Jason Kenney

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, only in the distorted world view of the NDP could striking targets of a genocidal terrorist organization that has declared hostility toward Canada and indeed civilization, such as the Islamic State, be considered doing damage to Syria.

The member contends that this motion is limiting debate. In point of fact, the actual consultation of the House through the motion before us is relatively unprecedented. This is a new practice introduced by this government. There was no constitutional, statutory or even conventional obligation for the government in exercising the royal prerogative in the deployment of Canadian troops to consult with the House of Commons. Therefore, every hour of debate that we have in this place, including the 15 hours on this motion, is extraordinary. It is an extraordinary opening to the democratically-represented voices of the people in the House.

I would point out that I was here for I think 13 of the 14 hours of debate on Thursday and the New Democrats were not really interested in the substance of the debate. They all read the same canned speeches. It is simply a parliamentary tactic to delay all of the government's business, to delay the people's business.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, none of that is true. I would point out that there is probably a reason why the member for Winnipeg North does not want to discuss the matter before us, which is the motion to limit debate, because his party has already limited debate. His party has put up I believe two or three speakers. I think last week on Thursday the Liberals missed several of their designated speaking slots.

That is the party that committed Canadian ground troops to what turned out to be a decade-long and costly war in terms of treasure, talent and the sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan without ever having come to this place. We have already had more debate just on the renewal of Operation Impact than we have had in 10 years in this place under the previous government on the operation against the Taliban.

With respect to precision-guided munitions, what I reported to the public last week was precisely verbatim of what I had been briefed by the military, which has been confirmed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, contrary to inaccurate media reports. The Chief of the Defence Staff said:

The weapons that will be employed [by the RCAF] will be amongst the most advanced precision-guided munitions in the world. The[y]...are equipped with laser and GPS guidance systems, giving Canada the ability to strike targets in all types of weather. Currently, only the United States uses these advanced precision-guided munitions in Syria.

Our highly trained pilots can use these advanced precision-guided munitions to strike targets either deliberately, or dynamically....This is a significant capability which, currently, only the US employs in Syria.

That is what I was briefed by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 30th, 2015]

In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, since the member has referenced public opinion, I would note that in several public domain, empirical public opinion surveys, some two-thirds of Canadians expressed accord for an extension of our mission against the genocidal terrorist organization, the so-called Islamic State. In the most recent Ipsos-Reid survey, some 56% of people who intend to vote for the New Democratic Party, so the vast majority of supporters of his own party, disagree with his ideological and rigid position on this.

I would note that contrary to what the member suggested, this is not legislation. This is a motion the government has tabled to seek a sense of the House. That is done, frankly, ex gratia. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement for the government to table a motion of this nature. In fact, this is a relatively new practice in this place.

I would point out that the previous government committed thousands of Canadian ground troops to a very difficult battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan without even seeking a sense of this place. However, there have already been in the debate on this discretionary motion 21 speakers for the NDP and altogether well over 50 speakers, and it will be 15 hours of debate. That compares to the seven hours of debate that occurred on a similar motion at the Westminster Parliament a few months ago. This is in addition to the dozens of hours of debate and speeches that occurred, on essentially the same mission, last October.

This is an extraordinary new precedent this government is setting to consult this place. However, the consultation, of course, has to have some parameters. It is not an invitation for the House leader for the NDP to stall the government legislative mandate, which of course we have an obligation to implement, further to the last election.

[National Defence, March 30th, 2015]

Yes Mr. Speaker, they are, according to the Secretary-General of NATO.

[National Defence, March 30th, 2015]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Degrading the genocidal, fanatical terrorist organization, the so-called Islamic State will be helpful to regional security, which is why every single country in the region is involved in the military operation against ISIS. It is why 60 countries are supporting the overall allied coalition. By the way, all 28 NATO countries are supporting the operation in one shape or form against ISIL—

[National Defence, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is an inherent risk involved in any military deployment or operation. Having said that, the advice I have received consistently from our military is that the Syrian military does not have radar coverage in that part of Syria. Indeed, we have observed that hundreds, if not thousands, of sorties against ISIL have been flown by the United States and other allies in operations against the genocidal terrorist organization, the so-called Islamic State, in eastern Syria. We are not aware of any efforts to challenge them. Neither ISIL nor the Syrian state has challenged any of those flights.

Our assessment is that the risk is no greater flying in that part of Syria than it has been in Iraq to date.

[National Defence, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member for St. John's East is incorrect.

The statement of the Chief of the Defence Staff confirmed what I said, which was based on the advice I received from the military indicating that currently only the United States is using precision-guided munitions of this nature against ISIL targets. The Royal Canadian Air Force, I am advised by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the military, has amongst the best, most advanced precision-guided munitions in the world that can hit dynamic targets, and that only the United States is currently using against the genocidal terrorist organization.

It is regrettable, however, that the NDP wants Canada to sit on the sidelines in the fight against this genocidal—

[National Defence, March 30th, 2015]

No, Mr. Speaker. I completely agree with the General.

However, the hon. member is wrong because the United States and Canada will be the only allied countries using precision guided munitions to strike targets dynamically. That is a very important asset.

That is one of the reasons why the United States encouraged Canada to broaden the scope of its military mission against the genocidal terrorist organization known as the Islamic State, namely so that we can hit these dynamic targets using our precision guided munitions, which are among the best in the world.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the member's entire speech was based on complete rubbish. He is confusing two completely different facts.

Yes, there are some 2 million Syrian refugees to whose humanitarian relief we have contributed more than $700 million as the sixth-largest donor nation. He is confusing that population of 2 million with the $67.1 million that we have contributed to the some 200,000 internally displaced Iraqis since last August, which actually works out to about $335 per refugee. He is wrong by a factor of 20. We are the fifth-largest contributor to humanitarian relief of the 200,000 IDPs in Iraq. That is not 5¢ a day. It is 20 times that.

We are the fifth-largest contributor, and we are by far the largest per capita contributor of any developed industrialized country. We should be proud of our enormous, disproportionate contribution.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that speech was regrettable for a couple of reasons, one of which is that about 80% was verbatim the template speech of New Democratic MPs. I have been here for 11 hours. I think I have heard that speech four times verbatim.

Point two, I think it is really unfortunate for the member to characterize those who believe we must use military force to stop the growth of a genocidal terrorist organization as being “warmongers” who want to kill people.

In point of fact, what the government and 24 other countries want, including the many social democratic governments of Europe, such as those of France and Denmark, which have similar policies and similar military activity, is to save lives, to save ethnic minorities, and to save women and girls from the brutality of this organization.

The hon. member quoted one constituent. That is fine. However, I would point out to the member that I have been several times to the Chaldean parish in his constituency in Surrey North, which is the home of about 1,000 Chaldean-Canadians, almost all of them refugees. The size of the parish has tripled in the past several years because of this government's Iraqi refugee resettlement program.

I have spent a lot of time with the Chaldeans in his riding. I wonder if he has. If he has, would he not admit that every member of that community wants Canada to engage in a military action against ISIL? They want their relatives to be able to go back to their homes in the Nineveh plains. They understand that region. They understand Iraq, and they know that only through an appropriate use of force will ISIL be stopped.

Has he talked to them, and why does he disregard the voices of the Chaldean-Iraqi refugees in his own constituency?