Debates of Feb. 24th, 2016

Motions for Papers

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always it is a great honour to stand in this House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay. I never take this honour and the task that they have given me to do lightly. I also say that there is no role that we as parliamentarians can take that is more important than the decisions that have to be made in putting men and women of our armed forces into harm's way in a foreign theatre.

Since I have been here, I have been through many of these debates and many of these motions. Over my time here, I have been fed a heavy diet of jingoism and rah-rah and two-dimensional claims that, if we look back, in the light of day did not stand up. Whenever we have these debates, we need to think about what it is that we are being called upon to do.

I would like to say that what concerns me here is that we have, once again, a reactive policy about a region that is the most explosive in the world. This has been the unfortunate response over the last dozen or so years of not having a proactive, clear direction. It has put our soldiers in harm's way and it has added to the destabilization of an already crisis-ridden region.

Nobody is arguing against the monstrosity of the group called ISIL. We do not need to compare the torture-porn stories of what that awful group has done. What we need to do is say what is the best way that we as a nation with a proud military history, but also a proud nation-building legacy, can do in this fight.

What really disturbs me about the present Liberal government is that it is not being truthful to Canadians. The Liberals talk about pulling the planes out, but now, as the minister said today in the House, the fight will be won on the ground, the targets will be found on the ground. This is an expansion of a combat mission. It is important if we are going to have a combat mission to say it is a combat mission. That is the first part of being honest with Canadian people. Once they have identified what that mission is, then they can start to talk about the parameters of the mission and the goals of the mission. However, to be completely vague and misrepresent what our soldiers would be doing on the ground is to do a disservice to this House and it will lead to long-term consequences.

I remember back in 2006, when we had the first debates on the mission into Kandahar. What drove the Paul Martin government at that time was pressure from the United States for having made the wise decision not to go into Desert Storm, which was widely supported by the Conservative caucus, the Alliance Party, and the wild acclaim about how we had to go and save civilization by getting ourselves involved in this illegal war in Iraq.

We commend the previous government for not going in there. It was that wrong-headed invasion that created so much of the instability and horrific death levels and created the grounds that we see for groups like ISIS today. As a result of having offended the Bush administration at the time, the previous Liberal government was under pressure to show that we could be good allies. That was the sense, and we heard that to be playing with the big boys we had to do our part so we voted in this House to send our soldiers into Kandahar without a clear understanding of what was on the ground in Kandahar. Our soldiers went into the toughest parts of that firefight.

We in this House had all kinds of language that this was nation building, but we did not even know what was happening on the ground. We had no forward-looking vision. The New Democratic Party at the time asked what the targets were in terms of the goals to show that we had actually succeeded there. We asked another important question at the time: Who are our allies on the ground? We asked where our allies were, because we went into Kandahar alone. At that time, I remember even lines like, “Oh, it's about putting boots on the ground.” They threw the Neville Chamberlain thing around, “Oh the NDP are being like the 21st century Neville Chamberlain”. The job of Parliament should have been to ask where our allies were, going into Kandahar.

We now see this today. Major General David Fraser, who commanded the military's alliance into the mission in 2006, has said that the west made a serious mistake in going in to fight the Taliban.

I was very surprised at his statements. He said that we did not learn the wrong-headed lessons of Iraq. This was the general charged by Canada to go in there. This is not to denigrate in any way our efforts to fight what was a brutal and awful regime, or the incredible work that our men and women did under really difficult conditions and made us all very proud.

However, this Parliament failed those soldiers because we did not have a sense of the clear objectives, to have the major general tell us today that we did not do what we were supposed to have done and now we have more instability.

Let us fast-forward to Libya and the vote we had in the House on the bombing mission in Libya. At the time we supported it. We were going to stand as a House united, because there was such deep concern about what was happening on the ground in Libya in terms of potential killing and atrocities by the Gadhafi regime. Nobody in the west had any real clue what was really happening on the ground in Libya, so we thought, “Well, we will bomb them. Then things will be okay.”

Then we turned our attention away. The mission was over. Mission accomplished. Now we have a completely destabilized situation in Libya, which is very close to the southern belly of our European allies. We completely failed.

We cannot go and bomb another country without a plan on the ground. What is it going to look like in the long term? This is where I plead with my Liberal colleagues for the incredible vision that was set forward in the 20th century with Mike Pearson, that Canada was going to play a role, that we were going to be the nation builder. We were not just going to be the little brother who went along with the gang. Canada established a reputation that was very unique at the time.

Unfortunately, I feel we have been failing in this mission. It is like we have developed this attention deficit disorder on international affairs. An issue will come up for a little bit, we think we have dealt with it, we will bomb them, we will send in the planes, and then we will move on.

Now we have an extremely destabilized situation in Libya. Then when the ISIS onslaught happened in Mosul and the horrific slaughter started, we went there. We sent members from each party to northern Iraq to find out what role Canada should play. At that time, the allies on the ground in Iraq said they did not need Canada in a bombing mission. They needed Canada to help with the humanitarian crisis they were dealing with. That was what they asked for.

We went in. We started the bombing mission in Iraq, without any clear idea, again, of who our allies were on the ground. Then we extended it to Syria, where we have even less knowledge.

The present Prime Minister said we were going to pull the planes. I think that was a wise move. Now, we are going to be expanding the mission in Iraq.

In the last Parliament when we were debating this, I asked my hon. colleagues in the Conservative government at the time what the plan was. A simple question, what is the plan? What are our objectives? Who are our allies on the ground? They shouted to me and said that they were going to kill bad guys. That is not a foreign policy. There is no shortage of bad guys over there. My question was, “Who are the good guys?”

Let us look at our allies. We could say we have Saudi Arabia. Those are our allies. Saudi Arabia, which is completely destabilized in the region, in terms of creating a conflict, the Sunni-Shiite proxy wars in Yemen, in northern Iraq. Canada is sending billions of dollars in military aid to Saudi Arabia that is already being used on the ground. Our weapons are being used in the Yemeni war, on both sides. The Saudi human rights record is horrific. The Saudis have also caused untold economic damage to Canada, trying to beat us in this oil war they declared. Those are our allies on the ground.

Now we are getting ourselves into a Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq where we have no clue of what the outcome will be.

Let us look at our friends, the Kurds in Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally. I refer to The Guardian, November 18, 2015, that talked about the key groups on the ground who could fight ISIS: the PKK, the Kurdish Democratic Union. They are the ones that could take ISIS out. It says:

In the wake of the murderous attacks in Paris, we can expect western heads of state to do what they always do in such circumstances: declare total and unremitting war on those who brought it about. They don’t actually mean it. They’ve had the means to uproot and destroy Islamic State within their hands for over a year now. They’ve simply refused to make use of it. In fact, as the world watched leaders making statements of implacable resolve at the G20 summit in Antalaya, these same leaders are hobnobbing with Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a man whose tacit political, economic, and even military support contributed to Isis’s ability to perpetrate the atrocities in Paris, not to mention an endless stream of atrocities inside the Middle East.

Canadians deserve better than the mishmash of excuses we are getting from the government. We are sending our men and women to war and we have to do better. We owe it to them.

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

Madam Speaker, I take to heart much of what my friend from Timmins—James Bay said. In my address in this place a few days ago, I raised many of the same issues that he raised. In particular, I raised concerns with respect to a post-conflict era in which, for example, the bombing in Libya has now led to a profoundly difficult situation on the ground.

Does he believe that we should go back to a Pearsonian view, one in which we had the type of mission that took place when it was brought forward by this side of the House, the government at the time, by Mike Pearson, back in the 1950s and 1960s, or are we in a different era? Does he support, for instance, some of the other initiatives that the government has brought forward in this motion, which talk about investing in diplomatic initiatives in the region, investing in humanitarian aid, and other initiatives that could provide the basis for a more stable region in the long run?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue of how we make the Mike Pearson vision in the 21st century is what we really need to be looking at. Part of that is having a long-term vision. We cannot do it by misrepresenting an extension of a combat mission. That is why we are there, first and foremost. We are not there under a UN mandate. That is first.

There is a huge role Canada can play, but given our recent track record and lack of ability to actually look beyond the short-term goals, we are leaving ourselves in a situation for a long-term war without having the credibility that we are going to be going in there afterward as a nation builder. Nobody is going to believe it.

This is a good discussion, but we need to be honest about the parameters of how we are engaging there.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has highlighted, with which we all agree, that it is a complex region. There is really a lot of complexity in terms of different interests and factions.

I wonder what he thinks about the idea of collective security, in particular. Canada has been attacked by Daesh; our ally, France, has been attacked in a significant way by Daesh. I would argue that we have an obligation to respond because of our collective security commitments.

Yes, it is complicated; yes, we have to do our best to think about where we go from here. The reality is that we have been attacked and it is appropriate that we respond and support our allies as well.

What are his thoughts on the principle of collective security?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue of collective security and our role on the international stage is a fundamental question for Parliament. I would take exception that ISIS came to our shores, as the former prime minister claimed, and attacked us. I was here when that gunman came. That was a man suffering from severe mental illness, who tried to get himself arrested in a McDonald's with a stick. To claim that this was a foreign force that landed on our shores and attacked our nation diminishes the tragedy of what happened and the loss of such a powerful young man as Corporal Cirillo.

It also means that we cannot jump every time someone with a gun stands up and is crazy. That is not collective security. That is using these tragedies as an excuse to further other aims. I believe that Canada as a nation is bigger than that and we will only be bigger than that if we do not give into that kind of misrepresentation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He talked about our country's history in this respect. Does he agree that a mission with no set end date is a problem? Does he think that kind of mistake was made in the past? Does he think that we are once again making that same mistake by embarking on a mission with no end date?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was raised by my grandmother. She never got over the horrors of what happened in her neighbourhood when every young man on her street was killed. While I grew up, she said, “Charlie, never fall for politicians who send young boys to be killed”. That is the issue here. We have to be honest with Canadians. We are sending them into a combat mission. We cannot say anything else because we are sending young men and women into harm's way and I hear my grandmother's voice every time.

I hear the jingoism that sometimes runs around the House. We have a responsibility to be truthful. We have a responsibility to have a long-term plan. We have a responsibility to come to Parliament with a clear plan of getting in, getting out, and building a long-term sense of stability and peace in that region.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to open by expressing my gratitude and the gratitude of my constituents for the Canadian Armed Forces personnel who have served and continue to serve for the cause of peace and humanity in Operation IMPACT.

We must never forget our men and women in uniform, our fellow Canadians, who stand at the ready to go to the heart of danger to confront the threats to our nation. We must never forget the families of the Canadian Forces personnel who endure the separation and the stress of having loved ones deployed to confront danger on behalf of all Canadians.

As the government undertakes its so-called refocus of Canada's contribution to the Middle East stabilization force coalition, I find myself, among many Canadians, questioning the logic of the refocus. We have all seen the brutal and barbaric atrocities that follows ISIS anywhere it goes. Its beliefs and ideologies are a scourge in the regions where it exists and proliferate. ISIS wields an ideology that must be confronted like an infectious lethal disease.

ISIS, as such, cannot be remedied by partial measures and half-steps. ISIS cannot be allowed to evolve and gain the ability to adapt and become more resistant to the current methods of treatment.

ISIS has declared war on Canada and our allies, and has proliferated beyond the region of its birth, killing innocent civilians in terror attacks in areas previously thought immune, much like a mutating disease that spreads and kills those who do not expect it.

Despite these self-evident realities, the government is not willing to stand with our allies and provide one of the strongest remedies that we have to fight the spread of this blight. We know our jets made significant contributions to the battle so far and could continue to make a difference in containing the spread of this infectious ISIS.

When we look back to the incident of this past December, when Canadian personnel on the ground came under fire, what might have been the result had our CF-18s not been in the region and been able to perform the precision air strikes to destroy the attackers?

However, the government has pulled our fighter bombers from the fray with one hand while deploying an exponential number of boots on the ground with the other. Can the government explain the logic in expanding Canada's presence on the ground while eliminating our air support in the same step? What assurances do our personnel have that the elimination of air support will not affect the security on the ground?

I failed to mention, when I first stood, that I would like to share my time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Even the government's own members have stated that defeating ISIS will require multiple tools and methods of attack. When we have the proper tools to wage a battle, why would we leave the most effective tool stored in the tool box and look at others to achieve success without it? Why not use all of the tools?

This includes the CF-18s, along with the ground training, and humanitarian support, where Canada is already one of the leading donors as approved by the House in 2014. Is it because the government has come up short on dollars? Is it because it sees our economy struggling under its management, or is it simply because the government does not support our air force and pilots?

I listened the other day to a radio interview with the mayor of Cold Lake, Alberta, where our military pilots are trained for missions such as this fight against ISIS. I could hear the pent-up feelings in the mayor's responses. He stated that our Canadian pilots are always happy to return home to their families, especially after a mission, and their whole community supports their mission and the reason they are there.

He stated how the pilots are proud of their contribution, and how that pride spreads throughout the entire community and their families. They have trained for years to fly these types of missions and now they are being told they are not needed.

If the government is not willing to have our pilots fight an enemy when this fight is there, then when can we expect them to fight?

What incentive is there for new pilots to enlist and train if they know they will be held back from doing the job they are training for? Canadians train some of the best pilots in the world and now they are sitting on the sidelines when they are needed the most.

Our CF-18s flew 251 air strikes. There were 246 in Iraq and 5 in Syria. They successfully delivered over 600 munitions. It was a significant contribution and one we should continue.

It is our role and duty as parliamentarians to provide the men and women of our Canadian Forces with the best tools available to protect our personnel and our mission allies. Pulling our CF-18s out of the mission is an abandonment of this duty, something that I as a parliamentarian will not support.

Last week, a member of the House stated here that ISIS stands against everything that we value as Canadians and poses a direct threat to our people and our friends. The member who stated this was none other than our Prime Minister. He went on to state: “ISIS threatens peace and democracy with terror and barbarism. The images are horrific, the stories are appalling, the victims are many”.

This is a statement I agree with, but the question that begs to be asked is, why would we remove our fighter bombers from the fight against such an enemy? If the Prime Minister truly believes that ISIS stands against everything we value as Canadians and poses a direct threat to our people and our friends, then why would he order the removal of the most lethal contribution we have against the fight?

The statements of the Prime Minister and his actions do not add up, and Canadians know this. I have received messages from constituents through phone calls, emails, and people stopping me on the street, asking about their safety. These people are concerned because they have seen how the lethal and radical ideology of ISIS has inspired violence beyond Syria and Iraq. These Canadians are concerned for their safety here in Canada, far and away from the source of the danger, but still concerned.

Unless we step up, not step back, and eliminate the risk to our safety at its source, then we all take the responsibility for allowing the spread of ISIS, just like a mutant disease.

If the government is truly interested in what Canadians think about ISIS then it should be taking every action possible to eliminate the root cause of the madness and violence that has ravaged Syria and Iraq and has spread its shadow now across the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and more.

ISIS must be defeated. The Canadian Forces personnel deployed on this mission deserve every tool they need to strike ISIS and defend themselves as needed.

If the government is sincere about helping the people of Syria and Iraq, who have suffered the most under ISIS, then the government must look beyond the symptoms of the disease and act decisively and eliminate that disease.

Does the government really believe that Canada's contribution to the fight against ISIS will be more effective without our fighter bombers? Perhaps the Prime Minister and his government believe that the 267 ISIS fighting positions bombed by our jets were of no consequence, that the 102 ISIS vehicles and equipment pieces bombed by our jets were of no consequence, that the 30 ISIS improvised explosive device factories and ISIS storage facilities bombed by our jets were of no consequence.

The fact of the matter is that our fighter bombers were effective tools in the fight against ISIS. There seems to be consensus in the House regarding the barbaric nature of ISIS and the necessity to fight it. I sincerely hope that the government will reverse its campaign promise to withdraw our fighter bombers and redeploy them in the fight against ISIS to protect our men and women on the ground.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my hon. colleague has been obsessed with CF-18s for some time now.

Is there just one solution? The answer is no. On October 19, Canadians made their choice clear.

In the papers recently, we read about a new poll showing that over 50% of Canadians agree with the current government's decisions. I would also like my colleague to know that I am of Syrian extraction. I was born in Aleppo, a city that has been destroyed.

There has been no collateral damage yet, but what does my colleague think of what planes, friendly or otherwise, can do?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, our fighter bombers in Iraq and Syria have been very precise with their strikes. There has been no collateral damage caused by our fighters and their bombs, and the pilots are well trained. We can be proud of the missions they have served. They have done well and we would like to see that continue.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague and the question I have for him is quite simple. The concerns that have been raised about the group of brutal thugs that is ISIS, or ISIL, are that money, arms, and foreign fighters are fuelling their ability to continue to conduct their series of murderous acts in the areas where they have managed to make some progress.

The government announced and brought forward a motion to us. It seems to be expanding the mission, which I think the Conservatives would agree with, but it has not chosen to crack down on the flow of money to ISIS, which is a major issue; to crack down on the flow of arms that go into those areas; and to provide or put in place the deradicalization programs that have worked in other countries and have actually cut off the supply of foreign fighters.

I am wondering how my colleague reacts to the fact that the Liberal government has not taken action in the three areas that would make a difference and seems to be stepping down from its campaign commitments to scale back the mission, and instead put the emphasis on cutting off the funds, cutting off arms, and cutting of foreign fighters.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the mission to this point had been effective in cutting off the flow of money to the ISIS fighters.

We all know that they were selling their oil or stolen oil on the black market. Our fighters and the coalition fighters were very effective in taking out those oil trucks, those supply depots, that were supplying the oil that was funding this process.

We are supportive of increasing the effort against ISIS, but we are simply opposed to the government's withdrawal of the CF-18s as one of the most effective parts of that fight.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I too served in Cold Lake and my husband was a CF-18 pilot. I would like to say that he, like all pilots of the Canadian Forces, was well trained and very proud of the job he did. The pilots are helping and have done what they wanted to do when serving.

I ask the hon. member opposite, are the jobs of people who are not fighter pilots somehow less valuable than those of fighter pilots?

We need to understand that the men and women who will do this change in mission are no less valuable than the fighter pilots. I would like to put that to the hon. member.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly every last member of our coalition forces is of high value.

It is like a team. When we take a team into a championship game, we do not leave our best players locked out of the locker room. We make sure they are involved in the game.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to address this issue in the House.

Before I start my main remarks, I just want to pick up on something that my NDP counterpart talked about with respect to the importance of cutting off the funds to ISIS. I certainly do agree with him that it is a big part of the fight against ISIS. One of the best ways of doing that is to take Canada out of the market for Middle Eastern oil. If we had a pipeline that ran from western to eastern Canada, we would not need to go to the market for oil from that region. Therefore, I hope we will see him support the various pipeline projects that are being proposed to do just that, to make it easier to isolate any oil that could be coming from ISIS-controlled areas, because we would then have clean, ethical oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan, which is exploited in an environmentally sensitive way.

Coming back to the main motion, I understand that there are a lot of complex issues in the Middle East. There have been many different conflicts over vast periods of time. We in the west have the safety of our secure and established democracies. We live under the benefit of the rule of law and have an independent judiciary. With all of the benefits that we have, it is sometimes difficult to understand all of the issues going on over there. Some of us, from various political stripes and at various times, make pronouncements or decisions about what the west should do, what NATO should do, and how we should fight various things. Sometimes that works well and sometimes there have been extra problems created because of various interventions in the Middle East. However, on this issue there is no one on our side in the west among our NATO allies who disagrees. This is easy to understand. It is easy to build a consensus on this issue that ISIS must be stopped, that it poses a very real threat not only to the region but also around the world as it exports its terrorist activities.

What is that threat? It is not like some other types of conflicts where there is a civil war because someone wants a regime change, because one faction wants to control a state or a government, or one ethnic group wants to liberate themselves from a country where a different ethnic group is more dominant. This is a genocidal organization. These are people who subscribe to a radical form of jihadi Islam who are not satisfied with having a different kind of system. They are not satisfied with exerting control or gathering riches. They will not be satisfied until anyone who or anything that does not conform to their radical world view is not just conquered, but actually killed. That is what we are dealing with.

We will look at what Canada's role is in this fight. Canada has such a proud tradition of doing our part, and often doing more than our fair share and punching above our weight. When we look at the brave men and women who sacrificed themselves against other kinds of genocidal evils throughout Canadian history, Canada was there. Canada was there eager and willing. We joined the fight against the Nazi forces and fascism before our American neighbours. We were there from the beginning because we recognized that every country around the world that believes in these fundamental ideals of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights has an important obligation to take part in it.

What we have heard from the Liberal government is that Canada cannot be effective, that our air force is too small, and that the number of air strikes is minimal. I have heard numbers thrown around that because we are carrying out only 3% of the air strike missions, what is the point of continuing if our contribution is so small. However, NATO is made up of many countries of different sizes, and many of those countries have similar sized air forces or are making similar contributions. What if they all backed out and withdrew from the fight the same way the Liberals are doing here? Then, our 3%, plus a few others in the 3%, 4%, and 5% range would all be withdrawn. The end result of that would once again be to turn to our neighbours and say, “You pick up the fight. You pick up the slack. We'd like to have a say in what goes on there, we'd like Canada to be a presence in the world, and we'd like you to listen to us when it comes to various issues at the UN or in other forums, but we're not willing to do the heavy lifting and we're withdrawing from the combat role.” Members should make no mistake that we are withdrawing from the combat role.

In question period today the Prime Minister almost said “combat”. It half came out of his mouth and then he quickly stopped himself and went back to the training mission. However, I think it is telling that the Prime Minister does not even want to say the word “combat”. I do not think I have heard it from any one of my Liberal counterparts. In fact, I invite them to stand up during questions and comments and say whether Canada is still part of the combat mission against ISIS. Are we still trying to fight terrorism? Are we still trying to kill terrorists before they kill innocent human beings?

I would also like them, if they could, to name one ally who asked us to withdraw our CF-18s. We have heard from various ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence say that, no, this is all good, that we are optimizing our contribution and that many coalition partners do different types of jobs and that we all contribute in different ways. I can buy that for sure when many different people are contributing what they are good at or with the tools they might have. It makes sense that when one can do something better than another country, but on the air strikes, our country is proud of our tradition in the air force. We have the best pilots flying excellent equipment and actually making a difference, actually destroying targets and destroying military type installations that have been used and would have been used again to persecute innocent religious minorities, innocent men and women. Our pilots have helped in the fight against those terrible terrorist entities and can look back at the contribution they made and say “we saved lives”. Our men and women in the Air Force absolutely saved lives.

There are innocent human beings, Yazidis, Christians, different types of Muslim minorities, who are alive today because of the contributions of the RCAF. That is something I think all members can agree that we should be proud of.

Can the Liberals name one ally, one coalition partner, who said “Canada's RCAF CF-18s are really getting in the way and messing things up here and we would have a much more optimal mission if you would just withdraw your CF-18s, because the fight against ISIS would be so much better without them. Stop bombing the terrorists. Please take your jets home and our mission against ISIS would be much more optimal and effective”. I do not think they can because not a single ally would say that, because it is ridiculous.

In fact the men and women in the military around the world who are fighting ISIS say something different from their political masters. The Prime Minister is very proud when he can trot out a quote from President Obama or secretaries of state, who say nice things about Canada. Of course, we know that in international diplomacy the title holders rarely say anything that would condemn an ally. We know there are many diplomatic things going on, but it is very telling when the generals involved in the fight tell a different story, and that is what we have from Lieutenant-General Charles Brown, who said that it was kind of sad to see Canada pull the CF-18s out and that he hoped that Canada would have a change of heart.

That is very telling, that the people who are actually on the ground, who actually know what the mission is about and the logistics of it all, not the politicians who have to make 30,000 foot level decision, but the actual people who know what kind of hardware we need, what types of contributions we need from our allies, say this. When they say it is sad that Canada is pulling out the CF-18s, that is very telling. That is the real story. I am sure that our American neighbours, the pilots in the American air force, the British air force, the French air force, miss us. I am sure they wish they had our six CF-18s and that we could be part of the rotation. It is ridiculous to suggest that somehow the mission against ISIS is better because there are six fewer jets doing bombing runs in the area.

I want to talk about one other thing before my time expires. I remember the debate when the previous Conservative government consulted Parliament on the mission against ISIS. I remember that during question period Liberals warned that the personnel on the ground who were training troops and painting targets, and doing all the things that the Liberals are now saying our troops will be doing, were engaged in what was the equivalent of a ground combat role. They were criticizing the fact the previous government had anyone on the ground doing any kind of training and any kind of painting. Now we are being told that not only is that better than the air strikes, but it is still not combat. So these were combat roles when we were doing it, but not when the Liberals want Canada to do it because the people on the ground will be painting fewer targets or will be training less hard, maybe a little farther from the front lines. It does not make any sense. They are saying one thing in one Parliament and a different thing in another Parliament.

One thing Canadians can be sure of is that if there is consistency on this issue, it is to be found in the Conservative Party, which has always stood in defence of ethnic and religious minorities around the world and is not afraid to call radical jihadi terrorism what it is and fight the fight with our allies against ISIS.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite and I agree that his comments were aptly described as ridiculous. We do not take foreign policy advice from generals on the ground. We negotiate with our partners in NATO. We do not take a bombing mission and say that it is the only way to deal with the situation. In concert with our allies, we have constructed a way to solidify and make permanent the ground gains that the bombing have provided us with an opportunity, and we are now moving forward with a training exercise.

Why would the members opposite not understand that a change in tactics is not walking away from the fight, and a change in tactics to invest in even more resources is not lessening our impact in the region, but simply changing our mission, investing more into the mission and trying to accomplish more than simply bombing targets, trying to actually set up a stable and livable environment so that ISIS does not have the ability to recruit or sell its oil?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member must not have listened because he completely misunderstands the point. There was no negotiating with our NATO partners on this. It was a Liberal campaign promise that the Liberals would pull our jets out. Is the member suggesting that Gerald Butts and his team sat down with our NATO allies before they made the campaign promise? No, they made the campaign promise that no matter what happened, if they were elected, they were pulling the jets out. It was a unilateral decision. It was not made in concert with NATO partners or allies. The Liberals just said to the world that they were pulling our jets out and how can we mitigate that.

When it comes to solidifying our mission, we are doing that with less. Our jets, up until the other day, were bombing targets, were destroying military-type installations, and were killing terrorists who were intent on killing innocent human beings and ethnic minorities. Our jets were putting a stop to that, and the Liberals have stopped them being a part of that. That is lessening our mission.

There is nothing to say that we cannot do training and the bombing mission. The Liberal government has decided to stop our combat role against ISIS.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I both ran for the first time in the 2004 federal election. He was elected that time; I took a somewhat more roundabout route to the House.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle began his speech by talking about how some previous interventions in the Middle East had caused more problems. I assume the member is acknowledging that the Conservatives were wrong to have called for Canada to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

One of the problems with that intervention was that it had no clear endpoint or exit strategy. Could the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle explain to us what he sees as being the endpoint and the exit strategy from the campaign he is calling for in Iraq and Syria?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do acknowledge that my colleague and I did have some shared memories together in 2004. Although Regina—Lewvan is right beside my riding, I was hoping for a different result in the election. However, it is good to see the member make the contribution he is, and I wish him a bit of luck in his parliamentary career here.

I want to warn him, however, about assuming anything; we all know what happens when someone assumes.

The member asked a very specific question about the end game on this mission. In my view, there can be no safety, security, or peace in the area as long as there are people like the members of ISIS out to destroy innocent human beings everyday. Their world view is something completely incompatible with any peace-loving nation, Islamic, secular, or otherwise. We cannot count on an area to be stable if there are elements like ISIS in it.

The end game for NATO and for the U.N. is ultimately to destroy ISIS. It starts with limiting its capability, and that starts with degrading its ability to launch attacks and to invade areas. Hopefully, with the assistance of our allies in Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey, and other countries around the area, they can build up their own forces to do that.

However, the point is that our jets are making a meaningful impact in all of those aspects. Whether it is currently degrading ISIS, whether it is in the short-term limiting of the ability for ISIS to launch these kinds of attacks, or, in the long term, to provide that peace and stability after eliminating ISIS, our jets are a big part of that. Our air mission was important and it was meaningful.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

It is with great honour that I rise in this place to add to this very important discussion.

It is extremely important that we view this mission through two distinct lenses: one, defeating ISIL; and two, restoring stability to the region. Without both of these conditions being met, there is no chance of long-term success.

There are those who would suggest that we are stepping back from this mission. This is simply not true. This government is choosing to re-engage in this mission in an unprecedented manner. We want to take actions that are meaningful and that will make a difference in the long run. It is misleading to think that bombing campaigns alone will be able to defeat ISIL.

We are not suggesting that bombing campaigns are not useful or that they should be stopped. Rather, we are saying that we have different skills to offer and that we can best serve our coalition allies by shouldering other burdens.

Given the contributions of the United States and others to the mission, it is important to ensure that other aspects of the mission are not ignored. It is important to understand why bombing alone will not lead to the defeat of ISIL.

ISIL is not a state and does not have any defined territory. Yes, it has gained control of territory, and yes it is essential that allied forces regain control of that territory, but ISIL was a threat before it held territory and it will continue to be a threat after it loses its territorial holdings.

Humanitarian assistance is not simply about providing aid to people in need. Humanitarian assistance is essential to ensure that ISIL does not get a foothold by taking advantage of those most desperately in need of help.

Those displaced by this conflict have lost everything. We have seen in other conflicts that those who are in the most desperate of circumstances are vulnerable to being radicalized. It is understandable that a group that is willing to provide food, clothing, and shelter to one's family might cause one to become sympathetic to that group. Even those who disagree with the goals and methods of ISIL can be tempted to join it, if it means their family's most basic needs will be taken care of.

That makes it even more critical for us to bring help to the people in that region, to those who have had to flee their homes and who have no idea what normal is anymore. Their lives have been turned upside down. It will be extremely difficult for them to get an education. Taken together, their desperate circumstances create the perfect conditions for radicalization.

ISIL has proved especially capable when it comes to propaganda and disinformation. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where a whole generation of displaced youth are drawn into ISIL or another of its surrogate organizations across the region.

However, while ensuring food, water, and medicine get to where they need to go, it is not enough. When the coalition regains ISIL-controlled territory, those who have been displaced will not simply be able to go home and resume their lives. Attacks from both sides have left infrastructure in shambles. Schools, hospitals, and government buildings have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair. This is why our government is pleased to invest $270 million toward building local capacity to delivery services.

The values of these contributions cannot be overstated. In order for these societies to rebuild themselves, we need to ensure that basic infrastructure is in place so that their journey toward rebuilding is as smooth as possible.

In addition to this, we are going to be significantly increasing our training and advisory mission. It is extremely important that we understand the necessity behind a robust and all-encompassing training mission. Despite what some on the other side would claim, our allies are pleased that we are stepping up the training aspects of this mission.

It is extremely disingenuous to state that the United States government believes anything other than what it has said publicly on this issue. Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook had this to say, “The Canadian announcement is the kind of response the secretary has been looking for from coalition members as the United States and our coalition partners push to accelerate the campaign against ISIL.” When pressed on specifics, he had this to say about our new role, “...we consider those very significant contributions and we welcome those contributions from the -- from the Canadians...this is a critically important part of the campaign”.

This does not sound like an ally that is disappointed in the direction our mission is taking. Rather, it sounds like a partner that understands and appreciates that Canada is stepping up its contribution to the coalition.

According to Kurdish sources, over 70% of peshmerga casualties to date are caused by IEDs. That is over 1,200 casualties. Air strikes will not help local forces identify and disarm IEDs. It is extremely crucial that local forces are properly trained to locate, disarm, and dispose of IEDs and other weapons in a safe manner. This is why the training mission is so critical to the long-term success of the mission.

In closing, I would like to talk about our allies in the region. We are very proud of our commitment to welcome tens of thousands of refugees. However, that number is small compared to the number of refugees and displaced persons who have been welcomed in Jordan and Lebanon. The numbers suggest that more than one-third of the people currently living in Lebanon are refugees or displaced persons.

Let us put that in perspective. The equivalent for Canada would be to welcome 12 million refugees. Even with the best intentions in the world and a desire to help, those numbers would overwhelm our system in ways we cannot even imagine. That is why we must help our allies manage this challenge. It would show a serious lack of vision if we were to focus our efforts only in Syria and Iraq and ignore our allies.

Canadian foreign policy has always been underscored by the desire to play a role that has the greatest effect and the most meaningful impact. This is what we are doing today. ISIL represents a grave threat to international security and regional stability. It is not enough to regain territory and defeat ISIL. It requires the ability to hold and defend territory. Once ISIL is pushed back, it must never again be able to achieve the foothold it now has.

Without providing adequate training to local forces, we are simply telling ISIL to bide its time until we are gone. We will not allow this to happen.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was listening attentively to the member's speech. He talked about allies, so let us talk about our allies, the courageous Kurdish peshmerga from the Kurdish regional government fighting ISIS, fighting these terrorist organizations.

Let us talk about Falah Mustafa Bakir, who is the foreign minister. He said, on the air mission continuing:

We would like to tell them that the air strikes have been effective, they have helped us a great deal. They have helped save lives. They have helped to destroy the enemy. And if it were for us [to decide], we request that to continue.

What does the member say to the minister of foreign affairs for the Kurdish regional government who is asking for these to continue?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I am saying is that we understand, and it is well-documented, that the majority of peshmerga casualties happening right now are happening because of IEDs. IEDs will not be located by air strikes. We want to be effective, we want to have a meaningful impact, and we want to save lives. In that situation the only way we can do this is to have trainers on the ground and people who can help the peshmerga find the IEDs, and cut their casualties.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my opportunity to ask a question so that the member can clarify his own position and his party's position on this combat mission. He and his colleagues are saying that this is not a combat mission, even though they will not put it that way. They are also withdrawing from the air strikes. This leads us to believe that they do not think air strikes are effective. Why, then, will we be painting targets for our allies to bomb, and why will we be refuelling the planes that will be doing the bombing? How does the member square those two statements? The Liberals do not think air strikes are effective, yet they are helping our allies conduct air strikes.