Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that we all feel comfortable that we can bring our concerns and comments to this place.

I am not sure I can address all of the range of commentary that this member has presented but what I would first start with is that the Reputation Institute did a study and has found several times that Canada has the greatest reputation in the world. That is something I think we should be proud of. I hope that all members of Parliament would put their ideology aside and say they are proud to be Canadian. We should be talking Canada up in this place not down, although I always affirm the right of members to say what they feel in this place.

That being said, I would simply point out that the CF-18s are a tool in the tool box. Some trainers outside Mosul on December 16 were attacked by several hundred ISIS fighters and were greatly relieved when our CF-18s that were on a mission struck down and allowed them to re-establish those front lines. I feel that mission had extreme value. I hope this member would agree.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been asking government members if they are willing to use the word “genocide” to describe the actions of the Daesh in Syria and Iraq. This is the word that has been used by Hillary Clinton. It is the word that has been used by the European Parliament in a resolution that it passed. It is important that when we have genocide going on we are willing to call it a genocide because that affects how we need to respond.

I wonder if the hon. member can comment on that. Does he consider what is happening in Syria and Iraq a genocide, and does that oblige us to understand that we have a responsibility to protect those who are victims?

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

Madam Speaker, I know there is international language around the use of the word “genocide”. I would simply point out that many of the populations, the Yazidis, the Ismailis, the Christians, all have said that the death cult ISIS has targeted them in a way that is brutal and has purposely sought to kill as many as possible. While there may be some reluctance to call that a genocide by some quarters, I say that we call it what it is.

This is a genocidally intended organization that is intent on establishing an Islamic caliphate. It needs to be challenged before it can gather more ground and more illegal oil revenues or get access to unconventional weapons and fund terrorist activities throughout the world. We must confront it or eventually it will come to our shores.

I hope that other members would consider that. This is a grave situation. It deserves to be dealt with in the same serious manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

I am proud to participate in today's debate on Canada's strategy to combat ISIL. I think this is a historic decision. Why? Because one day, this period will be studied, and we will be judged on our actions, especially with regard to the fight against the international jihadist terrorism that is threatening the regional and international balance of powers.

My theme today is to look at this issue with five basic questions. What are we fighting, when should we fight, why do we fight, how do we fight, and where do we fight?

What are we fighting? There is an atrocious, bloodthirsty organization that refers to itself as “ISIL”. This is a murderous terror regime that enslaves and tortures women and children, beheads entire villages based on ethnicity and religion, and even kills other followers of Islam simply for not being of the same orthodoxy.

This threat has killed Canadians here in Canada, including Patrice Vincent and Corporal Cirillo, and abroad. Seven Quebeckers were killed in Burkina Faso, and another was killed in Indonesia. Terrorists killed Canadians who were fighting in the Middle East and providing humanitarian assistance there.

Those are our adversaries. These are extremist terrorists who are against the values of freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and against the value of gender equality, which Canada espouses.

The second question is, when should we fight? Let us look at the combat situations Canada has gone into since its inception at Confederation.

World War I saw Canada align with a group of allies, including France, the U.K., and the United States, to fight a battle that was not on our soil. Why did we get involved? To help our allies.

World War II was the next time Canadians went into combat. Again, although the war was happening outside our borders, we stood with our allies to eliminate a deadly threat.

The Korean War, where again we stood with our allies to help fight a fight that was not directly threatening Canadians, is just another example.

The Gulf War, again, had us joining alongside our allies with both air strike and ground force fighters for a fight that was arguably not a threat in any way to Canadians.

The next fight was in Kosovo, this time standing up for humanitarian reasons.

Then there was Afghanistan, which was a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 26 Canadians.

As it stands, Canada has been part of a large and broad coalition consisting of both our traditional allies as well as regional bloc players from the Middle and Near East region. Our actions up until the recent election of our new government were in step with our allies.

When we look back over all of these and ask why we fought, we come with three main answers: one, to stand with our allies; two, to fight for humanitarian causes; and, three, to fight terrorists who have killed Canadians.

Therefore, when we come to the fight against ISIL, we have another terrorist organization that has killed Canadians. Why would we do anything other than join our allies, fight for humanitarian causes, and combat the terrorists who are killing Canadians?

It being clear that we need to engage in this combat, now the discussion turns to, how should we fight?

Our CF-18 jets, our special operations forces, and military trainers were working constantly with their focus aimed at degrading ISIL's offensive capabilities, to blockade ISIL's murderous rampage across the Levant region, and to begin to turn the tide against it after it began consolidating its power bases across the area it had slowly building up since 2012. The air strikes have been effective in weakening the ISIL position and now, as in Afghanistan, the ground troops are being stepped up along with the air strikes.

This is where the Liberal government has made its misstep. Before even having the debate in Parliament, the Liberal government unequivocally failed our allies by pulling our jets, a vital component to the allied air campaign, despite how much the defence minister has attempted to minimize the incredible work of the Canadian Forces pilots and crews there.

We are tripling the number of boots on the ground, which is something the current Prime Minister did not dare mention during the recent election campaign. He knows this means putting more Canadian men and women, some of our best special forces operators, in direct harm's way, an exact opposite of the air campaign we were a part of, in which laser-guided munitions allowed our military to hit targets with pinpoint precision from the safety of 40,000 feet up.

We now learn that Griffon helicopters will be sent into the battle theatre, with little to no regard for the massive influx of shoulder-launched rockets in the hands of ISIL terrorists that can easily take out our helicopters and potentially put downed airmen and women into the hands of our bloodthirsty enemies. This is how not to fight.

We should be maintaining our fighter jets in the region so we are at the table, understanding the strike plans so our ground troops do not get killed again by friendly fire, as happened in Afghanistan.

We should not be counting on our allies to provide the air protection for our people when we are fully capable of providing it for ourselves. It is not like our CF-18s have somewhere urgent to rush off to. We could get them back into the game so we can regain our position at the table with our allies.

That is what Canadians want. According to polls, nearly 80% of Canadians would support sending the CF-18s back into the theatre. The soldiers are unhappy with the government's plan, and the CF-18 fighter pilots must certainly feel as though the government does not value their contribution.

My final comment has to do with the question of where we should fight.

Obviously, as the battles ensue the situation is a dynamic one, and if we are not at the table with our allies, we may not get the best information about the changing nature of the fight, which as I understand has factions switching sides frequently.

We also need to be prepared on our home soil. Terrorists have already attacked here, and we need to be ready for the backlash to come. The government needs to have ready its emergency terrorist response plan for all regions of Canada.

I do believe Canada has been placed at serious risk of potential attacks due to the failure to acknowledge the clear and present danger of terrorism here at home. We have a Prime Minister who refuses to acknowledge the extreme nature of ISIL and the basis of its entire jihad being waged across the Levant as it seeks to form an Islamic caliphate. Indeed, any time we try to discuss these issues, we hear accusations of racism and Islamophobia, when in fact ISIL is indeed a clear and present danger to the western way of life, the likes of which we have not seen since the end of World War II.

There is another important element in the discussion. Canada has and always will open its doors to those in dire humanitarian need. This will never change, and everyone on this side, and indeed the entire House today, would agree that it is important for our great nation to do this.

However, we now see a crisis situation about to unfold, with little or no discussion as to the true scope of what is going to take place. For several weeks now Aleppo, Syria has been heavily bombarded by both U.S. and Russian fighter jets. Aleppo has become the hotbed of ISIL fighters. Now that they are under heavy fire, these ISIL fighters, who are the worst of worst type of human scum truly known to man, are streaming toward the western border of Turkey. Here they are purposely blending in with innocent refugees displaced by the ongoing war. The issue becomes, how can the government possibly believe we can perform any sort of credible security review of those individuals from that region coming to Canada as refugees, when the fog of war has completely enveloped Syria and the surrounding area? We cannot process these individuals, but we know for a fact that many western governments are opening their doors a little hastily under humanitarian pretense, possibly allowing in tens, hundreds, or even more ISIL supporters.

I must point out again that unless we cut off the head of the snake, we will have an endless sea of refugees beyond our capacity.

In summary, we must absolutely ensure that no ISIL fighters can pose as innocent refugees. We need to ensure that preparedness is in place, and we need to fight this evil terrorism wherever this battle takes us until the threat is removed.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that failing our allies would be to leave the theatre of war completely, not to increase our presence there. Failing our allies would be to not contribute to alleviating the refugee crisis.

Canada has a proud military heritage, but it also has a proud humanitarian heritage. We have not been static across time in our approach to these things. Sometimes we get involved directly in conflict. Sometimes we help in other ways. Sometimes we do peacekeeping. Sometimes we do peacemaking. We have not been static, but the opposition seems fixated on having Canada always pull the trigger.

In any combat situation there is going to be refocusing. Countries refocus so they can realign their efforts to make them more internally consistent and effective.

The previous government used to tell us that we could do everything well. We could drop bombs and help Syrian refugees, but it was not able too help Syrian refugees. It was a failure on that file. We at least have made progress, and we are realigning our efforts more in the humanitarian direction.

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

Madam Speaker, the point is this. We can do everything. In other combats we have used ground troops and air and the whole thing. We should do everything that we can because this is the most serious threat that we have seen since World War II.

The previous Conservative government did bring in a huge number of Iraqi and Syrian refugees, and that has been continued. I appreciate the co-operation of the government in trying to bring refugees from camps but I was astounded today in the House to hear in question period that did not happen, that the refugees did not come from camps. I was astounded, because that is what we told the Canadian people and the Liberal government is supposed to be about being open and transparent.

We definitely need to be there with our allies. We have lots to bring. That is what we should do.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I feel obligated to raise the same question to the hon. member as I did to her colleague earlier.

The member just said, “We did do everything. We want to do everything”. Why then has the Conservative Party moved in this place to remove what the government is proposing, which is improving the living conditions of conflict-affected populations in the area, welcoming tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, engaging more effectively with political leaders, and investing significantly in humanitarian assistance? Why are they removing part of that everything?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to refugees, I am happy that Canada showed humanitarian aid but, as I talked about in my speech, we are now getting to the point where ISIL fighters are coming in with the refugees. It is going to be tricky to sort that out. That is a significant threat to us here in Canada.

When it comes to everything that the government put forward, there is no reason to withdraw our CF-18s. The government did it before a vote was even held in the House, which shows total disrespect for the democratic process.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can respond to the question about whether our pilots were disappointed or sad.

Lieutenant General Charles Brown, the U.S. commander of the coalition air force, was interviewed by the Calgary Herald. He mentioned that he himself was sad to see our pilots leave and that our pilots were truly sad. He said that he understood that it was a political decision by the new government, but that he did not understand why the pilots were being withdrawn because they were effective and they could go into airspace where other countries could not go. He said that he would be pleased if Canada changed its mind and again deployed its pilots. He wants to keep our pilots, and our pilots are sad.

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

Madam Speaker, how could our pilots not be disappointed? They were effective, they were doing a great job, and the rest of our allies are putting more planes in the fight. Of course they were disappointed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for her hard work and the speech she just gave, in which she addressed a lot of important issues. I also want to recognize the good work of the critic on this file.

I think if Canadians listen carefully to this debate, they will hear the root of the problem, which is the political games that are being played by the government and its not being straight and transparent. A lot of photo-ops and half information is being shared.

The motion that we are debating today is the Liberal motion on fighting ISIS. The Liberals said they were going to expand the advise and assist mission of the Canadian Forces, by enhancing capacity-building efforts with our defence partners and Jordan and Lebanon, and by withdrawing our CF-18s.

How do we expand by withdrawing? It is a Liberal concept that we would expand by withdrawing, and it does not make sense.

Will the Griffon helicopters the Liberals say they are going to send in be armed? Will they be able to defend themselves against attack? The Liberals will not answer that. Why will they not answer those important questions? It is sort of smoke and mirrors that we are getting. Why would they not be honest and transparent and inform Canadians truly what their plan is about?

When the Liberals do not answer straightforward questions, we ask why? What are they hiding? Why are they not being honest with Canadians?

I come from a family where my father was a Canadian veteran. He was in the army. When I was first elected in 2004, I was given the great honour of joining the Canadian military for a short period of time to experience what it was like to be in the Canadian military. As my father spent time in tanks in the Second World War while he was in the army, that was where I went first. I loved my time there and the experience in the army. The second experience was in the navy. I have had the great honour of working with a number of veterans, active reserves, and full-time military people.

I am so proud and so thankful for the Canadians who make the sacrifice of serving Canada. Their hearts are so big. They are there to represent Canada with great pride, and they are also there to help those in the world who are being attacked.

This is a very serious issue that we are dealing with. The member for Sarnia—Lambton highlighted the First World War and the Second World War, and how Canada had a reputation carrying far beyond its weight.

We look back not that long ago when there was a Liberal government, which was described by the military as the decade of darkness. It was a sad time. When I was elected in 2004, we found the Canadian military in Afghanistan with the wrong colour of uniform, and poorly equipped. They were put in the hottest part of Afghanistan, and they were at the greatest of risk and poorly equipped.

That changed in 2006 when we became government. There was the pride of our Canadian military and thankfulness, and every Friday people would wear red, at least in our party, as a show of thanks to our Canadian military. There were a number of people coming out at Remembrance Day, and it continued to grow and grow. There was just a pride and a thankfulness that we shared with our Canadian military.

Then we saw a pure evil from ISIS as it exposed its ugly head. I think back to why we are in this with our allies. No one wants to be in war, but there was a radical Islamic terrorist, murderous group called ISIS that started doing horrific things. We have to think back to what it was that caused our allies and the world to say that this had to stop.

ISIS forces cut off and surrounded thousands of civilians on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. At least 500 men were slaughtered execution style, with an unknown number of women being captured and sold into slavery. At least 70 children were reported to have died from thirst and at least 50 elderly perished. Then we were horrified when hostages in green jumpsuits were paraded helplessly in front of a camera and beheaded slowly. Many of the victims were humanitarian aid workers.

Then we saw children being brutally crucified. Some were buried alive. Many were sold into sexual slavery. We saw Coptic Christians being beheaded because of their faith. We saw ISIS round up 45 civilians in a town, some thought to be Iraqi security forces, and their families, and they were burned alive. ISIS released a horrific video showing a captured Jordanian pilot standing in a cage, doused with gasoline, eventually set on fire, and then crushed by giant rocks.

We saw that ISIS took some 400 male prisoners out into the desert, where there was a mass execution. We saw that four Iraqi children under the age of 15 were beheaded because they refused to convert from Christianity to Islam. In northern Iraq, 3,500 captured women were sold into sexual slavery, tortured, and repeatedly raped. On and on it goes.

The world said this is wrong, and we need to stand against this true, pure evil. The world came together, and Canada carried well above its weight. What did we do? We were involved with almost 250 bombings while doing our part: 249 ISIS fighting positions were destroyed by Canadian jets, 83 items of ISIS equipment and vehicles were destroyed by Canadian jets, 24 ISIS improvised explosive device factories and storage facilities were destroyed by Canadian jets. We know that recently Canadian troops were there training and there was an attack by ISIS forces. Canadian jets were called for backup, and ISIS was attacked and pushed back. It is a strong legacy, a strong history of Canada doing its part.

What is the plan? The plan is to withdraw the Canadian jets. I think there would be support from the Conservative side if Canada continued to do its part. Some of what the government wants to do has merit, but the decisions are cloaked in clouds of secrecy, there is confusion and mixed messages, and Liberals are not sharing what their plan is, while removing one of the biggest impacts that Canada has had with its allies, the jets. Why are the Liberals doing that? They are doing it because during the rhetoric of the election not that long ago, they promised they would remove them.

Following that, there were the attacks in Paris. That is when there was a shift and the Canadian people were saying they did not want to hold the new Prime Minister to that promise because it was said in haste, not thought out. Canadians said it was okay and the jets should stay there. Then why are we bringing the jets back when they are so effective? The allies are asking us to continue to participate.

It was not that long ago that a conference of our allies here in Canada was asking how they could continue to fight against ISIS effectively. Canada was not even invited to that conference. Why? It is because we are backing away and we have a plan that is cloaked in secrecy.

Conservatives ask the government to do the right thing and reconsider keeping our Canadian CF-18s involved in this fight. It should do the right thing, and we should do our part as Canadians so that we can stand proud and free as Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a number of times from both opposition parties today about some kind of lack of transparency with respect to our party's position during the election as to what we were planning on doing. There was some discussion, particularly from the NDP, about not being clear as to what we were doing.

I would direct the attention of members opposite to the Liberal Party's website. It is very easy to find, liberal.ca. It is still on there and the wording is very clear. It says:

We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria.

We are doing exactly what we committed to. In the opinion of the member opposite, is removing the jets the only constructive way we can contribute? Are we not also contributing with these forces that we will be using for humanitarian purposes? Does he not see any value in what they are contributing?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, regardless of what is happening in the world, the Liberals are going to stay focused on what they said during the election, but the world has changed since then.

For the government to say that it will remove our planes because that is what the Liberals said during the rhetoric of an election, that it will put more Canadians at risk, that it will rely on somebody else to protect Canadian soldiers, it makes no sense. Why would the Liberals do that when it is the wrong thing to do?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for drawing attention again to the fact that on this side of the House we certainly value the work that our men and women in uniform do for us each and every day. We want them to have all the resources at their disposal to help them to do their job and, more important, to return back to their families healthy.

However, there is one issue we are losing sight of, and that is the concept of the refugees we are welcoming. We want to welcome refugees to our country and help them get settled in permanent housing situations. However, many times when we speak to the refugees, they would far rather have us redouble our efforts at creating a secure and safe environment for them so they are able to maintain their homes in the places where they are comfortable, and that is in their homeland, rather than being taken to a country that is maybe difficult to live in in terms of climate and the many cultural adjustments they need to make.

Would my colleague comment on the importance of us doing all we can, including maintaining our CF-18s in the fight, so we can create a more stable environment for our colleagues who are from this troubled part of the world?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my grandparents came from Ukraine and I would love to go back and visit. However, Ukraine is still a very unstable area in the world. They would not have left Ukraine if it would not have been for the issues in the late 1800s.

People who are Syrian and Iraqi love their country. Their memories are dear and sweet, but then there are also horrific memories. They would like to stay in their country if they could. If we can push back the evil, join our allies and carry above our weight as we always have, then I am sure the people whose homes are in Syria, where their memories are, would want to stay. That will only happen if we continue to carry above our weight. If we start backing off and playing politics with this issue, they will not be able to go back.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time in the debate with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I am happy to rise in the House this afternoon to speak against both the motion and the amendment to that motion.

I was encouraged to hear the speeches earlier this afternoon given by my NDP colleagues that I think really put the proper frame on this debate. Instead of how should we be throwing our military might into the Middle East, or should we bomb or should we not bomb, the question should really be, how can Canada be a truly positive force in the Middle East and the world?

I have heard many comments on this issue from many people in my riding, both recently and throughout the long election campaign. I would have to agree with the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who pointed out in his speech the clear change in the Liberal stance in this conflict.

When I travelled throughout my riding during the campaign, I went to 20 or so all-candidates forums. The Liberal candidate and I ended up at all those forums. Unfortunately, we did not really hear much from the Conservative side. I have to say that I continually heard from the Liberal candidate that Canada should be playing a more positive role in the Middle East, we should be pulling out the bombers and increasing humanitarian aid. The audiences in all 20 locations all agreed with us. Many constituents commented then that this is not our war. I still hear those comments from my constituents. I have had a couple of messages just in the last week alone from constituents about this, and they were not even aware of this debate going on. They just wanted me to hear that message.

I would like to also re-emphasize the comments made earlier by the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski that we seem to be so anxious to put our men and women of the armed forces in harm's way, and yet we continue to ignore the challenges they face when we bring them home. I have talked to many veterans in my riding who despair at the cuts to the services here in Canada. Some have even moved to the quieter parts of my riding since it is the only relief they can get from their PTSD.

Here we are again, putting more of our servicemen and women, tripling the number, into harm's way without a real clear plan of what they are there to do and when we will bring them home.

Let us look at the Liberal plan. The Liberals want to expand and enlarge our military role in Iraq with our personnel placed deeper and deeper into the combat. There is no apparent end date to the mission and no clear measures of success.

I remember commenting in the previous debate in the House that we had on an opposition day motion on this issue that I was reminded of George W. Bush's “mission accomplished” celebration regarding Iraq. In reality, he was celebrating the birth of ISIS and the destruction of any semblance of a stable Middle East.

The Liberal plan blurs the lines between training and combat roles. While they have recalled the bombers, we will still be refuelling bombers and we will be painting targets for them. The irony of this is simply painful, and I must say I am confused at the lack of clarity in this policy.

The human cost is difficult to assess. We are told that this mission will cost $264 million. It is interesting that the figure is so precise, considering, as I mentioned before, that the mission has no end date. Both my colleagues from Manitoba have already outlined the clear choices evident in these costs. There are so many positive ways we could be spending those funds here in Canada.

Canada does have constructive roles to play in fighting ISIS. We should be stopping the arms trade in the region, instead of increasing it. We should, first, sign the Arms Trade Treaty. It is absolutely unacceptable that Canada has not done this. We should be cutting off the funding sources for ISIS.

We constantly forget the other Canadian fighters in this region, in this conflict. Those are the Canadian fighters who have gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. There is nothing in the Liberal plan to increase and expand any deradicalization program here in Canada. This is something that we desperately need. There are models around the world that we can follow. We really need to tackle this end of things, because when we talk about the Canadian role in this conflict, we must remember that we can have a more positive effect by battling deradicalization as well.

We should continue our efforts to resettle refugees from this conflict in our country. I was disappointed to hear reference to refugees being confused with ISIS fighters and terrorists. This is just simply not the case. There is no evidence of the refugees coming to Canada being involved with this at all.

One of the most positive experiences for me as a new member of Parliament is the work I have been doing with refugee committees across my riding. There are committees in Penticton. We already have families that have come into Oliver and Osoyoos. There are committees working in Castlegar and New Denver, in the Nakusp. There is one in Naramata that wants to bring government-assisted refugees into a church conference centre for temporary housing.

These people have been working hard. There are hundreds of people in my riding doing this. There are thousands of people across Canada who are doing this. This is something that Canadians feel great pride in doing, sharing our great country with these people who have suffered so much.

Military involvement in this region is fraught with complexities and danger. It is perhaps not surprising that the United Nations and NATO have not sanctioned these actions. It is time that Canada played a positive role in the Middle East, concentrating on humanitarian aid and diplomacy. Many of our allies, including New Zealand, Norway, and South Korea have all taken this approach. It is something that we should really follow their lead on.

The Conservative debate stresses the effect of the bombing missions. Today I have heard many numbers thrown out there, the number of missions, the number of targets that have been hit, the number of ISIS targets hit. However, too often these bombing missions strike unintended civilian targets. We have all heard stories of bombs that have struck hospitals. It seems that we hear about this on a very regular basis. This is not only tragic in itself, but also serves as a recruiting tool for ISIS.

This is what will ultimately win this conflict. We must win the hearts and minds of the people who are suffering in the conflict. We must convince them that ISIS is not the answer to their problems. Bombing missions, no matter how well intentioned, just will not do that.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that I think both this motion and the amendment offer a misguided path forward for Canada, and a misguided path for the brave members of our armed forces and for the Middle East as a whole.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I did not get a chance to say this before, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove on his service to Canada.

I also want to congratulate everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces for their excellent and important fight against ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh—whatever we are going to call it. I want no one to believe that the members on this side of the House are not very grateful to the people in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. I take great exception to his saying that this war is not our war, because, obviously, this is a murderous, horrible group of people who are seeking the end of western civilization and are committing atrocities against Yazidis and Christians in the areas they occupy.

Is it the position of the NDP not only that Canada should withdraw from fighting in the region, but so should every western country, so that we simply leave the atrocities to perpetuate themselves with no one intervening at all?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would give one answer to that, which I can say right away and briefly. This is not our war.

If they want to point fingers, they could say it was the Americans and their ill-advised actions in Iraq who have created this instability. If the Americans feel obliged to try to fix it through military means, then good luck to them, because I do not think these sorts of military means are helping very much. Yes, they can go in, but I was very proud of the fact that Canada stayed out of that war. We should do all we can to create a positive role for Canada in that region.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will have three minutes left for questions and answers the next time this is brought before the House. The time for debate is now over for today.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise this matter again with the government. I first raised the matter on January 29. It was in response to a Globe and Mail article revealing an Environment Canada report from which we learned that it is not just the National Energy Board that has been failing to enforce environmental laws. As revealed by the head of Environment Canada's enforcement branch, there has been poor morale and fear of reprisal among the officers responsible for enforcing the law.

They had expressed concerns that they were forced to turn a blind eye to even serious environmental violations.

This matter concerns me, not just as an elected member of this place, but as the former chief of enforcement for Environment Canada. I continue to work very closely with enforcement officers, not just in this country, but in Bangladesh and Indonesia. I remain convinced that Canada has a place in this world to show how effective enforcement can be delivered.

Clearly, the evidence that is provided by this memo that was released to the media shows that we have a serious problem in this country. I think it is important that the new government address this.

The kinds of concerns that have been identified include, in some instances, the abject failure to actually uphold the law, as enforcement officers felt their actions were blocked if they were not a government priority; disconnect between the regions and headquarters; grievances not addressed in a timely way; lack of respect for the job of investigators; lack of recognition that enforcement officers should have science knowledge; lack of resources to even go to the field to deliver their enforcement role.

If I could share with this place a quote in the report from a regional enforcement officer, “Many people are breaking the law, but because of priorities, we can’t do anything.”

That is a stunning and disturbing revelation.

A second quote is, “We cannot only do our job from 9-5.... if we leave we simply send the message that they only need to comply with the law between 9 and 5, after that it is free range.”

Obviously, there are deep concerns within our Department of Environment. That is an agency that has been mandated to enforce environmental protection laws, for protection of threatened species, protection of our waterways, protection of clean air, and the delivery of international commitments and obligations are enforced. It is important for us to keep in mind that one of those international obligations is pursuant to NAFTA. A sidebar agreement to that trade agreement is the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. I also had the honour of working with the secretariat that operates under that agreement.

Pursuant to that agreement, Canada has committed to the effective enforcement of its environmental laws. Not only do we have an obligation to ensure that we are inspecting, monitoring, and enforcing our environmental laws, we have international obligations and commitments to maintain.

This is not the first time such a review was undertaken. Back in the late 1980s, a similar review was held and enforcement officers, for the first time in history, were brought in to tell what was going on in the field. I am very sad to say that we seem to have returned to that state.

My question for the government would be, what action is being taken to address these concerns? I am deeply concerned about the response given by their former director. I look forward to being assured that, in fact, the new government actually takes the responsibility seriously to ensure the effective enforcement of Canadian environmental laws.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work in this area and her obvious deep knowledge with respect to the issues that she raises.

Let me say, to start, that our government takes environmental enforcement very seriously and, in a broader context, it intends to address the negative impacts that were caused by the Conservative government's devaluation of environmental responsibilities over the last 10 years.

Behind closed doors, the previous government cut $255 million over four years from Environment Canada and Climate Change in a deliberate attempt to undermine the capacity of our officials to protect the environment, to enforce the law, and to provide industry with the tools that it needs to grow the economy in a sustainable manner.

Rather than being up front about the depth and the impact of the cuts, the previous government decided to hide this information, which is something it did in many other areas of government as well.

If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts them.

Unlike the previous government, we are committed to supporting enforcement personnel, whom we rely upon to tackle non-compliance with environmental laws, and will hold offenders to account.

Unlike the previous government, we will not engage in the reckless budget cuts to government programs that destroyed many of the services Canadians need.

This brings me to the heart of the matter that is raised by the hon. member, the essential services provided by environmental enforcement officers.

Environment and Climate Change Canada's enforcement officers have a broad range of powers that they use to identify violations of environmental laws. The head of Environment Canada's enforcement branch has revealed in no uncertain terms the previous government's negligence in the context of the enforcement of environmental law.

Since 1999, federal public servants in 93 departments and agencies, including those in Environment and Climate Change Canada, have participated in a survey that is conducted every three years to gather employees' perspectives on their workplace.

What the hon. member references in her question is a report prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada's chief enforcement officer, in which he acknowledged concerns raised by some of his personnel in the 2014 survey. These concerns reflect the oppressive culture produced by the previous government and serve as a reminder of its neglect of Environment and Climate Change Canada's enforcement branch.

After consulting enforcement staff, the chief enforcement officer has laid out an action plan to demonstrate a commitment on the part of senior management to foster dialogue with employees.

Our government values the tremendous contributions of our enforcement officers. Addressing their concerns through open and transparent dialogue will benefit the department, all Canadians, and the environment.

Our government has always emphasized that a positive and productive relationship with public servants is a priority. Our commitment to transparency will ensure that the concerns of public servants are heard so that any issues can be tackled.

Our government is committed to enforcing environmental laws and will continue to seek input from enforcement officers and senior management on how best to ensure that they have what they need to successfully execute their mandate. We are currently in the process of assessing current resources and capabilities in order to do just that.

Going forward, we will work to ensure that Environment and Climate Change Canada has the capacity and the will to hold offenders of environmental law to account.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am reassured that the government recognizes there is a problem. What I am not reassured about is the response.

I also looked at the response given by the former senior officer. The offer of holding recreational activities does not exactly show a firm understanding of the deep problems from what has happened at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

I am wondering if the government would commit to an open and public review of the current enforcement and compliance policies and protocols and the staffing. The serious problem in that department is the fact that over time, it completely eroded the understanding of what enforcement is all about. Most of it is delivered on a regional basis.

Will the government commit to an open public review so that we can understand whether or not it will return to and continue the commitment of delivering its responsibilities under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that the hon. member and I share is a deep commitment to ensuring that we re-establish the capabilities and capacity of the department of the environment, and a number of other departments that are focused on ensuring that science and data are informing good public policy and that we are driving to ensure that decisions that are made on the basis of science and data are implemented and enforced.

One of the other commitments that this government has made is that we will be highly transparent in the context of resource allocation and the choices we make. When the budget is presented, the member will see a number of elements that relate to funding associated with a range of departments, including Environment and Climate Change Canada.

I look forward to having a conversation with the member about how that will work going forward.

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in follow-up to a question that I asked in this House, along with one of my colleagues, the MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, with respect to the recently approved takeover of MTS Allstream, a Canadian company with a fibre optic network in Manitoba, which was taken over by a U.S. company.

MTS Allstream was a Canadian carrier that offered fibre optic services, which carry the confidential data of thousands of Canadians, including government departments, the RCMP, and others. Its sale went through to an American firm following the federal election.

As we expressed in this House, our concern is that this sale was made without proper review. It certainly was not made known to Canadians. As a result, sensitive information will now be subject to American surveillance, including the U.S. patriot act.

We know that the previous government blocked an earlier attempt to purchase MTS Allstream, based on national security concerns. Therefore, we are concerned to hear that the current Liberal government refused to do a comprehensive review to protect Canadians.

The Investment Canada Act is a piece of legislation that is set up to ultimately protect Canadians, and to ensure that foreign takeovers protect Canadian jobs and investments in communities, and of course maintain our public safety.

Based on the various battles involving foreign takeovers, we in this House know that the Investment Canada Act has unfortunately not protected us. In the past, we certainly called for a review of the act, for a strengthening of the act, and for the need for increased transparency when it comes to foreign takeovers.

I know this to be the case in terms of takeovers in the mining sector, as I come from a community where we once had Inco, a successful Canadian company that was bought out by the Brazilian multinational Vale, which waited until the expiry of its two-year agreement to come out with some potentially devastating announcements with respect to the loss of Canadian jobs. Fortunately, we were able to get Vale back to the table to mitigate that kind of devastating announcement, although we know that other communities, including Sudbury, were in a difficult situation. That is an example of where the Investment Canada Act did not protect us.

However, going back to the example of MTS Allstream, these are the questions. Was there a proper review conducted; why do Canadians not know about it; and how is our public safety being protected in this case?