Debates of Feb. 24th, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe Canada has a reputation to look after its complicity in some of these struggles and fights before anything else. I believe we would have more credibility on the international stage if we were able to give our partners around the world the assurance that we are committing to humanitarian efforts, and that we are supporting efforts for peace. We certainly have a strong tradition of standing up against genocide in many parts of the world in many historic battles. I am glad we have done that and I hope we will continue to do so.

However, we have to get the money and the weapons out of the fight, and we have to look after our veterans. If we did those three things first, we would have more credibility and we would arguably bring peace faster in this region.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the House about one of the most important issues, and perhaps the most important one, that we can be called on to address as members of the House of Commons: the deployment of our soldiers and fellow citizens to foreign countries and sometimes to conflict situations.

First of all, I would like to thank the government for putting this question to the House and agreeing to consult it and eventually have a vote on this motion. I thank the government for this consideration.

This is an extremely important decision that should not be taken lightly. The pros and cons must be weighed carefully and, in this case, we must find the most constructive way to fight ISIL. Thus, after studying the proposal and the Conservatives' amendment, we have decided to vote against it, as a number of my colleagues mentioned.

Members should not assume that we take the atrocities committed by ISIL and the threat it poses lightly. The seriousness of this issue must not be downplayed. However, we must consider the best ways we and our allies can stop ISIL and the barbaric acts it is committing.

Canada must play a very important role, and the parties in the House will inevitably disagree on the best way to do that. We believe that we must first stop the flow of arms, the flow of money to ISIL and, above all, the foreign fighters who go to fight with ISIL. Canada has an important role to play in that regard.

In our own communities, we must also fight the radicalization that encourages Canadians to go abroad to fight with ISIL. That is important. If all countries focused their efforts on this issue, we could solve a big part of this problem because ISIL has many foreign fighters. It would be a more constructive way to address this issue.

This motion announced money for humanitarian assistance, but we think it would be better to focus on our strategy to fight ISIL so that we can help the people caught in the conflict. The NDP believes that it is very important to welcome refugees to Canada and provide them with a peaceful place to live their lives.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said a lot of things. He talked a lot about refugees, but he also talked about what the mission against ISIL would look like under a Liberal government. He said that he wanted to clarify the mission and draw a line between combat and non-combat missions.

However, in the motion before us today, the government's proposal is anything but clear on whether this is a combat or a non-combat mission. The Prime Minister is refusing to take a stand and is being vague about this mission.

Apparently we are going to paint targets for our allies' air strikes.

Apparently we will be refuelling planes that are carrying out the air strikes, while at the same time, we are withdrawing our CF-18s. This could be interpreted as an acknowledgement that air strikes are not the best strategy for Canada, although we are helping our allies carry out those air strikes. In this situation, the government's position is not clear. Is the government for or against air strikes? It is withdrawing its own jets, but still helping its allies to continue conducting air strikes.

What is more, everyone knows that our soldiers are going to be in an extremely dangerous situation. Even the head of the Canadian Armed Forces has said that the level of danger will be higher because more Canadians will be deployed in Iraq and Syria. We are sending our soldiers into a dangerous situation.

Sadly, Sergeant Doiron died in very tragic circumstances. Obviously, if we increase the Canadian presence, the risks will also increase, and our soldiers could often find themselves in very high-risk situations, as has been the case in the past and we believe will also be the case in a mission like the one proposed here today. This will include having to return enemy fire, not to mention other extremely dangerous situations.

That is why it is important to weigh this mission carefully because this conflict we are sending our Canadian soldiers into is dangerous. We must not take this decision lightly.

I want to come back to what I was saying earlier about the foreign fighters who go there, including some from Canada. Deradicalization efforts need to be made and should be a significant part of Canada's strategy for the fight against ISIL.

Unfortunately, we are not hearing the government say anything about the fight against radicalization or a strategy to help identify these potential cases of radicalization before these young Canadians go abroad. Unfortunately it is often young people who are involved. There needs to be a strategy to put a stop to this as soon as possible. Unfortunately, this does not factor into what the government is saying right now. I would have liked this fight against radicalization to be part of the government's strategy.

However, we must commend the efforts being made in some communities, including Montreal for example. The Secretary-General of the United Nations recently visited Montreal and commended the efforts by the community to counter radicalization.

So far these efforts seem rather isolated in that they are being driven by communities, municipalities, and provinces. There do not seem to be any efforts being made nationally or by the federal government. I would have liked the government to put more emphasis on this in its strategy because in my view, it is very important in the fight against ISIL.

In this debate, we cannot forget the various conflicts that have broken out in this region, how Canada or our allies decided to intervene, and the impact these decisions had on these conflicts.

Too often, our strategy was to send our soldiers on missions that were poorly defined and had no end date. No one would tell us how the mission would be deemed successful, when we could withdraw our troops, and when we could say that the mission in question was over.

If we adopt this motion, and I sincerely hope that we do not, I think the government will repeat those same mistakes. I think it will continue in the same vein and the results will be much the same. If you are always doing the same thing, you cannot expect to get a different result.

I am disappointed in the government's approach. I would have expected a vastly different approach, one focused on deradicalization.

My time is up. I would be happy to take any questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask him the same question I asked his previous NDP colleague. To my mind, there is an inherent inconsistency in the NDP position. It wants the flow of funds cut off, it wants the flow of arms cut off, it wants the flow of trafficking of people cut off, but it wants no military involvement whatsoever. I do not see how that is possible.

It would be nice if we could all hold hands, link around the world and shut off all the funds through the interlocking banking system, but that will not happen. It would be nice if all the tankers coming out of the ISIL-held area of Iraq and going into Turkey could be stopped. It is not as if the military people do not know where the flow is coming from.

Therefore, could my hon. colleague, on behalf of his party, explain this inherent contradiction between asking for this cut-off of funds and firearms with no military involvement whatsoever ?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not see any contradiction at all in our party's position on this issue. It is a simple way to fight against ISIL. There are a number of ways of doing that. The arms trade is a good example. We see in the news right now how Canadian arms have unfortunately ended up in the wrong hands.

The first thing that we could do would be to sign the arms trade protocol and ensure that when our country sells weapons, they do not end up in the wrong hands. There are fairly simple measures that the government could take right away in this fight. I do not think that wanting to focus on that is a contradiction.

I think that limiting ISIL's funding and limiting the number of fighters who are going to the region to join ISIL's ranks are extremely effective ways of fighting this group. If we could limit the number of fighters going to that region, that would be ideal. That is an important aspect of the issue, and I talked about it in my speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the immediate versus the long term. We have heard proposals from the NDP and the Liberals about things we could do that would hopefully pay dividends over the long term. Certainly training and humanitarian assistance is important, but what we have right now, quite imminently, is serious violence against innocent people. We on this side of the House have called it genocide, as have many other human rights groups and people around the world.

I understand the long term, but what about those who are suffering and dying right now? What can we do for them immediately to stop the violence, besides a military response?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

What we can do right now is welcome those who are in danger. Yes, our long-term objective is to eradicate, ideally as quickly as possible, the threat against the people in those regions.

One way to do that is to open our doors so that these people can find a haven here. We have some great examples of Syrians who have come to my community, Sherbrooke, to rebuild their lives. They are very happy now even though they were persecuted.

Our approach to welcoming refugees must focus on the people who are most at risk, who belong to religious minorities or even visible or sexual minorities.

We need to concentrate on that to ensure that the most at-risk people can escape as soon as possible and find a new homeland as quickly as possible.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to get a formality out of the way up front, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I rise today to address the House regarding the government motion tabled on February 11, 2016. This motion seeks to gain the support of the House to redefine the mission in Syria and Iraq through the removal of our CF-18s from its sorties while increasing our training mission in Iraq.

Prior to continuing with my remarks, I would like to take the time to thank all of the men and women of the armed forces for their continuing effort to help those who have been made victims of this radical group of terrorists known as the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, I would like to thank those who have served in the armed forces from all sides of the House in any capacity.

Canada's strategy to date has been one that has engaged in a multi-faceted and comprehensive approach, ranging from helping refugees gain resettlement, delivering aid to refugees in camps, training Kurdish troops, air strikes on key ISIS positions, and even stepping up to help defend Kurdish positions that are under intense attack. My colleagues have clearly and succinctly outlined the benefits that our CF-18s provided on the ground in Mosul to our ground troops, as well as the need to maintain those assets in the region.

The most succinct way to describe the government's actions on this motion is this. It is increasing the number of soldiers training forces for the front lines while reducing the capacity of our military to protect those same soldiers. While the increase in the number of troops would automatically increase the risk for Canadians, the government is further exacerbating that increased risk by removing assets available to support our troops and allies on the ground.

What I find most troubling on this matter is that the government fails to explain, after 1,378 sorties by CF-18s, destroying 399 targets, and 251 air strikes, what benefits our allies, Canadians, and our military gain by stepping back. The track record of the Royal Canadian Air Force speaks for itself. We have been deliberate and unwavering in our commitment to freeing the people of the region from tyranny and injustice, that is, until February 17, when the Prime Minister and his cabinet instructed the Royal Canadian Air Force to cease air strikes against ISIS. The government has failed to provide a reason, sensible rationale, or compelling argument as to the goals or objectives that they are trying to fulfill by stepping back from the fight against ISIS.

The reality is that we do not need the Prime Minister to stand in the House to tell us why. We already know. The Prime Minister made a campaign promise without military consultation, without discussion with our allies, without understanding the ramifications or consequences, without a single piece of sound planning. The Prime Minister wrote this foreign policy for political gain rather than effective government policy and then wonders why we are not invited to planning meetings with our allies on the war on ISIS.

When we properly assess the lack of rational arguments provided by the government, it is concerning. The fact that the government, led by a Liberal leader, can make structural change to a military mission based purely on political expedience is shameful, to say the least. At what point do members of the Liberal Party stand and say that this is wrong?

It is wrong to abdicate Canada's responsibility to stand up for those without a voice, it is wrong to leave our men and women on the ground with reduced capacity for reinforcements from the air, it is wrong for Canada to step back on the fight against radical terrorism, it is wrong for Canada to abandon the CF-18 mission against ISIL, it is wrong to make decisions that literally determine whether human beings live or die, live free or in bondage, live or flee in fear based on a campaign promise. I am tired of hearing words like “irresponsible”, “naive”, or “well intentioned” to describe the changes in this motion. The people I have spoken with say there is only one word to describe this motion, and that is “wrong”.

I understand the Prime Minister wants to keep one of his 200 promises to the people of Canada. That makes sense to me. However, why not keep the promise to only go $10 billion in deficit, to have tax changes that are revenue neutral, to be in surplus within four years, to run an open and transparent government, to restore the role and respect of parliamentarians in the House?

Why is it that the only promise the current government has to keep is the one that degrades our ability to help people in an utterly devastated region of the world? In doing so, it walks all over another promise that I just mentioned, that of restoring the role of members of Parliament and operating with respect for parliamentarians. The members of this House are so unimportant to the government that it asked for approval not before ending the air strike mission but after.

I know that during the campaign and while in opposition, the Liberal leader spoke often regarding respect for Parliament. The Prime Minister went so far as to outline this in the very Speech from the Throne that was delivered just months ago. The Prime Minister stated, “In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.”

On this motion our role was not honoured when the Prime Minister took this House for granted. We were not respected when being asked to approve a motion on an order that had already been made. We were certainly not heard prior to a decision on military conflict.

Here in these chambers only one voice, only one vote, only one perspective mattered, and it was not the voice of a Prime Minister but a leader campaigning to be one. The Prime Minister silenced this House by giving the order to cease operations in advance of the House speaking to his motion.

I am less concerned about the Prime Minister's 337 colleagues in this House than I am the 36 million people across this country who do not have a voice on a motion that literally deals with life and death. I am less concerned by the political gamesmanship practised by the government to stifle the ability of the opposition to give meaningful contributions to government than I am by the government's approach to stifle the voice of its citizens in this House.

The throne speech stated the following, “Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.”

The government is fulfilling this part of the mandate within the throne speech with this motion. Not only is it doing different things by stepping back from the fight against ISIS, it is doing things differently too.

On March 24, 2015, the member for Calgary Heritage, then the Prime Minister of Canada, announced a government motion regarding the beginning of an air strike campaign against ISIS and Syria. This was an expansion of an existing air campaign that was solely operating in Iraq.

The decision was put to a vote on March 30, five days before the mission was expanded not five days after. The members of this House therefore stood for all Canadians and they had a say in the expansion of Canada's role prior to its initiation. This is an example of leadership. It is an example of respect for this House, of restoring honour to Parliament, and of giving Canadians a voice. That is a decision of a prime minister I am proud of.

I have one last quote from the throne speech, which I believe clearly applies to this debate, which is, “They want to be able to trust their government.”

This is true. The people of Canada want to trust that the things that its government are telling them are both true and advantageous for its citizens. However, to gain the trust of Canadians, the government must trust that Canadians and their representatives will make the right choice. The current government must allow people to speak through their elected officials and representatives in advance of ending the mission, not as an afterthought.

What insight has been neglected in this House? Which citizens' voices did the current government ignore? We as Canadians expect better from our government, especially when debating actions that will have a direct impact on the great men and women of our armed forces.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for that contribution to the debate today. He was pleased to discuss the voices that are not heard in this House and how all members have to respect their ridings and the voices from the ridings.

I would like to know what this member has to say about the 58% of his riding who did not vote for him and voted for a party that believed in pulling the air strikes back from fighting ISIL.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really am shocked that we have a member on the other side of the House who did not come into this chamber to discuss the changes to a mission that are affecting real lives in a devastated part of the world. Instead he wants to play politics and relive October 19. The reality is that the people in the region are living a nightmare every day and instead the member wants to relive a date from over four months ago. Shame on you, sir.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Thank you. I would like to remind hon. members that they are speaking through the Speaker. I am not sure “shame on me” was quite appropriate, but I will convey it to the other member.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I wonder if my colleague would agree.

Repeating the mistakes of the past and getting involved in a mission, as they are proposing here, that is very similar to other, past missions in the same region has not produced the results we would have expected, by which I mean peace in the region.

Does my colleague expect this mission to succeed or fail, if we basically engage in the same kind of mission as in the past?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for shaming you before.

The reality is if the member is calling it madness that the Government of Canada would step in and help those who are incredibly vulnerable, try to be part of an answer to get people back in their homes in their homeland, then call me mad. I want to see a resolution.

The multi-faceted approach that we have taken in terms of providing aid, bringing Iraqi and Syrian refugees here to Canada, training troops on the ground, and definitely in terms of air strikes, is the right approach to continue with. Unfortunately, the government made a unilateral decision without coming to the House and applying for consent in order to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes think I am in some sort of parallel reality here. For goodness' sake, the member talks about election and respect for Parliament. We have been debating this motion since last Wednesday. We had an election and the member's party ridiculed the then leader of the Liberal Party from one end of the country to the other about the position that he would take if he became Prime Minister. He then implements the position that he said he would do as a candidate and the hon. member says, oh, just blow off the people of Canada.

We had an election. We had the longest election in history. The position of the Liberal Party was well known. The position of the Conservative Party was well known. It was a change mission. It was a mandate to change the mission and yet the hon. member says we disrespect Parliament, members of Parliament, and the people of Canada because we are honouring the election promise that we made.

He carried on with his crazy rhetoric about stepping back when in fact we are stepping up. I do not know how we put more people in theatre rather than fewer and that is stepping back. I do not know how we make greater financial commitments and somehow that is stepping back. I do not know how we get 25,000 refugees here and that is just stepping back.

I would ask the hon. member to join reality.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the word “rhetoric” used by my colleague across the aisle. The reality is that the government did not respect the House of Commons. Liberals did not respect the people of Canada and their representatives in the House of Commons when they decided to cease the mission in advance of asking the House to give consent.

If the member believes that the result of the election gives them carte blanche going forward, then why are we even standing here?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for and am forever thankful to the men and women who have served, who are serving, and who will serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I am glad to extend that respect and gratitude to many of my colleagues who have served in uniform and now serve here in this chamber.

While I personally do not have military experience, I rise in the House today on behalf of the constituents who placed their trust in me to share their views and to advocate for their expectations of the government.

I was glad to hear that the current government would follow the precedent set out by our Conservative government by allowing a fulsome debate on the mission at hand and to hold a vote in Parliament. However, I was extremely disappointed by the lack of transparency and accountability that the current government has shown by bringing our CF-18s home and parking them before this debate is finished and before we have even hold a vote. Surely the government knows better than to try to deliberately mislead Canadians and parliamentarians, or at least so I had hoped.

My constituents, and indeed all Canadians, deserve better from the Prime Minister. What has not been made clear on the government side is why the Liberal government has unilaterally, in opposition to the vast majority of Canadians, decided to pull our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS.

In response to my remarks, the Liberal government will say that the Conservative Party does not understand that we are part of a coalition. We absolutely do understand that we are part of a coalition. The difference on this side of the House is that we think it is irresponsible to leave the heavy lifting to our allies.

Our pilots are among the most skilled in the world. They are the best of the best. Our allies have specifically requested that they continue. In a radio interview just last month, the Minister of National Defence confirmed quite succinctly exactly how our allies feel about Canada's role when he said, “Of course they want to keep our CF-18s there”.

Since 2014, these pilots have carried out over 1,300 sorties, almost 800 support aircraft flights, and have destroyed almost 400 ISIS targets. Our brave pilots who carried out these vital missions safeguarded countless innocent and vulnerable people on the ground from the advances of barbarism. That was their contribution. That is the truth. To suggest otherwise undermines these efforts and brings dishonour to our men and women who wear our uniform so proudly.

Unfortunately, we have been given a false choice by the Liberal government. We can either have training and humanitarian assistance or air strikes, but this is not reality. This is not an either/or situation. It is a both/and situation. Let us not forget that we have been doing all of these things since the mission begun. We have had humanitarian support on the ground. We have had training for the local military and police forces and have had our CF-18s in theatre.

If this were simply a question of increasing training for local forces and increasing humanitarian and diplomatic initiatives without changing our air strike contributions, I am sure that there would be unanimous consent from this side of the House. However, the Liberal government has made us choose between either increasing our training mission, humanitarian assistance, and diplomatic ties, or remaining an ally in good standing by remaining in the combat mission with air strikes.

Unfortunately, as I said, the Liberal government has not just made us choose, it has already decided for us. Why? We do not know why. Is it because the Liberal Party of Canada has adopted a non-combat mantra within its top ranks? Is it because it is looking for ways to save money in order to minimize its ballooning deficit and clear economic mismanagement? Does the Prime Minister just personally disagree with air strikes? We have no idea, because the Liberal government, after a full week of debate, has not given us a single reason why we have brought our CF-18s home and taken the greatest pilots in the world out of the fight. The Liberal government has not given us one reason.

We have taken these pilots out of the fight while leaving their brothers in arms on the ground without Canadian aircraft support. Sure, they can now rely on our coalition partners for cover, but Canadians are Canadians are Canadians and we want what is absolutely best for Canadian men and women on the ground, and the best is having our CF-18s overhead.

This is Canada's fight. We have an obligation to stand up for the victims of genocide, to fight against this evil and destructive ideology, and to protect Canadians at home and abroad.

If only our current Prime Minister had the same courage the U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has shown. He understands how a coalition best works together, and it is definitely not by handing over all the hard work to other countries. Mr. Cameron is quoted as saying, “We shouldn’t be content with outsourcing our security to our allies. If we believe that action can help protect us, then with our allies, we should be part of that action, not standing aside from it.”

Professor Hansen, Director of the Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, put it best when he said, “There’s nothing admirable in letting other countries do the fighting while you hide behind liberal pieties.”

The United Nations Security Council has determined that the Islamic State constitutes an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon member states with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq.

We are a member state. We have the requisite capacity. Why are we not taking all necessary steps or measures? Canada has a long, proud history of defending innocent and vulnerable populations by taking on those who commit mass atrocities.

However, this is not just a war that is being waged overseas, out of sight, out of mind. ISIS has declared war on Canada and our allies. It is paramount that the government stands shoulder to shoulder with our allies to defend and protect the safety and security of Canadians both here and abroad. Every single one of us and our constituents would prefer a world where military and police were not needed, but we do not live in a perfect world. Evil exists and Canada has an obligation to restrain that evil.

I have had the great privilege of visiting the monumental historic sites of Juno Beach and Vimy. I encourage all members to take the time to visit these sites. These sites exist because Canadians did not shy away from combat. They did not rely solely on their allies. They exist because Canadians rose to the occasion; our brave men and women fought side by side with our allies and defeated the evil of their time.

We need to do the same today. We need to do all that we can to bring peace and stability in the area. We owe it to the refugees whom we are welcoming here in Canada, and we owe it to their families who are still living under the brutal Islamic State regime back home.

Public opinion was very important to the Liberal Party during the campaign season, so why now, since it has seized the brass ring, is it deaf to the voices of Canadians? Why is this ill-conceived election promise any more important than the laundry list of election promises already broken?

It is with the support of my constituents, Canadian citizens, and our allies that I stand in the House today speaking against the government motion and urging the government to allow our CF-18s back in the fight, to re-introduce the greatest pilots in the world back into theatre and take all necessary measures to degrade and destroy ISIS.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose the following to my my hon. colleague, that there might be another way of looking at this. I attended the Royal Military College in Kingston. One of the key courses we had to take was military and strategic studies. As part of that, we had to look at strategy and tactics for all different kinds of engagements to understand when one needed to go in with a certain strategy, but more importantly, when to understand that that strategy needed to change with the changing conditions of the particular conflict.

Is this not one of those occasions where we must change strategy? Does it make our contribution any less valuable, simply because we may not have fighter pilots? There are 25,000 other men and women in uniform who serve in meaningful roles each and every day in our Canadian Forces, and this new mission will allow us to bring a different level of strength and capacity to this mission. It will be as effective, if not more so, than it has been in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question, but I was very clear in my remarks that if we were voting on simply expanding the humanitarian, security, and intelligence aspects of the mission, on this side of the House, I am confident that we would have unanimous support for that kind of mission.

However, there is no rationale for removing the CF-18s, and if there is, we have not heard it. We have been here a week debating the motion, and not one Liberal member has been able to explain how removing the CF-18s out of theatre enhances our ability to degrade and destroy ISIL.

We do not question the aspect of increasing our forces on the ground, but why, at a time when we are increasing the number of Canadian men and women on the ground, would we subject them to the potential of having no overhead protection?

We know the challenges of communications. We saw it here on October 22 with the different security forces in the House. The challenges of communicating between different security forces at a time of emergency like this is challenging. Therefore, there is no question in my mind that our men and women on the ground would be much safer if they had the cover of our CF-18s flying overhead.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, our position is that Canada should be intervening by cutting off the flow of money, foreign fighters, and arms to ISIS. The new government has done nothing in those three areas, which would actually have a preponderant effect in hurting ISIS.

During the campaign, Canadians debated this issue. The Liberals at the time said that they would do the same thing as the NDP: scale back the mission, and look at cutting off funds and arms. Now the government has come out with a completely different message just weeks after the election and, in fact, is expanding the combat mission with hundreds of new soldiers.

I have asked this question of other Conservative members, and I think Canadians do need a clear answer. There is a motion before us that would expand the combat mission and send hundreds of new soldiers into the combat situation. Does the member support that or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we see clearly the difference between the three parties in the House. Unfortunately, my biggest disagreement is with the party that my colleague represents.

If there ever were a fight in which we ought to defend vulnerable and innocent people, if there ever were a fight where we needed to be involved, this is it.

As I said in my remarks, I had the privilege of visiting Juno Beach for the 65th anniversary of D-Day. I will never forget how the people of France, to this day, are grateful that we did not have a government that stood on the sidelines and hoped to just cut off money supplies, but was actually willing to send men and women into the field to protect innocent people.

When the veterans stood from their wheelchairs and took a few steps across a little gravel pathway to lay a wreath at the cenotaph, children of parents who had been there on D-Day would run in, pick up a stone that had touched the sole of the foot of one of our soldiers, and take it as a memento. They are so grateful for what our men and women in uniform did back then.

I am convinced that 20 or 50 years from now, if we do the right thing, we will be able to stand tall and be thankful that our men and women stood in support, not only of our troops here at home, but in support of men and women who are vulnerable and innocent and are being treated in unbelievable ways.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Since 2011, 270,000 people have been killed because of the war in Syria. To give people an idea of what that represents, that would be like wiping out the entire population of four RCMs in my region, from Vaudreuil-Dorion to Hemmingford, Valleyfield, and Ormstown.

The victims include men, women, children, and seniors, people who may have carried a weapon or simply their clothes as they fled the bombings and the atrocities committed by ISIL. There are also 4.5 million refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Europe. That is comparable to all the residents south of an imaginary line running from Mirabel to Lac-Mégantic having to leave Quebec to seek refuge in Ontario, New York State, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine. It is one of the largest human displacements in recent history.

For the past two years, the Canadian government has responded with relatively meagre humanitarian assistance and increased military involvement, as it has sent in fighter jets and several dozen trainers.

Today, the Liberal government has moved a motion that talks about withdrawing the CF-18s and tripling the number of Canadian special forces members, an advise and assist mission coupled with a combat mission, including target painting for air strikes. Humanitarian assistance is increased to $840 million over the next three years.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government, like the Conservatives, believes that increasing our military contribution will help resolve the conflict in that region and allow us to defeat ISIL.

It feels as though we have not learned our lesson from the mistakes made during the war in Afghanistan. First, the parameters of the mission are very vague. The Liberals criticized the Conservatives for that and now the Liberals are doing exactly the same thing. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence has provided any details as to what defines a successful Canadian mission. No exit strategy has been presented.

Will the troops stay until ISIL has been defeated? If so, does the government realize that one shot cannot kill an ideology in two years?

The government is giving itself two years before again bringing this issue before the House for debate. I would remind members that this is not a NATO or a UN mission. It is completely unacceptable for the Liberals to ask us for a blank cheque. Even the Conservatives had a debate in the House after six months and then a year.

This is about the lives of our soldiers. Every day, there are more lives at risk in the region. In the meantime, Canada will provide arms and munitions to the Kurds and perhaps to the Iraqi army.

A series of questions come to mind. Which Kurdish group will we give arms to? Will we give arms only to the Iraqi Kurds or to the Syrian Kurds as well? What will happen if Canadian arms are used against Turkish soldiers? What guarantees can the government give us that our arms will not be used to violate human rights?

These are important questions because we have seen in the news recently how a weapon built by a Manitoban company that was sold to Saudi Arabia ended up in the hands of a fighter in the Yemeni civil war. The arms trade is a key component of the war in Syria and Iraq. Every ally provides the side it has chosen with arms and munitions, with very little thought to civilian casualties. The motion does not address this issue at all.

Academics have looked into how to resolve the conflict in Syria. The Observatory on Radicalization and Violent Extremism in Quebec published an article on its website that proposes several solutions. Here are some of the main actions it suggests: link oil revenue to local development, stop adding arms to the conflict, cut off ISIL's oil revenue, push local stakeholders to impose peace in their area, provide logistical and financial support to countries with refugee camps, and cut off tribal and public support for ISIL.

I do not see many connections between the action being taken by the Liberal government and the solutions proposed by experts on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.

There is something else. I am thinking about proposals at the national level and measures to counter ISIL's messaging in cyberspace, on the Internet. There is nothing at all about that, even though I believe that action desperately needs to be taken in that regard.

As the NDP critic for youth, I find this extremely irresponsible of the government.

By taking military action, we are simply reinforcing the terrorists' ideology and giving them more reasons to recruit young people who feel excluded from western societies. I do not see a single measure in the motion to help us understand the causes of terrorism or learn how to prevent radicalization and keep young Canadians from going to Syria or Iraq to join ISIL. These young men and women feel excluded from our society because they do not have jobs or are subject to racism. They feel excluded and rejected. They are subject to discrimination, among other things.

The terrorist group capitalizes on these feelings of isolation and vulnerability. It attracts these young people with visions of an ideal society in which young people have a role to play. These young people slowly disconnect from our societies and their social networks and spread ISIL's slick and misleading messages.

What is the government doing to counter this? I do not see a single measure in this motion.

ISIL propaganda is dangerous and destructive. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11, 2001, tragedy, and that group has the same backward ideology as ISIL. According to the Observatory on Radicalization and Violent Extremism, ISIL is a kind of al-Qaeda 2.0 because it is even more adept at manipulating social media and messaging and it is better at attracting people. That is why we need to figure out how to tackle ISIL's ideology and messaging just like we need to figure out how to deal with the problem of youth radicalization.

I have not heard anyone in this debate talk about what we can do about cyberspace. Young people between the ages of 15 and 35, people around my age, get a lot of information from the Internet, through social media and websites. It is pretty easy to find ISIL propaganda, as many reports have shown. I am not talking about censorship or trying to prevent ISIL from being on the Internet, because that would be impossible.

However, we need to provide tools to ensure that our young people resist extremist rhetoric. Once again, the motion does not provide any tools to combat ISIL's toxic, regressive and violent ideology, which is flourishing on the web. While we may be having some problems with our youth now, imagine what is going on in the minds of teenagers who have suffered barrel bomb attacks by the Syrian army or physical or psychological torture at the hands of jihadists. Young Syrians who are in refugee camps or trying to cross the Mediterranean will have no hope if the conflict does not find a political solution and if we do not provide any assistance in that regard, especially neutral humanitarian assistance.

Once again, this is not covered. The motion does not place any emphasis on neutral humanitarian assistance. By linking humanitarians assistance with military action, as the Conservatives did in the past, the Liberal government is tainting its assistance and making it harder for our humanitarian organizations to do their work. We are talking about children, teens, and young adults who have been traumatized and have very limited access to basic services like running water, electricity, schooling, and health care.

In closing, I would say that continuing to add weapons only reinforces ISIL's messaging. It thinks this is a war of civilization between Muslims and the west. The best proof that this is absolutely not the case is the fact that currently in Canada, Muslims, Christians, and atheists, regardless of the colour of their skin or their origin, live side by side.

A number of experts have said that more bombing is not going to contain ISIL. On the contrary, the bombings have caused ISIL troops to disperse and find shelter in civilian homes and on their lands. This makes it even easier for them to recruit new soldiers.

What the NDP is proposing and has always proposed for fighting ISIL is not to get involved in a combat mission, but to disrupt the arms trade, the flow of money, and the influx of foreign fighters, in addition to enhancing deradicalization efforts here in Canada.

I will close by quoting United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon:

Over the longer-term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not the power of missiles—it is the politics of inclusion.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on one thing the member mentioned. She said that she did not see any measures in our motion to prevent radicalization. I would like to draw her attention, in particular, to clause (b) of the motion, which sates, “improving the living conditions of conflict-affected populations and helping to build the foundations for long-term regional stability of host communities, including Lebanon and Jordan”.

Would she agree with me that it is important to have regional stability and that this part of the motion, in particular, will help stop the spread of violent extremism by providing stabilization to a region that is certainly in conflict and whose people are becoming refugees, which feeds into radicalization? In my opinion this motion will help address that problem. Would she agree with me on that?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are proposing is to continue to extend the combat mission, and the NDP does not believe that this will have a stabilizing effect on the current war in the Middle East.

The Liberals are proposing to triple the number of soldiers in ISIL territory, but they have no idea what the definition of combat is. In fact, today, during question period, the Prime Minister talked about a combat mission. Yesterday, the government said it was not a combat mission. Everything is vague. We have no idea what the criteria for a successful mission are.

How can the member talk about stability when a number of parameters are still very hazy and vague and we are not getting any answers? We do not know when the mission will end. We do not know the criteria for a successful mission. We do not know when we will see these soldiers again, and we also do not know the budget for this combat mission, or advise mission, as the Liberals like to call it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite, but I am troubled with one factor. The government has announced that, yes, it is pulling out the CF-18s. That was a campaign promise, and it has lived up to that. However, one thing that was not mentioned was that it was tripling the size of our men and women on the ground, putting them in harm's way. The Prime Minister said that, yes, they would be in riskier situations.

How would the hon. member deliver a message to a mother, a father, a sister or brother, or the children of one of those men and women should someone lose a life because we pulled out one of our core strategic military pieces to protect them?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone here agrees that the devastation ISIL is wreaking is disastrous, as is the devastation wrought in any war. War crimes are being committed. What we are talking about is the best way to intervene so that ISIL is cut off from all of the resources it is using to wage war and wreak havoc.

For a long time now, the NDP has been proposing that any flow of money that could be used to fund terrorist wars be stemmed. We also want to reduce the arms trade. Canada has not yet signed the Arms Trade Treaty. We want to work on deradicalization to prevent our young people from being recruited by ISIL, and obviously we want to work on humanitarian aid.

Researchers, experts and even the people at the UN are discussing all of these avenues, these tools. They are saying that these are the most effective ways of thwarting ISIL. That is how the NDP wants to work. We do not want to continue to send our soldiers to the front to be killed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for that warm welcome.

I am very honoured to rise in the House today, even if it is to speak about such a complex and troubling issue. We must admit that these are very complicated and ongoing geopolitical situations. This violence has existed, in different forms, for many years now.

I think it is important to point out that what we are talking about today is the role that Canada should play. When we talk about the fight against the so-called Islamic State, we often talk about all of the efforts being made. However, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to focus on what we can do better and determine how we can better contribute to the efforts being made in the region.

Before I get into the questions that we have for the government and the solutions that the NDP is proposing, I would like to point out two very important things. The first is that no matter where we come from or what party we belong to, we all support the men and women in our Canadian Armed Forces 100%, before, during and after any missions they participate in. That is very important.

No matter where we come from or what party we belong to, we are all disgusted by the atrocities being committed by the so-called Islamic State. Videos of the atrocities circulate online and cause us to all feel the same horror and indignation. That is also important to note.

Where we unfortunately disagree is on how to proceed, but the two points I mentioned are very important, and I think they should not unfairly taint the debate.

I will start by talking about the questions we have for the government about what is in the motion. Many of our questions show that, unfortunately, history is repeating itself. I am very proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada, a political party that, in the past 15 years, has been there to ask questions about topics such as our intervention in Afghanistan.

These questions were difficult and unfortunately generated some nastiness. Jack Layton was called Taliban Jack in the House of Commons. Why? Because he dared to ask questions about the length of the mission, the parameters and conditions of victory, and our specific objectives. The ideas were laudable, but unfortunately, we cannot ask the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces to go overseas to defend and accomplish a military mission simply on the basis of ideas. There must be clear objectives. We are asking them to put their lives in danger, so we must ask ourselves these questions.

I remember reading an article in La Presse a few years ago that described the lamentable state of a school in Afghanistan. There was no stairway to the second floor of the school. Schools were falling apart, the very schools that we were supposed to protect and help rebuild. That mission lasted over 10 years and cost many Canadian lives. We did some good, but we did not achieve the objectives we set out to achieve, vague as they were, to a degree that we, as parliamentarians, and the Canadian people deemed satisfactory, not to mention the men and women who gave so much in their attempts to accomplish something in those chaotic regions.

So here we are asking the same questions today. What exactly is the government's objective? How will it define success? How much time should we expect this to take?

As my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît just pointed out in her speech, at least the Conservatives had a timeline in the motions they moved in the previous Parliament. They came back to the House every six to 12 months to discuss the mission again with a new motion. In this case, the government moved a motion even though it had already started changing the parameters of the mission without even consulting parliamentarians, and its answers in question period leave a lot to be desired.

We will therefore continue to ask these questions because the answers have been unsatisfactory so far. This is very troubling. That is one reason why we oppose this motion.

Here is another question we would like to ask the government: is this a combat mission, yes or no?

The Liberals here in the House, in this very place where I stand today, asked a number of questions and voted against a Conservative motion, because they said they did not want to support a combat mission. During the election campaign, they also promised to end the combat mission.

Even though the government is withdrawing our CF-18s today, it is putting more men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces in danger, without being able to say why or whether this is actually a combat mission or not. We have gotten no answers on this.

Furthermore, in one of his answers today, the Prime Minister used the term “combat mission”. He finally realized that perhaps he called it what it really is. Then he backpedalled and started talking again about the fight against ISIL. We know, however, from comments made by the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister that the government recognizes that this is a combat mission, even though it does not want to call it that. Let us tell it like it is. That would be a good place to start.

We are raising all these questions, but what is the NDP proposing? Since we do not support this government's or the previous government's approach, we should at least come up with our own proposal and possible solutions. How does the NDP think Canada should contribute to this very dangerous and very important situation in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq?

Before we even go to the region, we need to examine what we are doing here at home. Efforts to combat radicalization and extremism are crucial. That begins here, because after all, we have heard many stories, including some about young people who are going overseas to fight with those terrorist groups. I am grateful that my colleague addressed this issue in her speech.

It is crucial that we take action here at home. Unfortunately, the previous government did not do so, despite Bill C-51, and the current government does not seem ready to do so either.

We are seeing some extraordinary efforts being made, in Montreal for example, and it is quite commendable. However, it is not just up to local authorities to do this work. We expect leadership from the federal government. We expect it to work with religious, local, and police authorities to ensure that young people are not influenced by ISIL's propaganda. This would reduce the number of fighters contributing to the violence in these regions. That is extremely important.

Unfortunately, despite good intentions and fine speeches, there is still no tangible plan to address radicalization here at home. That is what the NDP would like to see.

There are two other important aspects: money and weapons. As far as weapons are concerned, the solution is so simple. The government just has to sign a treaty that was negotiated, but that the Conservatives did not sign. The Liberal government says it wants to sign the treaty, but it has yet to do so.

In the past few days, during this debate, I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was seized of the matter. If so, I do not believe he sees the urgency because it would be so easy to resolve this problem.

The government already indicated that it intends to sign this treaty, so it should do so. The government should sign it and then we can start doing what we must in order to reduce the influx of arms in the region.

This is especially troubling, as my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît and several of my other colleagues pointed out in their speeches, because we know that some of these weapons originated in Canada.

We are asking for more than just transparency. We are asking the government to take real action to ensure that we stop the flow of weapons in this region. We must reduce the influx and take action in true Canadian fashion. In other words, we need to work with our international partners to reduce the arms trade.

With respect to money, we can conduct negotiations together with our allies, the United Nations and other stakeholders and authorities to ensure that we cut off funding for these groups.

This week, we learned that ISIL sustained a serious financial setback. It had such an impact that it reduced ISIL's ability to commit terrible and violent acts in the region. Money is crucial.

Let us continue our efforts. That is the type of role that Canada can have and the one envisaged by the NDP. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what the Liberal government plans on doing. For that reason, we are going to oppose the motion.

We will continue to ask questions and make specific proposals concerning the positive role that Canada can have.