Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today. Those of us who have been here for a while have almost seen this conflict roll out in several chapters. Some of us will remember 2003, the beginning of the Iraq War, when the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the conflict that took place in Iraq over the period of time following that. It ended up with almost a civil war in the country.
In 2005-06 I believe it was then that Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister of the country. There was some hope when he was elected that there would be some elements that would put peace in place, and that he would build some institutions there that would serve the Iraqi people very well.
Unfortunately, he chose to be a leader who was more divisive than helpful. The Sunni minority was soon alienated there, and many of the problems that we are still facing today came out of the activity of that government and the failure of that government to be able to welcome and bring people together within Iraq. It came at a time, as well, when the support the government needed there, the strength that was being supplied by some of the military from outside Iraq, was reduced as well.
We saw those kinds of conflicts begin to re-emerge in Iraq. We are all familiar, as well, with Syria, and the fact that the Assad family has been in power there for many years. If I remember correctly, I think we are all aware that was considered one of the rogue governments. It was on a par, basically, with North Korea and some others that were seen as sponsors of terror, but also basically terrorist governments that were holding their own people hostage, threatening them, torturing them, and had one of the worst human rights records in the world.
In 2011, when the Arab Spring unrest began in the Middle East, Syria was impacted by that as well. It took a little longer than with some of the other countries, but certainly unrest spread there, and soon it began to respond as it always did with violent crackdowns, and basically a civil war has emerged out of that.
We find that area in the conflict that it is in today, the conflict that has been so much a part of its past. Through all of this time, there were different organizations that were arising, kind of forming and reforming within the area. In 1999 to 2003, we saw the development of a number of organizations that ended up coming together and then forming what is now known as ISIS or ISIL.
In 2013-14, virtually everyone was surprised by the sudden emergence and the surge that this organization was able to show and the amount of territory it was able to take over.
It was interesting that in July 2013, I believe the Syrian government had approximately 40% of the country's territory and 60% of the population, and two years later it had shrunk to an area of about 30,000 kilometres, and only 16% of the country was controlled by that government. That was an example in Syria, but it was similar in Iraq, the area and the territory that the government lost because it was not able to provide security for its people.
We are familiar with the situation that took place in Mosul, the massacres that took place when ISIL moved through there, and particularly in the Sinjar Mountains with the Yazidis who were living their lives. They had their own religion, their own culture. ISIL swept through there, slaughtered as many of the men as they could find, and took the women and girls hostage. Many of those young women and girls have been turned into sex slaves. They have been traded, bought, and sold.
I had the opportunity to be on the foreign affairs committee last Parliament, and that was a topic of conversation. Several of our meetings were talking about the situation that particularly the Yazidis found themselves in. However, many other minority groups in the area were obliterated by ISIL as it moved through the area.
Through all of this, we have been partners in a coalition that has been trying to push back ISIL, and particularly recently has been very successful in that. We can see the area that ISIL had earlier on and the area that it has now. We can see that it is being forced back. It cannot happen any too soon.
We have been very effective. We have been a part of a coalition that started in 2014, kind of on the sidelines of a NATO meeting. Countries came together and put the coalition together. Canada was proud to be part of that. Our contribution has been large. It has been in a number of areas. It has covered most of the areas that we see mentioned in the Liberal motion today. I want to talk about that a little later, if I have time.
We have been particularly successful in terms of how we have been able to use our fighter jets.
Our CF-18s have been a major part of the coalition. Canada has been a major contributor to it. From the information I have received, we have run almost 1,400 sorties, 800 aircraft flights, over 250 air strikes, and over 400 ISIS targets have been destroyed.
One of the reasons this is critical is because ISIS depends so much on oil revenue. It depends on foreign currency and being able to buy and sell that oil. Canada has been effective in destroying those targets. We have seen recently that we have been able to disrupt that supply line.
My colleague talked a couple of days ago in the House about how those supply lines have finally been disrupted, to the point that ISIL fighters are now fleeing to Libya and other places. ISIL has lost its money. It has lost its source of revenue. It is not able to pay its fighters and it is starting to break down. It is unfortunate that just at the time when these things are taking place, our government has decided that it is time to cut and run. This is not the appropriate time to do that.
I want to talk a bit about the government's motion. From those of us who have been here and understand the situation, a lot of this looks like window dressing. Most of what the Liberals are suggesting we have been doing effectively.
There is one place, among others, that we would completely disagree with the government, and that has been the government's focus on changing the mission. When I read in the motion that the government wants to refocus, I do not see this as refocusing a military contribution. I see it as weakening the military contribution.
We have talked here in the last few days about why the government would elevate the risk. The last question that was asked in here was about the risk that our troops would be put under. Why would the government want to elevate risk? There may be good reasons why we need to elevate risk if we are engaged in a situation like this, but why would we reduce our combat capability at the same time? It does not make any sense. The government is going to move ahead with putting people in place who will be at risk. The government does not seem to be able to answer the questions that we have been asking in the House. It cannot tell us how it is going to protect our troops there. We completely disagree. This refocus is not a refocus but a weakening of our military capacity that will put our troops at risk.
The motion talks about improving the living conditions of conflict-affected populations. We have been a big part of that discussion over the last few years on the foreign affairs committee. We talked a lot, particularly to refugee communities, and asked them what they would like, what we could do to help.
In light of our discussion about our refugees over the last few months, it is interesting to note that virtually all witnesses who came to committee said they would like to go back to their home village. They would like to have peace. They would like to go back to the life they had before. Whether it was Yazidis, Syrian Christians, or Kurds, they wanted this settled so they could go back and live their lives as they did before.
We needed to build strong institutions. That continues to be a need in the area. That was one of the reasons why, when the Arab Spring broke out, a lot of people in that area had great hope for what would happen. However, the institutions that needed to be put in place at that time were not strong enough to handle the opportunity that they had.
We talk about investing significantly in humanitarian assistance. We have done that in the past. We are proud of the commitment that we made. There is a challenge. In order to deliver that humanitarian assistance, we need to have a secure situation. We have heard time and time again about the challenge to deliver, for example, food aid securely. We heard that food aid was being hijacked. We heard that in Syria in particular the government would take over the food aid. There was no idea where it was going. Without a strong military presence, without that strong military capacity, we cannot even guarantee that humanitarian aid will get to where it needs to go.
It is all fine and well for the government to talk about these things but we need to understand that it is not going to have the capacity to be able to deliver on the kinds of things it is talking about.
We have heard from the other side that there are all kinds of reasons why this has happened. Climate change was mentioned. The defence minister talked about how this is a criminal organization, that this is all about criminal activity. The reality is that in order to deal with this death cult, as my colleague called it, we need to have a strong military capacity, a strong military response. We need to be part of a coalition that can do that.
I am afraid we are just not doing our job. We are not pulling our weight. We did in the past and we need to do that again. The Liberal government needs to reconsider the direction it is going in.
