale of ISIS through our air strikes. It is not a good strategy to discontinue the air strikes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was great getting to know my colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies when we attended a meeting with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour yesterday morning.

In a battle with terrorists, I feel like we are in a battle with a Hydra. We cut off one head only to see two more rise in its place. ISIS did not exist as an organization three years ago. It had an extremely rapid rise in the Middle East. It is an organization that blends in well with civilian populations. Whenever civilian populations are involved, bombing missions come with inherent risks. There will be casualties. That is fact.

Could he give me his views on what conditions in Iraq and Syria led to the rise of ISIS? What prompts young men to give up an ordinary life to join this organization? Does the member see some signs of desperation that led to the rise of the organization in the first place?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his nice words as well. I look forward to working with him on committee. We have had some good discussions already.

The conditions in Syria go back a long way. Many different regimes in the Middle East have been problematic, mostly due to extremism, and problems with other communities that are next door.

I know the member is not directing blame for the problem of ISIS being started in the countries that surround the Middle East. ISIS is a problem in and of itself. Islamic extremism is a plague around the world, and I think ISIS is the head of that.

I appreciate the member's reference to Hydra. Captain America is a good show. Nevertheless, I still think that ISIS is the head, and we need to get that head. With that, we will get at the morale, and then we will seriously defeat the ISIS and the problems it brings.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, everyone in the House always prepares a nice speech or memo to begin their 20 minutes of speaking time. However, I want to digress for a moment. As a veteran who served in Afghanistan myself, the topic we are discussing here is understandably very close to my heart. I know I am not the only one in this House who has served.

These decisions weigh heavily on our minds and can even keep us up at night, or at least they do in my case. It is personal for me, but at least I can share the burden of the choices that we must make here in the House.

The Liberal government made a choice regarding the nature of the mission it plans to conduct in Iraq and Syria. That choice reflects its election promise, first and foremost. Withdrawing the CF-18s and increasing humanitarian assistance were two key promises made by the Liberals last fall during the election campaign.

Last week I went over the positive elements of the government's proposal. No one can oppose virtue and good intentions, because the situation is very serious. This is a war. Men and women have to be deployed, and we cannot forget the human suffering that people have been enduring every day for many years in the combat zone. Who could oppose increasing humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable in the region? The victims of the civil war in Syria number in the hundreds of thousands, not counting all the displaced refugees. In Iraq, the number of displaced people is also very high. It is practically unprecedented since the Second World War.

ISIL surprised everyone in the summer of 2014 when it launched a major offensive through which it took control of vast areas in Syria and Iraq. Around the same time, the group also took possession of a significant amount of heavy weapons including Humvees, T-72 tanks, Abrams tanks, heavy artillery, and even an MiG-27 fighter jet. Those things are not toys.

That is a very heavy arsenal for a terrorist force, and we know that it could jeopardize stability. We cannot turn a blind eye. As a western country and a responsible society, we cannot bury our heads in the sand. Since the government intends to deploy our troops, the Bloc Québécois intends to reach out to the House, to the government and the opposition, so that we can find ways to ensure that this deployment happens under the best possible conditions.

Today, ISIL is present in a number of countries. Syria and Iraq are certainly the most affected, but the situation has not yet been resolved in Libya, Yemen, Lebanon or even Afghanistan. How many other Middle Eastern countries, particularly in Central Asia and Africa, are currently being threatened by this group, either directly or indirectly? The threat is there.

In 2011, many of the weapons used by Islamist rebels were sent to Libya and then to a theatre of operations in Mali. The enemy that we are facing and trying to combat is widespread. Right now, it is quite possible that Daesh will try to recreate the scenario and once again spread its cancerous cells throughout the region.

Given the considerable arsenal it has in its possession, ISIL has the strength and ability needed to destabilize a number of other countries. The entire world expects the influential states to take the initiative to combat this epidemic, this cancer that is ISIL. I said “influential states” and I believe that Canada, with the help of Quebec, is one of them, even though we have our differences.

Therefore, I must point out that the government has not failed in its duty. It intends to achieve a result. I recognize that and I intend to support its efforts.

I will reiterate that there are positives, but it is not all rosy. Like other opposition members, I am again wondering about the decision to withdraw the CF-18s from the theatre of operations. What we make of the Liberal party's promise is that it intended to stop the air strikes. We can understand the intent. Is this justified as part of a renewed mission? Of course. However, the minister has already clearly explained to the House that we must retain everything we can use because the enemy and the threat is changing and the plan will have to evolve over time.

Therefore, the CF-18s, which currently have a support role, along with many other means, remain an important component of the modern equipment we can use against the forces we are facing.

It is not news that the Bloc Québécois supports continuing the air mission in Iraq and Syria. Nevertheless, there may be a way to redefine the role of the air force in the plan proposed by the government. An interesting compromise could be considered.

We believe that the air strikes managed to achieve, or at least partly achieve, their objective in the summer of 2014. As a result of these air strikes, Kurdish fighters in Kobani managed to push back the Daesh offensive in the fall of 2014. Members will recall that Daesh was spreading in the region at the time. The air strikes also helped the Iraqi peshmerga evacuate the Yazidis on Mount Sinjar. These people had been displaced and were facing a genocide, and the air strikes certainly helped prevent that.

Although the air strikes did not manage to destroy Daesh, to eliminate or wipe out ISIL, they still managed to contain the forces in the region. That is undeniable. As I already said, we are up against an exceptionally strong and unprecedented terrorist group. It has a massive arsenal and highly diversified sources of revenue.

I would also like us to rise above partisanship on this issue. I would like to close this debate by congratulating the government, and I would also like to see the government thank the opposition for its meaningful work on this issue. This is yet to be done.

Yes, we have different visions. The NDP caucus presented a more idealistic vision in which the terrorists exchange their AK-47s for olive branches with Daesh. That would be lovely. We do not oppose virtue. The Conservative caucus is a bit more hawkish. They would have us plunge Iraq and Syria back into the stone age to eradicate a threat that is, after all, limited. The government is bound by its election promise no matter what, but it may not have considered the ramifications of that. However, there is a middle ground in this debate, and if that can clarify things and bring us closer together, then I hope we can do that. I think we can. I believe we can, and I want to believe that some debates can rise above partisanship in the House. I want to believe that the fate of Syrians and Iraqis and, most importantly, our soldiers, does not depend on partisan games.

We are facing an extremely serious situation. Daesh is not just a terrorist group. It has become an empire within a short period of time and now controls more territory than many modern nations. Daesh wants to spread and destroy political entities, states, and especially human beings.

Entire populations in the Middle East are currently under threat of extermination by that organization, as are important cultural and historic elements of humanity, and all because the Kurds are Kurdish, because the Shia are not Sunnis, or because many people in the region dream of liberty instead of preaching barbarism.

Of course, Daesh does not have a monopoly on cruelty in the region, which has been seriously traumatized by its past; history speaks for itself. We must admit, however, that Daesh is a level or two above the rest in terms of the brutality currently on display in the region.

Clearly, there is an urgent need to take action. The threat posed to the people in the region, and to us in the west, is unprecedented. Whether the government should pursue a strategy other than air strikes is open to debate. This is just my opinion, but I think it warrants discussion.

After all, the strikes alone helped contain the enemy force. What we need is a real plan, real leadership, and decisions by government leaders to achieve this objective. To that end, I am prepared to work with the Minister of National Defence. I do not want to play partisan politics on the backs of our soldiers. No one can ask me to do that. It is out of the question. I am therefore reaching out to the minister in good faith.

I think only of the soldiers and the victims of the conflict when I debate the conflict between the world and these barbarians. There is no compromise on this. In the past, many great world leaders demonstrated that we could come to this sort of agreement. I am thinking about de Gaulle, Churchill, and Roosevelt, to name a few. There is no shortage of examples to guide us in our decisions.

I want to come back to the government's decision to withdraw the CF-18s from the theatre of operations. Although I do not believe that is the right strategy, I am prepared to work on ensuring that the new mission is a success. That is clear.

However, for that to happen, I believe that we must ensure that the men and women deployed on the ground are given protection in a professional way. We are about to send troops into Kurdish territory in Iraq. The dynamics in the area are complicated.

At this point, we have many doubts. Much analysis must be done when sending 850 men and women into a mission of the scope and size of this one. There remain many doubts and questions about this issue.

I am convinced that we can still reach a compromise with respect to the CF-18 fighter jets. We must remember that ISIL is an enemy with a widespread reach. This organization could again use its usual destabilization strategy. We can never be sure of having eliminated this organization even if we curb its ability to control large areas of Iraq and Syria.

I believe it is advisable to keep the CF-18s in the region, without necessarily having them continue their traditional role of carrying out air strikes. They would be on standby in case something went wrong. It is not complicated. This is already being done in an area of operation we no longer talk about: six CF-18s are already in Ukraine and are not being used for anything at all.

If Canada is able to maintain an air strike force that is not being used for anything at all in a so-called theatre of operations, I do not see why we could not keep four measly CF-18s on standby in case something goes wrong, should the nature of the mission change or new threats appear.

That is the compromise that we are suggesting to the government regarding the CF-18s. We hope that the government will consider it. The government has a choice. It can stop launching air strikes while still maintaining a preventive strike force, as I was saying.

That is necessary in order to keep our ground forces safe, but also to continue to contain ISIL. We live in a military era where air combat is a key element of modern warfare. No one can deny that. Why give up an asset, a strategic advantage that the enemy force does not have? The answer is obvious.

That is why I have serious doubts about the government's decision to withdraw our fighter jets from Iraq and Syria. It seems to be more of a political decision than a strategic one.

We will soon have nearly 880 armed men and women in Iraq, in Kurdish territory, and possibly in Jordan. I have reason to believe that these men and women will not have sufficient protection, given what they are being asked to do.

I think that the government would have everything to gain right now by saying that we all hate war, that it is never an easy decision to make, as I said earlier, but that sometimes we have no choice but to reconsider our decisions and reconsider the situation. That would be the responsible decision to make right now, especially since we are organizing a significant humanitarian mission at the same time. However, I have some concerns about our ability to ensure the security of our humanitarian assistance and of our military intervention as well. If the objective is to put an end to the war, we need a professional mission.

I am not in charge of the decision-making. The opposition has no control over the decision to deploy our men and women, but we have a duty today to influence the decision to ensure that everything is done as professionally and securely as possible.

The Bloc is eager to get an answer to the big question of who will truly be in charge of protecting our troops on the ground.

When our troops are on training missions, they are not in charge of security. They are not in charge of their own security. Other parties on the ground are in charge of their security. I would like some answers about this, but I assume they will depend on private security forces on the ground. I also assume that it will be the Iraqi armed forces or the Kurdish peshmerga protecting our trainers, if that is indeed what they are, but the peshmerga are already overwhelmed. They are fighting valiantly against Daesh, but they are exhausted and stretched thin on their front line. The Iraqi Kurdish government is coping with a disturbing reality in the region. It may be that the Turkish air force will bomb the territory in response to potential PKK action in Iraqi Kurdistan.

In short, deploying troops to that region exposes them to fire on all sides. This decision should not be taken lightly.

Training is training. This implies that our troops are training other forces. While they are doing that, they are not serving as mentors to regular troops, like the Iraqi army, and they are exposing themselves to risks. I urge the government to make sure that our troops deployed on the ground to provide training are in fact giving training, if that is the government's intention. However, it is important not to confuse operational mentoring and training. Those are two very different things.

Deploying 880 men and women on several fronts in small groups, as special forces are often deployed, could expose them to danger. The Chief of the Defence Staff has already confirmed that there will be enormous risks. I hope that we will play it on the safe side and not put the lives of our men and women in the hands of forces that cannot even defend themselves. Is that not in fact the reason we are being asked to train them in the first place? However, we must not expose our troops in an irresponsible manner, without real protection. We need to ask who from the coalition will be on the ground with us.

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

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

The Minister of National Defence has all the necessary qualifications and experience to manage this type of mission. The commanders on the ground work with the Minister of National Defence daily on monitoring the situation in the theatre of operations.

Our government has faith in the Minister of National Defence and our commanders on the ground. When they see that other measures are needed to make the fight against ISIL more effective, they do not hesitate to take action. The government supports their recommendations.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Does he trust our Minister of National Defence and the commanders on the ground to operate and manage this mission?

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I trust the minister. I hold him in high regard. However, as he himself said, the situation in Iraq and Syria is constantly changing.

It is good to be on top of the information because that is an important part of conflict management. Nonetheless, doing without some key equipment does not seem right to me. I would even say it is a bit risky. We must avoid making impulsive choices.

What I am saying and what I am asking is that we ensure that we are well prepared in this situation in order to be in a position to deal with unforeseen circumstances if our troops are deployed. The minister is capable of managing the situation, but I have just as much confidence in our armed forces, who are very skilled.

The minister is not the one who will be managing what is happening on the ground; that is up to our men and women and the commanders of our armed forces. We must ensure that they have equipment, materiel, supply support, and secure supply lines for both their humanitarian efforts and their work in a combat zone like the one we are working in. Providing humanitarian assistance without security is very difficult.

This is not about whether I have confidence in the minister, or whether I respect him, but about ensuring that the forces we deploy and our NGOs in the field find themselves in the safest, most secure environment possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I have the privilege of representing Canadian Forces Base Borden, the largest training centre for the Canadian Armed Forces. I am concerned that this mission increases the risks to Canadian Forces members, such as those at Borden, whom I represent.

I would like the member to tell us what he thinks we should be doing to support our troops in the field.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is really not rocket science. Whether it is this mission or some other one, we must always ensure that we have the resources to match our ambitions. There is no miracle solution in such situations. At a very minimum, when the decision is made to deploy forces, no matter the type of mission and whether we do or do not agree with its objectives, we must ensure that they are deployed under the best possible conditions and that nothing is improvised or left to the vagaries of ever-shifting circumstances. It is not complicated. A good plan is a simple plan. At least that is what I remember from military school.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like thank my colleague for his speech. I would also like to commend him for his past contribution to the armed forces. However, I am a bit surprised.

The Bloc Québécois has always been an advocate of peace, international aid, and solidarity with and respect for international institutions, such as NATO and the United Nations. We are dealing with a military venture that does not fall under any international framework. This is a break from tradition for the Bloc Québécois, which has always advocated for peace and outright rejected any military ventures, particularly when there is no oversight and no objective.

First, I would like my colleague to explain the reason for his party's change in position.

Second, I would like him to explain to me why he is mixing military action with humanitarian aid when everyone knows these two things should be kept separate. These two objectives, or two movements, should not be combined.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am a separatist.

I will turn my colleague's question around. If Quebec had control of its own foreign policy, it would take a completely different approach. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech, it is not our decision. We have to live with a decision that is not necessarily the one we would make.

An important thing for my colleague to remember is that one-third of the forces to be deployed will be from Quebec. We have no say in that matter. That is a big concern for me.

My colleague could at least listen to the answer to his question. Since he is not listening, I will stop there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has made today. One of the statements as part of the motion is that we will bring the matter back before the House in the next couple of years, and re-evaluate. There is an attempt in doing that to show that we are open and want to have a higher sense of accountability. We see this as a positive thing.

I wonder if the member might recognize that this is an ongoing thing; that at times we need to have a reassessment, but for today, given commitments that have been made and the experience and expertise we garnered from Afghanistan, this is the right way for us to go. To support this motion would be admirable; to see the Bloc come behind it, and see whether the Bloc has actually taken a position as of yet on the motion.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is some grey area around the word “plan” in the motion we will be voting on. There is not much substance to allow us to make a fair and informed decision. We are in the dark.

All we can do now is analyze this issue, since the Chief of the Defence Staff is the one who will, unfortunately and fortunately, give the order that the government is going to give him. As for the nature of the deployment and the equipment required, the real plan will come from the armed forces, at the end of the day. We will then perhaps be in a better position to make an informed decision.

Earlier I raised some serious concerns about the safety of our troops. There are still too many questions without satisfactory answers. We still have time to debate. We will vote, of course, but our position is evolving. Nothing is decided. The Bloc Québécois's approach is to enlighten the House so that the government considers the conditions in which it plans to deploy our forces to fight ISIL. The decision we are debating today is not a simple one. The government is completely overhauling the existing approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's view on the CF-18s having already been pulled before the parliamentary vote has even been taken. Does the member think that meets the standards of openness and transparency that the Liberal government claims to have?

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had any decency, it would have waited for the debate to conclude, in order to be consistent. At the very least, the jets could have been grounded while we debated and made a decision. However, the decision has already been made. What can we do? It is what it is.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Of course we all agree that ISIL is committing horrendous crimes, absolutely barbaric acts in Iraq and Syria, and furthermore, that it poses a threat to global security. We all agree that, basically, we need to destroy ISIL, destroy its message of hate, and I think we need to do it without creating other monsters at the same time.

Last week the government finally unveiled its plan to address this huge challenge. I will begin by saying right away that some aspects of this plan are interesting, at least on paper and in principle. This includes the increase in humanitarian assistance, something that we have been calling for for some time. I am happy to see plans to increase our humanitarian assistance.

Development assistance is another thing we have been calling for for some time, and I am pleased to see it in the plan, to prevent the destabilization from spreading throughout the region and into fragile countries like Lebanon and Jordan.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that diplomatic efforts will be a key element of the solution to this problem.

It all looks good on paper, but there are gaping holes. First is the issue of the combat mission. It is a combat mission even though the government refuses to acknowledge it. During the election campaign when the Liberals said that they would withdraw the CF-18s, I think most people understood that Canada would stay away from the military mission and put the emphasis elsewhere. It is a strange way of withdrawing from the combat mission.

When it comes to the air strikes, let us be honest, we will not have CF-18s any more, but we will provide refuelling, targeting, all kinds of things. We are still participating in the bombing mission.

Then we are going to triple the troops on the ground and we are doing so with no clear parameters, no exit strategy, and no criteria for success or when we feel we have achieved what we want to achieve. It is a combat mission, and it is a combat mission with boots on the ground. We know that under the Conservative government, the troops were spending a significant part of their time on the front lines. Sergeant Doiron died on the front line. Now we are tripling those troops and General Vance has acknowledged that we are increasing the risk to our troops.

It was interesting this morning when I heard some Liberal MPs say in their speeches that the government is ready to fight ISIL on the ground. If this is not a combat mission, what is it? Is it an elephant? Interestingly, the Prime Minister, while in opposition, said the government must be clear about what is and is not a combat role. Now the government is using the same ambiguity. The government should acknowledge that this is a combat mission. It owes it to Canadians and, above all, it owes it to the troops themselves, the men and women serving in the forces.

We are also going to give arms to the Kurds. We cannot even track the arms that we are selling to Saudi Arabia, which are now finding their way to Yemen. Who knows what we are going to learn tomorrow? What exactly is the government going to do to make sure that those arms are not used for the wrong ends or do not fall into the wrong hands?

Will the training of the Kurds only be about fighting? Maybe human rights and respect for international law should be included, because this is part of the problem. I say so because there are recent reports from Amnesty International saying that in their fight, the Kurds have possibly committed war crimes, so the training certainly needs to include that.

There are other issues. The plan talks generally about governance, but there is no detail. There is not much information.

What exactly is the government going to do about governance? Apparently it is going to send advisors to the ministry of defence. I think that has more to do with gathering intelligence. There is so much that needs to be done with respect to governance. ISIL got a foothold in the country because of the breakdown of Iraqi society. We have to work on that or else it will be ISIL today and some other armed group tomorrow.

Why not get involved in facilitating a reconciliation process in Iraq? That is the only way to solve the problem for the long term. The same goes for diplomatic engagement. They talk about diplomatic engagement, which is great, but what then? What exactly are they proposing?

Some of the core elements of our UN mandate are critical to defeating ISIL, not only in the Middle East and Libya, but around the world. We must cut off its supply of arms, money, and fighters. The Liberal plan is has little if anything to say about that.

One thing that really bothers me is that there is nothing here about deradicalization. We know that the attacks in Paris, Jakarta, and Ouagadougou, which bolstered the will to destroy not just the armed group, but its hateful ideology, were carried out by people who were homegrown radicals. Why does the Liberal plan not even touch on deradicalization?

I have just a few minutes to say that I am afraid we may be repeating the errors of the past. We have tried to rely on the military approach in various parts of the world and, unfortunately, the result is not that good. In fact, we may have been winning battles for the last 20, 30 or 40 years, but losing the war on terrorism.

It is a new kind of war, a war of the 21st century. It is a war of propaganda and it is a war that breeds on chaos and unaddressed grievances.

We hear that some of the towns that have been retaken are completely destroyed. Seemingly 80% of Ramadi has been reduced to rubble. The population cannot go back there.

After the attacks in Paris and in parts of Europe, certain rules of engagement have been relaxed, which will inevitably mean more civilian casualties. Are we creating more chaos? Are we creating more grievances? If so, we are just exacerbating the problem.

Let us give hope to what I think can actually work. Yes, indeed, humanitarian assistance will work, but above all, cutting what has sustained these groups—arms, money, and foreign fighters—and let us try to find a political solution both in Syria and Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member seemed surprised by some of the Liberal speakers talking about Canada's role, and I found that interesting. Let us be clear: the bombing is going to continue to occur. The global coalition will provide that. There is going to be combat, obviously, at the ground level too.

The motion clearly sets out Canada's role. Contrary to what my colleague and other members of the New Democratic caucus might say, it is very clear. All one needs to do is read the motion and listen to some of the speeches being given by many of my Liberal colleagues.

We will increase the training force based on Canada's expertise acquired through our experience in Afghanistan and so forth. This is significant. Canada has a lot to offer. The government has determined that it will triple the size of the training force.

Does the member not believe that Canada can use the expertise it acquired in Afghanistan to combat ISIL?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I disagree with him on one important point.

My colleague says that all one needs to do is read the motion. One needs to read the motion and the background papers and hear answers from the minister to get at the reality of things.

General Vance says there is a risk of more casualties as a result of the training we will be doing. If we have in-theatre transportation, if we just continue, there is nothing to indicate that the mission will be changed from what it was before. This means targeting at the front line. This means our military personnel will be spending a significant amount of time at the front line with the Kurds. Our Liberal colleagues say that our troops are ready to fight on the ground.

We have to go a bit beyond the motion, take all of this into account, and everyone will see that it is a combat mission.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position of NDP members. I do not agree with them but at least they are ideologically consistent. They oppose the use of our military force in combat, especially when it occurs outside of our borders, as it usually does.

The Liberal government seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, it wants to expand into humanitarian assistance and other things that were already happening on the ground and, on the other hand, it wants to pull out of the bombing. My colleague referenced this in her speech. Our forces will be participating to a large extent. They will be painting targets on the ground. They will be refuelling the fighter jets. They will be providing recognizance with the Auroras so that the coalition can pick targets.

If our troops are to enable the bombing, does my colleague think the government will go the next step and leave our CF-18s in theatre?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for what I think is a very important question.

The hon. member will understand that we do not agree with keeping CF-18s in the region. However, it is true that the government seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. It says one thing and does another. It is withdrawing from the combat mission, but when we take a look at the details, it really is not withdrawing from it at all. There seems to be a pattern here because we have seen this attitude before on other issues where the government opposed certain things, but voted in favour of them. It is rather interesting.

I would like the government to provide more clarity, including on the issue of whether or not this is a combat mission, as I said in my short speech. The government owes Canadians and the men and women in the armed forces the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I will speaking on what I think is a very misguided motion presented by the Liberal government.

It is a fairly wordy motion, and I should say that there are some positive aspects, such as “investing significantly in humanitarian assistance”, increasing efforts for “finding political solutions” to the conflict and, of course, “welcoming tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to Canada”.

However, the key point is that the Liberals have decided to expand and enlarge Canada's military mission in Iraq, and I cannot, in good faith, support this decision.

This issue has been a point of contention within the Liberal Party for some time now. Canadians have watched them flip and flop, back and forth, on what should be done against ISIS. Indeed, the party seemed to disagree with itself at every turn, both opposing the military mission and supporting it.

After months of waiting for the promise of bringing home our CF-18s, we find out that the Liberals have a new plan that has left more questions than answers regarding our role in this war. The most important part of this motion is missing.

There are no parameters to define success. Indeed, I am having trouble seeing more than cosmetic changes to the original Conservative mission. Again we find ourselves calling it an advise and assist mission, exactly as the Conservatives did before. The Liberals are tripling these advisors to the Iraqi military, while some forces will be working within a battlefield context.

The promise to end the bombing mission has morphed into an increased Canadian military presence. We will still be conducting targeting missions for other countries' bombers. The Liberals have stated in the past that there must be a clear line between combat and non-combat roles. This is indeed a good point, but this motion before us makes that line even blurrier than before.

We know that in practice, Canadian troops have already come under fire on the front lines with ISIS during their advise and assist mission. The Prime Minister cannot, in good faith, deny that troops will be involved in combat. When we lost Sergeant Doiron, I think Canadians were starkly reminded of the risks of a deployment on the front line.

The Prime Minister has not provided parameters for Canadian engagement on the ground for the duration of this expanded role. Afghanistan showed us that training missions, especially those within a battlefield context, are just as dangerous for our Canadian women and men as active conflict zones.

The government is now calling this an open-ended mission with no end date. We all know how well that went in Afghanistan. Have no fear, because the Liberals have assured us that this open-ended mission will cost $264 million. The government is not being transparent with the people. If we do not know when the mission will end, how can we possibly know what it will cost?

The history of western military intervention in the Middle East goes back centuries. The Crusades were the first of a series of organized campaigns, but it was not until the 19th century, starting with the Napoleonic Wars that European powers unleashed a mad scramble to carve up the region.

The modern day borders drawn as straight as a ruler were imposed largely by the French and British on the remains of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, and little regard was given to the different cultures, religious sects, and ethnic groups that were forced into the same national bed, the consequences of which we are still seeing to this day.

The Kurds saw their homeland split between five different countries, including Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, three countries that are at the heart of the present conflict. We are sending weapons to the Kurds, which obviously raises many questions about the long-term consequences of such action.

I feel that this debate has not given enough answers on this issue. How do we make sure that these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, or that human rights abuses will not be committed with these arms? Has the government given any long-term thought to the goals of the Kurds, which include establishing an independent state in the region? These questions have not been addressed and represent a glaring hole in our foreign policy for the region.

There are other questions that have not been addressed at all with this motion. Three years ago, ISIS did not exist. What conditions created a favourable climate for its rapid growth and the horrific atrocities it has committed? This is the heart of the issue, and we ignore it at our peril.

Simply put, ISIS is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the result of more than 200,000 Syrians murdered and millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. It is no accident that ISIS has seen its growth in Sunni Arab territory in both Iraq and Syria. Both governments have fomented sectarian violence on their respective Sunni populations.

The Liberal motion before us today shows that we have not learned our lessons from the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, which created the chaos and conditions favourable to the rise of terrorism in the region. If we continue to use a military response to a problem that needs a political solution, we will never find success in the region.

ISIS, like al Qaeda before it, is but the next head of the hydra. We may cut it off only to find that more have rushed in to replace it.

Our men and women in the Canadian Forces do a fantastic job. They will undertake any mission they are given, expertly and professionally. The problem is that this is an ill-defined mission, with no timelines or victory conditions. We went through this in Afghanistan, and we do not want to see it happen again.

We always talk about giving our troops the tools they need, but we as parliamentarians also owe it to them to give them a clear mission, with an exit strategy and goals for success. Another open-ended mission is just putting our troops in more danger.

Since 2011, the unrest and conflict in Syria has caused over 4.5 million refugees to flee to neighbouring countries. This has led to a massive requirement for humanitarian solutions. It is not just the refugees who are hurting but also 13.5 million people inside Syria who require urgent humanitarian intervention.

We have an important role to play in addressing the threat ISIS poses to the global community and in alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict.

New Democrats have always been clear on this issue. There are things that must be done. Canada should absolutely not be playing a military combat role. We should focus on stopping the flow of arms, funds, and foreign fighters to ISIS. These actions would not only be effective but would be in line with the UN resolutions and mandates.

The Liberal government has been silent on the signing of the arms trade treaty. Ratifying this treaty would be a more effective deterrent to ISIS than would contributing Canadian soldiers on the ground.

The idea that we are actually ending the bombing mission is a ludicrous rationalization. We have changed the mission from dropping bombs to one where we paint targets so that other countries may do the physical act of dropping bombs. I may not throw the stick myself, but if I point to someone else who is throwing the stick, I am just as guilty. I am participating in that combat. Rationalizing it any other way does a disservice to this argument.

I remember in the last Parliament when the Prime Minister criticized the Conservatives because they wanted to increase Canada's participation in a vague and possibly endless combat mission. However, this is exactly what we see here: a Liberal government promising something and then hiding behind smoke and mirrors to act as if change is really happening.

There is no way the Liberal government can be honest if it claims that Canadian Forces will not see combat in this expanded advise-and-assist role. The idea that augmenting a Conservative plan will make this a non-combat mission is not grounded in reality.

It is a good thing that the Liberals are bringing this debate to Parliament. I hope they see the points the NDP are proposing so that we can have the most effective opposition to ISIS.

We cannot just expand the Conservative advise-and-assist mission, putting even more boots on the ground, expecting that we can solve this great problem through military means.

New Democrats will continue to oppose this government motion while proposing alternative solutions to solve this crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear more about how the member thinks we can reduce the recruitment of these extremists to the fight, both here and overseas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I alluded to some of that in my speech when I talked about the conditions that led to the rise of ISIS and extremism in Iraq.

People do not take up arms for no reason. There is a sufficient reason. If we take a detailed look at the way the Sunni Arab populations have been treated in Iraq and Syria, I think many of them have been driven to a form of extremism. There is no excuse for terrorism. However, but I am trying to examine the conditions that have led to its rise.

This organization is attracting people from all around the world. One of the ways in which Canada can be effective is to have a much needed de-radicalization strategy here at home to prevent the flow of foreign fighters to that country, because it is just adding fuel to the fire there.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good point in that we should understand the causes that brought ISIL to bear. It is a commendable thing to do. However, I do not think anyone in this House would argue that ISIL is an enemy that does not need to be defeated. One side of the House would say, “We will do the fighting for you”. The other would say, “We will talk to you and try to talk you out of what you are doing”. What we are saying is,“We will teach you to fight”.

There is an old saying that one can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or teach a man to fish and feed him for life. Our approach is to teach them to fish. We are not going to fight for them, but we are not going to abandon them. We are going to teach them to fight.

I would ask the member how that would not work to stop ISIS.