Debates of Feb. 24th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great concentration to the comments made by the member opposite. I agree that the signing of the treaties will bring even more pressure to bear on the situation. It needs to be done as soon as possible, and I share his sense of urgency on that issue.

However, I also heard the member say that the mission we are debating here, which is not a combat mission but a training and intelligence mission and support for stabilizing the region, is being presented as a fait accompli without being debated in Parliament. Is that not what we are doing right now, debating that change and debating the nature of that change? Is that not the motion that is on the table in front of Parliament? Is that not the decision we are making?

The second question I would like addressed is this. I have heard from the NDP several times now the call for deradicalization, not just in relation to this mission but also in relation to Bill C-51 and other issues that seek to provide security for Canadians. We share that commitment to trying to bring those programs to bear. Beyond talking to religious groups, to community centres, and to mayors, what precise steps on deradicalization would the New Democrats see as appropriate and effective and would suggest to us to pursue as government policy?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague shares our sense of urgency about the treaty. I hope he will share his feelings with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

When the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister talk about the mission, it sometimes seems as though they consider it to be a combat mission. This uncertainty is extremely worrisome, especially when we recall the Afghanistan mission. We cannot support this mission without clear parameters and conditions of victory.

We need to have clear, specific parameters when we are asking our women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces to put their lives in danger in these regions for such missions. However, the government has not given us any parameters.

My colleague asked a very good question about deradicalization. I would be lying if I claimed to have all the answers about program specifics. However, that is a good reason for the government to support a study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, with a view to inviting stakeholders who can answer these questions, working with local authorities such as those in Montreal, and looking at what has worked and not worked to deradicalize young people.

We must also work with young people, especially on mental health issues. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît spoke about how joblessness and racism can exacerbate this problem. We must find solutions.

My colleague asked a very good question. We would love to examine the issue with the government members.

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

Mr. Speaker, the best deradicalization program we could have would be to get rid of ISIS. That would prevent a lot of radicalization, because many people respond to the promise of a supposed and imagined caliphate.

I want to ask if the member believes that genocide is happening in Syria and Iraq. Is he willing to call what is happening a genocide? Does he believe in the principle of responsibility to protect?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are talking about deradicalization.

The Conservatives think that dropping bombs is the best deradicalization program. However, we should be working with local authorities and religious communities. When the Conservatives were in power they did not do anything in that respect. We had to wait for the municipalities to start taking action.

Canada has a lot of work to do in that respect. People from Canada are going abroad and fighting for ISIL.

With regard to the other part of his question, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we need to stop talking about the atrocities committed by ISIL. We all agree that ISIL is committing atrocities, that we are all disgusted by them, and that this organization must be wiped off the face of the earth. That is not the right way to say it, but we no longer want to see such acts of violence. That is exactly why we need to do this work.

When we talk about a responsibility to protect, we are talking about the United Nations. Their position on this is in line with what the NDP is proposing. We are talking about the principles of the United Nations, so let us work with the UN so that Canada can do what it is best suited to do in Iraq and put an end to this violence.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches and thus wanted to speak to this issue this evening, practically at the end of the debate. I will humbly seek to suggest a compromise.

When it comes to defence and foreign affairs, it is best to be prudent. We have to be able to adapt to problems that are changing and becoming very complex. I do not want to blame the new Prime Minister, who was excited about winning the election on October 19. However, it seems to me that he was somewhat careless when he said the next day that he would withdraw the fighter jets. The jets protected the troops on the ground and at times made it possible to open up humanitarian corridors. He suddenly declared that this was all being withdrawn. There is a way to put things right and to consider that this happened well before many other events that I will talk about shortly.

First of all, I will say that the Bloc Québécois is a pacifist party that has always believed that humanitarian missions could be conducted under the auspices of NATO. The Bloc was open to NATO's peace talks. It has always favoured multilateralism. If one analyzes this complex conflict with an appropriate degree of pragmatism, it becomes clear that the bombings in support of humanitarian efforts on the ground were considered appropriate measures. That was during the election campaign. What happened afterwards?

All the members in this place have read the UN Security Council resolution adopted in November. However, for the benefit of those following our debate who may not be familiar with the resolution, it is important to quote some parts of the UN Security Council resolution of last November. In fact, we heard the call of the UN, which stated:

Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States in accordance with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter,

Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed,

Determining that, by its violent extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control over significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant...constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

...

Determined to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

...

Reaffirming that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law,...

Reiterating that the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva communiqué...

1. Unequivocally condemns [and this is where I want to mention what has happened since October 19] in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks...

...

5. Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures...to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh...

The day after the election, when the Prime Minister thought he was doing the right thing by outlining how he was going to keep his election promise with all his political resolve, he ended up carelessly painting himself into a corner. Then the Paris attacks happened and barely a weekend or two ago there was the bomb attack carried out by the Kurds, the very people to whom this government wants to send soldiers. The government is not changing course, but just yesterday morning my colleague said that it would be easy to do so.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with a number of aspects of the motion on Canada's contribution to the efforts against ISIL. As far as the mission statement is concerned, there are many things we agree with, but there is a problem. Beyond the rhetorical debates over whether this is a combat mission or not, and beyond the debates on semantics, after we establish what is really happening in the theatre of operations, what do we do to heed the call of the UN? What do we do, for example, after we have learned, just on February 11, that the 28 NATO countries that are already individually involved in the fight against ISIL now want to join the coalition?

I think we need to follow suit, but following suit does not mean being arrogant and saying that an election promise was made and must be kept. Eventually, the government will have to revisit its plan if it is sending three times the number of soldiers to a theatre of operations where they will be in danger. I do not know who would want to go paint targets on the ground. I do not suppose people are painting targets on the ground in the kitchen out back. It is in a risky theatre of operations. When people are doing that, they are very close to danger whether we call it a combat mission or a support mission.

As my colleague said, the description of the mission is not clear on whether this is training or operational mentoring. If it is just training, even if it is in theatre, that is not the same thing as advising troops on the ground who are advancing and who are in danger of attack.

How many will be in a group, and who will ensure their security? The big question is who will ensure the security of our troops while they are engaged in operational mentoring.

In our view, given this aspect of the mission, asking to keep a reasonable number of CF-18s available seems like a fair compromise. I would remind the House that some Quebeckers believe that national defence and foreign policy are up to Canada alone. However, one-third of the soldiers sent overseas will be Quebec residents, and we are paying for one-quarter of the mission. Any time we send troops into the field, the absolute minimum we must do is to ensure increased security.

Yesterday my colleague suggested that perhaps it would be private firms, mercenaries, or Iraqi forces, who still need training, who will defend and provide security for our troops on the ground. I do not believe that anyone answered the following question: how will security be coordinated within the coalition to ensure that our troops are really being covered during operational mentoring? I think it would have been quite prudent to keep our planes close by, to support our troops, as we did in Ukraine, where there are six CF-18s doing nothing.

That is the compromise the Bloc Québécois is proposing to the House. To those looking for a perfect mission statement here today I would say that we have a mission statement that is going to change in time. What I am saying is that its imperfection must not have a direct impact on the lives of those we are sending into the field. There is a way to reach consensus. So far we get the impression that the mission statement is enough and fairly complete in the government's eyes. It is not very open to some of the amendments proposed by the opposition parties. I would remind the government that even though it has a majority, it was still elected by a minority of voters.

In a parliamentary democracy like ours, when it comes to something as important as this mission statement, as intervening in very risky theatres of operation, then the government has to listen to all the opposition parties. In that sense I think the Conservatives could get behind the Bloc Québécois' position and the compromise it is proposing.

For my NDP colleagues, whom I quite like, I think that the deradicalization centre that was quickly set up in Montreal and admired by Ban Ki-moon, is very important for our young people here at home, as the hon. NDP member said so eloquently in her speech. There are field activities we can do at home and field activities we can do abroad.

When we send our soldiers into a theatre of operations, I imagine that there are not too many people looking for training on human rights. I do not think that deradicalization training would be appropriate either.

At some point, after all of the rhetoric and theatrics, we need to stop being theoretical and start being practical. I urge all parties to be practical and to unite behind a mission statement, which, in my view, needs a bigger consensus than we have right now.

For completely different reasons, which we sometimes partly share with the other opposition parties, the opposition will vote against this mission statement, and the government, with its majority, will pat itself on the back. I think we should try to find a minimum compromise to bring people together on this issue.

In closing, I remind members that human lives are at stake here, and that is why I am calling on parliamentarians in the House to find a compromise.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has obviously put a lot of thought into what is really a critically important mission not only for Canada but for the world.

Earlier in his comments he made mention of a number of factors that were relied upon, investigated, and referred to in the notes to United Nations Security Council resolution 2249 from last year that came out around November 20. In relation to that, I will read a small amount of the fifth part of the resolution, which states:

Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh...to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts...

In light of this, the position the government is putting forward in refocusing our efforts really goes to the heart of what the United Nations Security Council has recommended that nations involved in the coalition fighting Daesh do.

Even if the member will not support the motion at this time for the reasons that he gave, would he at least agree with the government that the plan put forward to focus efforts on intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, and capacity-building for the forces on the ground is far superior to that of the Conservatives, which focused on the CF-18s and lacked those other aspects that were so critical and were requested by the United Nations Security Council in November?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

I agree with humanitarian assistance, but when my colleague talks about training, I have a problem with how the mission statement is being interpreted. Our colleague who fought in Afghanistan and who participated in an operational mentoring mission pointed out that the mission statement sounds very much like the definition of operational mentoring.

What we are saying is that as soon as we put our soldiers at risk, when we triple the number of soldiers, we are no longer talking about training. We are talking about operational mentoring.

We must not kid ourselves. They will be participating in operational mentoring and they will be divided into groups of about eight soldiers on the ground. They will follow the Kurds and will be attacked. That is where the problems will start.

If I am mistaken, I hope the government will prove otherwise. If that were the case, I do not see why General Vance would have called the mission dangerous and risky. Training is not risky, but operational mentoring is.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Montcalm suggested that recent events such as the terrible terrorist attack in Paris provide a rationale for continued bombing of Iraq and Syria. I would note that the Paris terrorist attack occurred after a very substantial military campaign had already occurred in the Middle East.

I find the Bloc position and, for that matter, the Conservative position is a bit like the doctor who sees that the medication does not work and therefore just wants to increase the dose.

Given that years of bombing in Iraq have not led to peace and have not stopped terrorism, why does he think that a bit more bombing would work?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my NDP colleague, we heard the call of the UN and what it was asking in the Security Council resolution.

As I mentioned, the Paris attacks and the recent bombings should have made the Prime Minister stop and think. I do not believe that the Canadians who voted for him would have been shocked had he said that the situation had changed and that a UN resolution was calling on us to take action and do our part. In order to protect the people sent into the theatre of operations, we could have left the CF-18s in place. That is the argument I was making.

If we look at the origins of the conflict, we can mention all the fine analyses that some experts did about the fact that we should never have gone into Iraq to destabilize the region under false pretences. However, that is another matter.

Today, we must be pragmatic. Today, we are faced with a situation that requires us to respond in a responsible manner.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Edmonton West.

I would like to start by thanking the men and women of our armed forces who put their lives in danger each and every day, protecting the principles that allow Canadians to continue living in a free and democratic society, one where individuals do not fear for their lives based on religious values, the colour of their skin, sexuality, or gender, values that our previous Conservative government thought should be protected against all odds, and Canadians agree with our position.

It seems the Liberal government fundamentally misunderstands the nature of terrorism and the threat that ISIS poses to the western civilization. It is not simple thuggery or even organized criminality, as stated by the Minister of National Defence, and contrary to his belief, it is not caused by climate change either.

Terror, the likes of which we saw in Paris last fall, is designed to undermine civilization and legitimate systems of government. At its core, its aim is the destruction of democracy and equal treatment of citizens, promoting instead a brutal hierarchical system of control, including the sexual enslavement of women and children, and the murder of religious minorities and of gays and lesbians.

This is an ideology worth fighting against with every tool at our disposal. That is why it is simply unacceptable that while our coalition partners are ramping up their efforts to degrade and defeat ISIS, the government has pulled out a key strategic tool in our military arsenal.

The Prime Minister frequently stands in the House and says that his government is committed to openly consulting and engaging with Canadians. Why then has the Liberal government has chosen to ignore the Canadian public when it comes to the fight against ISIS and the brutality it is waging around the world?

This is a fight that has resulted in the deaths of multiple Canadians. It is a fight that has threatened the core principles of western democracies. It is a fight that has seen Canadians recruited and radicalized to join ISIS, many of them just teenagers. It is a fight that has been brought to the steps of the halls of this very House.

I know the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are intent on ignoring the facts and the voices of Canadians in order to blindly fulfill a purely partisan election promise. However, 63% of Canadians say they would either like to see Canada continue bombing ISIS at its current rate or go further and increase the number of bombing missions it conducts, 47% of Canadians believe that withdrawing our CF-18s from the mission will have a negative effect on Canada's international reputation, while fewer than 18% say that it will have a positive one.

The facts are facts. It is difficult for me to comprehend how the Liberals can be so ignorant to the threat that ISIS poses.

Canada's withdrawal from the combat mission against ISIS is a step backward for Canada from our country's traditional role as fighters for human rights and international security. Our men and women in uniform have always fought bravely against those who violate human rights and those who threaten and terrorize the innocent and most vulnerable. When constituents come up to me in the riding or come to my office and ask me why we are not doing everything in our power to wipe out ISIS, what am I to tell them?

The truth is that the Liberal government is not only downplaying Canada's contribution but whittling it down, and all for partisan purposes. The Liberals have said our fighters, our fighter jets, and our pilots have been ineffective. Perhaps there is another plan the government is not telling us about. It would not be the first time a Liberal government has systemically dismantled our military.

The Liberal plan for Canada's mission against ISIS has been indecisive, incoherent, and, frankly speaking, confusing for our allies and for Canadians.

However, pulling out our CF-18s is just one of the factors being debated here in the House. Not only has the Prime Minister left our coalition partners high and dry, he is increasing the exposure of our troops to risk and tripling the number of men and women on the front line. Where does tripling the number of our men and women on the front lines factor into the Liberal campaign promise? I wonder how Canadians feel about that.

Regardless of what the Liberal government calls the mission, more men and women will be put in high-risk positions, deemed high-risk personnel. Simply put, the likelihood of injury, death, or capture is high; again, without a key piece of our military arsenal.

Is the Prime Minister willing to personally deliver the message to the families of our men and women should something terrible happen? Will he stand before those families and say that we did everything we could to protect their mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter?

The military plan that the Liberal government has proposed increases the risk to members of the Canadian Armed Forces while reducing security via air support. We will be 100% reliant on our allies to provide air support for our ground troops.

The Liberal government's plan neglects Canada's obligations to stand up for the vulnerable populations and protect Canadians at home and abroad. It is a step backwards from Canada's traditional role, despite what the government says.

Canada has the capacity to contribute to air strikes, along with training and humanitarian support. The Canadian Armed Forces have been doing so very effectively for over a year. At the very least, I ask, as did my friend from the Bloc who is not here now, that the Liberals leave our aircraft and our world-class men and women—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Members of Parliament are not to refer to the presence or absence of others in the House. I was offended earlier when this gentleman suggested people were asleep across the way. No one is asleep. We are all listening to the hon. member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is a very good point. I would like to remind all members that you are not to refer to anyone who is not in the House. In any case, that is a good point of order.

The hon. member for Cariboo--Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my comments and I do apologize to the House for both comments that I made.

At the very least, I ask that the Liberals have our aircraft and our world-class men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force in a forward position to provide support and safety for our troops, and those of our allies.

The true test of a leader is when he can stand up, face the people who elected him, and admit that he made an error or misjudged a situation. It is okay for him to say he is wrong. It means standing tall and using the information now at his disposal to make the right decision, even if it is not always the right one or the easy choice.

It is truly unfortunate that I cannot identify one single leader across the floor at this moment who will stand up for Canadians. Not a single person has been able to explain why our CF-18s must be removed from the air campaign. While we are putting more boots on the ground, we are also putting more of our men and women in harm's way without the necessary support to ensure their safety. That is a novel word that we have not been talking about a lot in this debate: safety.

Is that not what we should be focusing on? The safety of our men and women who are serving their country and the safety of Canadians here at home. I have a quote from General Rick Hillier that I would like to read. It is pretty powerful:

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

This is Canada's fight. ISIS has taken it to our country. ISIS is committing brutal genocide. It has called for and inspired attacks against Canada, including the murder of two Canadian Armed Forces members. As I said earlier, they are recruiting Canadians, many of whom are just kids.

We have an obligation to stand up for the victims of genocide, fight against the twisted ideology, and protect Canadians at home and abroad. We should never have to rely on our allies to protect our Canadian soldiers. If we are going to send more boots on the ground, then we need to ensure the proper force protection is in place.

I offer this in closing, the men and women of our armed forces need to know that just as they stand on guard for our nation and put their lives on the line every single day that we here are fighting for them.

It is our job to ensure that when decisions are made that impact Canadian lives, be it during secret cabinet meetings or on a cocktail napkin on a Liberal campaign bus, that we will continue to stand and fight for those who put their lives in danger, those who risk their lives every single day, so we can sleep soundly, and the maple leaf can stand tall.

Simply put, Canadians deserve better.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I have a comment. He accused Liberals of sleeping, being incoherent, and ignorant toward our policy. I will read the hon. member a quote, which states:

It's very clear to us that this is an absolutely correct moment for us to be ceasing the direct air strikes. I'm intensely proud of the fact that Canada is staying committed and, in fact, intensifying its efforts. We're growing our commitment and we're putting the trainers directly on the ground that will absolutely achieve that critical path that's necessary beyond the striking of ISIL, to support those whose country it is to deal with the security threat and ultimately lead to greater stability.

He said that our policy was incoherent. He said that Liberals were ignorant and accused us of sleeping. The person who made the statement was the Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance.

Is the member accusing him of being ignorant? Is he accusing him of being incoherent and does he believe that he is sleeping on the job?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence stood in the House and told Canadians that they are tripling our men and women on the ground. They have also admitted that they are putting them in riskier situations.

Our CF-18s are a key piece of our military arsenal that can provide safety and support. I do not understand, and neither do the members of my party on this side, why we need to rely on the generosity of others to provide safety and support for our own men and women. When tripling the number of boots on the ground, why would we not leave our CF-18s there, where they are effective and can support our troops?

I do not know General Vance, but would it not make sense that we keep a key piece of our military arsenal there to support our troops?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I am finding it difficult to discern the Conservatives' position on Canada's mission against ISIL. On the one hand, they are criticizing the government because it wants to increase our presence and the number of Canadian soldiers in the area. On the other hand, in his speech, the member seemed to be saying that the Prime Minister will be responsible for any loss of Canadian life.

The member's solution seems to be to revert to the mission as proposed by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, in that mission, which included air strikes, we sadly lost a Canadian, Sergeant Doiron. Therefore, I wonder if his solution really is to revert to the type of mission that existed under the Conservatives and caused the death of a Canadian Forces soldier.

Does the member really believe that the solution is to revert to the type of mission that existed under the Conservative government?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a great opportunity to be in Sherbrooke, Lac Magog, during the 2013 Canada Summer Games and I had a very enjoyable time. I hope to go back to visit the member's riding.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and other colleagues across the floor have echoed that they are tripling the number of men and women who will be in riskier situations on forward lines. Our message is clear. New Democrats are as confused as the hon. member about the government's plan. They are putting more men and women of the armed forces in harm's way, but they are taking a key piece of our military arsenal out of it.

The NDP stance is very clear. They should leave the CF-18s there, where they are effective, where they can provide safety and support for our military, and not pull back when our allies are ramping up.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on the government's motion pertaining to Canada's anti-ISIS mission. However, first, like several others, I wish to thank the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for their service. I would also note that I know that my colleagues, both on this side and the other side of the House, also support our forces unequivocally. I know we all wish the best for Canada and its interests, but just think we should go about it a different way.

Canada has a long and proud tradition of helping our allies when it comes to stopping evil and terror from spreading throughout the world. Make no mistake, ISIS's main goal is to do just that, spread terror and its evil ideology around the globe.

I support the notion of stopping ISIS dead in its tracks, but the motion before the House today does not do that. Instead, it weakens our abilities in the fight while sending a contradictory message to our men and women who are in the trenches fighting to keep us safe.

I would like to dispel some of the misconceptions being spread by certain members on a certain side of the House, who claim that the actions put forth in the motion are taking the fight directly to ISIS.

Let us begin with the fact that the government wants to end air strikes against ISIS targets. The decision to do so is simply an uninformed one. I know how much the government loves to say its policies are evidence based, but the evidence is against it on this one. It is a fact that air strikes have been the safest and most effective form of eradicating the enemy, especially one like ISIS, a group that is dispersed across a vast amount of land in pockets of population. Unlike ISIS, which has a ground game and no modern technological capabilities, we are able to hugely degrade ISIS through our air strikes, keeping our men and women safe and out of harm's reach. The Americans, British, and French are doing it. What is even stranger is the fact that all these countries except Canada are contributing to an air strike mission against ISIS.

None of our allies have asked us to pull our fighters out. In fact just the other day, the American general leading the coalition air campaign against ISIS jihadists called out our government's decision to pull the jets out. Lt.-Gen. Charles Brown just yesterday said: “Ideally, I would like the Canadians to come back at some point, but I know that there are local decisions that have to be made in Canada for that to happen.” Those local decisions are merely partisan political decisions being made by the government as a result of a campaign promise during the previous election.

The government has broken its campaign promise on its tax hikes being revenue neutral. It has broken its campaign promises on settling Syrian refugees. It has broken its campaign promises on how large the deficit will be. Pulling out our CF-18s is one campaign promise I would dearly love to see our Liberal government break. It is sad to see that the government is taking direction not from defence and intelligence officials but from political backroom staff and campaign war rooms.

Strangely enough, while the government plans on pulling out our fighter jets, it is sending more Canadian men and women out into the field. This is simply dangerous for our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, and potentially deadly. Sending more Canadian boots on the ground to assist with training and humanitarian support while depleting our air power capability leaves our men and women in uniform vulnerable. This move sets a very dangerous precedent. When we deploy Canadians on mission we back them up with all our capabilities. We do not handicap them, nor put them in further danger because of campaign promises.

The Liberal government, however, is deploying more Canadians while significantly scaling back our capabilities that would ensure their safety. It is putting our ground forces at risk, not because of a coherent plan but because of a campaign promise. We have heard again and again in response to why it is pulling out our jets that it is a campaign promise. It is not because it is best for our forces or our allies, but it is a campaign promise.

Canada has the capacity to continue to contribute to air strikes alongside training and humanitarian support. Canadian Armed Forces personnel have been doing so very effectively for the past six months.

Our party has said repeatedly that we do not oppose increased ground forces, but oppose the decision to pull out our CF-18s.

The motion makes it clear the Liberals remain incoherent on the air combat mission. They have not provided any explanation on how the withdrawal of the CF-18s will help the coalition more effectively defeat ISIS. Despite the Liberal government's supposed opposition of bombing, Canadian aircraft will continue to refuel planes that conduct air strikes and we will continue to identify targets for allied planes to strike.

To add to the confusion, while the government pulls out our CF-18s, there is talk about deploying four of our Griffon helicopters. We do not know why this is being done and how the helicopters will be used in furthering our objective of eradicating ISIS. However, I can say this much. The Conservative caucus has several questions for the government. Why are these helicopters being deployed? Will they be used for combat, and if so, how? What precautions will be taken to protect our helicopter pilots and crews from enemy ground fire, given the removal of our air capabilities?

I realize that this is not question period, so I will stop my questions. However, they highlight a multitude of problems and a lack of clarity in the government's decision to whip out our helicopters and throw them into an active war zone, not to mention the fact that deploying our helicopters while simultaneously removing our CF-18s highlights the incoherent, ill-conceived plan put forward by the government.

Allow me to say that not one of our allies supports this decision by the Liberal government to pull out of the air strike mission against ISIS. No one has asked the Prime Minister to pull out, and no one is cheering on this move, except for the Prime Minister and his caucus.

While our Prime Minister is pulling back and hiding behind the shadows of our allies, our allies are leading the charge against ISIS. This could not be made more clear than Canada being snubbed by our allies at a recent anti-ISIS meeting. Six months ago, our foreign affairs minister hosted an international meeting in Quebec City to discuss the military and political aspects of the mission against ISIS. Today we are not even welcome to have a seat at the table.

While our coalition partners are stepping up their efforts to degrade and defeat ISIS, the Liberal government is stepping back. The decision to withdraw Canada's CF-18s is seen by our allies as stepping back rather than standing shoulder to shoulder with them.

It is also quite clear that this move has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's long-term strategy for fighting ISIS. Rather, it is nothing more than a political stunt being orchestrated by the government and its PR team.

This motion is a disgrace for our military and a disgrace for our allies, and it weakens our standing in this world. For these reasons, I will not be supporting the motion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as we are winding this debate down, I thought we should do a kind of compare and contrast.

On the advise-and-assist mission, the Liberal Party is proposing a mission three times the size of the Conservative mission. The Liberal Party is proposing a mission on intelligence twice the size. Actually, the Conservatives are not proposing any intelligence mission whatsoever.

We are proposing a medical capability. The Conservatives are not proposing any capability whatsoever. We are proposing using four helicopters. The Conservatives are not proposing the use of any helicopters.

We are proposing enhanced diplomatic engagement. The previous government pretty well burned every diplomatic bridge in that region, so anything is an improvement over what the Conservative position has been.

To the credit of the previous government, it engaged in humanitarian assistance. We have actually upped the humanitarian assistance. We have as of this week brought into this country something in the order of 24,000 refugees. Under the Conservative plan, no refugees would be here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I went through this election, Mr. Speaker, along with you and everyone else. It was the Prime Minister who drove the commitment to receive refugees in this country, and it was opposed by that party, which sowed the seeds of fear of terrorists among the refugees.

Who is stepping up here and who is stepping back?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I used to live in my colleague's riding. It is a beautiful area.

I am happy to address the member's comment about burning bridges. We on this side are very happy to burn bridges with despotic regimes like Syria, and we are happy not to have any bridges to burn with people like ISIS. I thank him for that.

We appreciate the added support that we are giving to our allies with the ground force. We are saying, and have said all along, that we do not oppose that; what we oppose is the nonsensical decision to withdraw our CF-18s that are supporting those people.

There is no one on that side of the House who has once answered why we cannot do both. We can do all of that and we can leave our CF-18s in there to help our allies and protect our troops. Without those CF-18s, when our troops were under fire a month ago they would have been left without air cover. Our CF-18s went and supported our ground troops who were helping out there. You are going to strip those soldiers of that support. Therefore, we are very happy to not oppose the added support for our allies. However, we are saying leave the CF-18s in there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. members to speak through the Chair. I do not think I will be stripping anyone of anything.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at the closing hours of debate to raise with the member for Edmonton West some fundamental questions about where we stand as a country. While I vote against this resolution, I do applaud the removal of the CF-18s. I do not think we have any evidence that the CF-18s had any hope whatsoever of eradicating the force called the Daesh. If we were to continue on the mission of the previous government, we run the very large risk of propping up another government that the member described earlier as despotic.

How does the current official opposition imagine that we can eradicate the terrorist threat of the Daesh while ignoring that there are multiple factions in a civil war on the ground in Syria and that the matter cannot be solved by Canadian jets?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also used to live in Saanich. It is a beautiful area. Having lived from Victoria to Newfoundland, I will be getting to each of the members eventually.

We are not saying that jets alone will do it. We have never said that. We believe in a complete mission. We are saying that if our Canadian Forces are there, we should have our jets there supporting and protecting them, and helping our allies.