House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was military.
Jati Sidhu Liberal Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River is an important waterway in my riding and the depletion of the sockeye salmon population has greatly impacted my constituents, including indigenous peoples.
Could the minister please provide an update to the House on the implementation of the recommendations of the Cohen commission?
Hunter Tootoo LiberalMinister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, we know how important sockeye salmon is to British Columbians. That is why we committed to acting on the recommendations of the Cohen commission. I have met with Justice Cohen as well as the Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat and other key experts and stakeholders in the area. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented and we are in the process of developing ways to move forward on the remaining ones.
I am confident that working together we will be able to restore the sockeye salmon stock in the Fraser River.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canada's tourism sector is a nearly $90-billion a year industry that employs more than 600,000 hard-working Canadians.
At the tourism ministers' meetings there was nothing new from the government, only a reaffirmation of initiatives that our Conservative government had already undertaken, including investing $30 million for tourism marketing in the United States.
Could the minister indicate whether the Liberals will make any attempt at all to build on the good work done under the previous Conservative government?
Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, it is a great time to visit Canada.
We are meeting with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have been present. On the weekend I was at the Boston Globe Travel Show with provinces so that we could promote the tourism industry. We will be supporting the connecting America program so that Americans know to visit Canada. We will continue to have a presence on the international stage.
I urge members to stay tuned for the budget, because there might be some surprises.
I am sure the member looks forward to working with us.
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is so glad that Quebec is dropping its case against Air Canada, thereby sacrificing 1,800 Aveos workers on the pretext that Air Canada may create 1,000 C Series aircraft maintenance jobs within 10 years.
What is clear here is the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the conditions governing its privatization, and most of all, the fact that Air Canada is not obeying that law.
Instead of amending the law to make it easier to export our jobs to other countries, will the minister finally enforce the existing law?
Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, Air Canada's decision to buy 45 C Series aircraft and as many as 30 more is good news. This will create both short-term and long-term jobs at Bombardier.
Air Canada has also committed to having those aircraft maintained in Quebec for at least the next 20 years. That is good news. We also know that the Government of Quebec is about to drop its case against Air Canada. That will enable the government to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the federal election campaign, 14 permits were issued by Fisheries Canada and Transport Canada to allow the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. on the Peace River. It is highly controversial and manifestly opposed. Its sole purpose is to provide electricity for LNG development. The joint panel found it directly offends Treaty 8 treaty rights.
Will the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs commit to no further permits being issued while the issues for indigenous people remain outstanding?
Catherine McKenna LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2014, the former government approved the project and set legally binding conditions with which the proponent must comply.
The project is now at construction phase and BC Hydro must meet the requirements set out in the environmental assessment decision as well as other regulatory requirements.
We are committed to a new relationship with indigenous peoples. I have been and will continue to be engaged in discussions with indigenous leaders on how we can work together to ensure better consultation, environmental assessments, and natural resource development.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Allen Roach, Minister of Finance for the Province of Prince Edward Island.
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the finance committee this morning, finance officials appeared before the committee and they were able to answer questions with respect to the “Fiscal Monitor”, not only of November, but December 2015.
I am seeking permission from the House in order to table these “Fiscal Monitors” showing the great work done by the Department of Finance.
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to the motion before us today. Even though the Prime Minister and his Minister of National Defence ended the air component of Operation Impact before this debate even began, it is important for all members to have the opportunity to present our views and those of our constituents.
Canada is known around the world for our values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. As a mother and grandmother, I believe that there is no better place than Canada to live, work, and raise a family. Throughout history, Canadians have always given more to protect our values abroad than a country this size would be expected.
Today, our freedoms and very way of life are being threatened by ISIS. This is an organization whose main stated purpose is to eliminate all peoples who do not share its theology. It is a death cult that is trying to impose on the Middle East and the world a very violent iteration of 7th century sharia law. It seeks to form a caliphate in the Levant region, which includes Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Lebanon, Cypress, and southern Turkey by converting or killing non-Sunni populations.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order please.
I want to ask members to take their conversations outside. Perhaps the government House leader could help by encouraging members to take their conversations into the lobby. I would appreciate that very much.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has the floor.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that ISIS has between 25,000 and 30,000 fighters across Iraq and Syria, of which a number are foreign recruits. It is in possession of all kinds of weaponry, including tanks. Around the world, the repercussions of ISIS are being felt. Thousands have been killed simply for trying to do the things we take for granted, like practise the faith of our choosing or raise our daughters to believe that they can be or do anything they choose. People are fleeing because ISIS has revolutionized the use of torture, murder, and mutilation. Anyone who does not share its perverse and inexplicable world view is being stoned, beheaded, burned alive, or crucified.
More than 2.5 million refugees are now in Turkey, nearly 500,000 in Germany, nearly 1.5 million in Jordan, and the list goes on. None of these refugees will be able to return to their homes until there is peace and stability in the region and critical infrastructure has been rebuilt.
The shocks of the attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, and Burkina Faso remind us that the horrors brought on by ISIS are not limited to a geographic region.
Lester Pearson once said that, whether Canadians fire a rifle in Korea or in Europe, they are protecting people at home themselves.
It is beyond debate that ISIS needs to be stopped.
Today, we are debating the size and scope of Canada's mission to stop ISIS. The Liberals are trying to make this an either/or debate, and the NDP is trying to make this is a neither/nor debate.
This debate is not about deciding upon whether Canada should provide more humanitarian aid or contribute a robust military contribution, as the Liberals are trying to frame it. It is not an either/or decision.
This debate is not about ignoring, as the NDP has, the clear and present danger that ISIS poses to Canadians. It is not a neither/nor decision.
This debate should be about the maximum contribution that Canada can offer to the people of Iraq and Syria, our allies, and the entire region.
On this side of the House, my colleagues and I continue to support doing our part on both the humanitarian level and the combat level.
The facts are that the Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 aircraft have, as part of a broader coalition, stalled the spread of this horrible caliphate. Over the past year, air strikes from coalition forces have limited ISIS to 25% of the territory it once held.
From their first sortie on October 30, 2014, to being grounded on February 15, 2016, Canada's CF-18 Hornets conducted 1,378 sorties and destroyed 267 ISIL fighting positions, 102 pieces of ISIL equipment and vehicles, and 30 improvised explosive device factories and storage facilities.
The threat imposed by their presence has undeniably held back further advances by ISIS.
The Liberal Party will argue that our CF-18s have had minimal impact because of their numbers relative to some of our allies, but this is not a justification for stepping back.
Does the government believe that our Dutch allies should remove their six F-16 fighter aircraft from this theatre of operation because they are not contributing enough aircraft to be effective?
The fact is that, if we remove our CF-18s from this fight, other nations will have to take up the slack left by the absence of our pilots and aircraft.
The Liberals have not said which of our allies will fly the 1,378 sorties that Canadian pilots would have flown in the coming months. The Liberals have not said who will destroy the hundreds of military targets that our aircraft would have destroyed had they not been grounded.
Furthermore, the suggestion by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence that Canada is better suited to a training mission than an air combat mission is an insult to the fighting capacity of the Royal Canadian Air Force, our pilots, and the entire team supporting them in the region.
I cannot speak on behalf of our pilots and support teams, but I dare say that they are immensely proud of the personal contribution they have been able to make.
The skill of our men and women in uniform is clear. That is why our allies want our CF-18s, our CC-150 Polaris aerial refuelling aircraft, and our CP-140 Aurora aerial surveillance aircraft, along with associated air crew and support, to stay active and present in the air.
The RCAF regularly trains with its American counterpart. Our pilots speak the same language as our largest allies. We use similar aircraft. There is no reason why Canada cannot increase our ongoing and long-running humanitarian and diplomatic efforts in the region and our training of local troops on the ground, as the government has said it will do, while continuing to target the enemy from the air and halt its progress. Stalling the progress of ISIS through air strikes gives our soldiers, who are training local militias on the ground, time to build a durable legacy of an effective combat force. These are not contradictory measures but complementary measures.
Since this debate started, I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why Canada is withdrawing its CF-18 aircraft. I am hopeful that I will eventually hear a response to this basic question: if this is not a fight that Canada should be involved in militarily, then what is?
I urge all members, especially those from the government side, to support the amendment brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition and re-establish Canada's influence within the international decision-making process in the fight against terrorism and rebuild the trust Canada has lost with its allies by reversing its decision to withdraw the CF-18s from the air combat mission, which has essentially removed Canada from any combat role.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISILGovernment Orders
Spadina—Fort York Ontario
Liberal
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from the member opposite, and I thank her for acknowledging that we are stepping up and stepping toward a significant increase in our contribution to dealing with the challenges in Syria and Iraq, by doubling and tripling both our intelligence and our training methods, to consolidate and to make permanent the gains that the campaign has achieved in the last year.
I am curious why a change in strategy constitutes walking away from our allies when they have embraced that change in strategies. Also why would a democratic process, which elected a government with a commitment to change the approach, be something that our democratic allies would not understand? Why would they not understand exactly what had happened, that an election happened; and why is it not a legitimate way to test a foreign policy with the Canadian people and with our allies?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, the changes that have been made to our mission have neither broadened nor improved our contribution in combatting ISIL, as the motion that has been put forward suggests.
As I stated in my remarks, determining what our support in this mission needs to be is not an either/or decision. We can and should be ensuring that our troops have every tool available to them.
In my estimation, the government has failed to provide a clear explanation to Canadians as to why we are stepping back from Canada's contribution to the air mission. It is extremely irresponsible of the government to whittle it down for political purposes.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech, and for her commitment to and support for our troops.
In the member's reply to the last question, she commented that this is not an either/or situation. The Liberals have failed terribly at trying to explain why we had to stop the CF-18 bombing and air combat mission.
I ask if my colleague could provide some detail as to why the CF-18s are so important to this bombing mission, and why Canada has the capabilities, the training, and the technology to do everything that we have requested of the government: bombing, training, and humanitarian assistance.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for the very important work he is doing as the critic to the Minister of National Defence.
On this side of the House, we understand our responsibilities as a nation to stand with and assist our allies in halting and degrading ISIL, which is why we do support providing our troops with whatever tools they need to get the job done.
The current government's inability or unwillingness to be forthcoming with its reasons for withdrawing our CF-18s, and the lack of details surrounding the deployment of troops, military assets, and the allocation of humanitarian funding, is extremely irresponsible and demonstrates that this is only being done for political purposes.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, today's debate on the motion to extend the military mission in Iraq and Syria is definitely extremely important.
One important thing the previous government unfortunately failed to do was to ratify the arms trade treaty. The Conservatives did nothing on that, and I still find it hard to understand why, especially now that questions are being raised about the transparency of contracts for the sale of Canadian arms to Saudi Arabia, for example.
Would my colleague agree that it is important to ratify that agreement and have greater control over the flow of weapons?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my remarks earlier, the NDP is trying to make this a neither/nor decision. The member's question is simply, in my estimation, an attempt to deflect scrutiny of his or her party's non-position. Should that member have an opportunity at another time to speak to this very important issue, I would like him to explain what level of military action against ISIS the New Democrats would support.