House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 76% of the vote.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 23rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, we are having this debate in the House after the CF-18s were withdrawn. This debate was set up for hon. members to discuss how this mission should be carried out. Yet, after the motion was put forward, we find out that the bombing mission was actually stopped before we even had a chance to have this debate.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 23rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this has transpired extremely quickly. At one point, we saw that ISIS forces were attacking the outskirts of Baghdad and we came to their defence. By using our fighters, we have managed to slow down that progress.
Our CF-18 fighters have done 1,378 sorties, there have been 251 air strikes, and we have hit and destroyed over 399 targets. This has defended our troops and enabled us to push this scourge back.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 23rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, we are supposedly in a non-combat role. We are stepping back. We are putting soldiers out there and not protecting them with the forces that we have. We have to make certain that we, as a country, can send our forces and troops into a situation where they have air cover to protect them throughout the whole region and throughout their endeavours.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 23rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
I am privileged to rise in the House to speak to this motion. I come from a family that has been involved with the Canadian Forces for many years and I have a profound level of respect and gratitude for our men and women in uniform. Each and every one of them has made a sacrifice to protect the great country of Canada, and not just they, but their families as well.
Because of this deeply rooted level of respect, I find it difficult to make sense of the government's actions when it comes to the global fight against ISIS. One of the biggest issues is the withdrawal of our CF-18s. Canada has been the fifth-largest contributor to the air combat mission against ISIS. This is a mission that has helped our allies, as they have stated in the past.
The foreign minister for the Kurdistan regional government said that not only were the CF-18 air strikes helpful and effective, he requested that they continue. If this is not a clear request for assistance by the Canadian Forces, then I do not know what is.
Canada has a long history of defending innocent and vulnerable people by taking on those who have committed mass atrocities, which is exactly what ISIS has done and continues to do. Why then does the government refuse to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies and assist them in this fight?
Not only is there a lack of air combat support, but also a lack of clarity as to why the CF-18s were withdrawn. Not a single person has been able to explain why our CF-18s must be removed from the air campaign. Even more unclear is the decision to keep our refuelling and reconnaissance planes as part of the mission despite the fact that our fighter planes that provide air cover to victims of ISIS in Iraq and Syria have been withdrawn.
This logic is completely incomprehensible. The Liberals are trying to play politics and keep campaign promises while people's lives are at stake. The lack of clarity surrounding the use of military assets is astounding. According to the government, we are willing to paint targets, conduct surveillance, provide fuel for bombers, yet we will not drop any Canadian bombs or provide air coverage for our own troops. This is not the kind of help that our allies need, nor is there any type of logic behind this decision.
A few hours south of my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain lies the Little Bighorn Battlefield historic site in Montana. It is a beautiful location in the great western plains. The history of Custer's last stand where the U.S. 7th Cavalry under Colonel Custer was wiped out by the Lakota and their allies has been well explored by military historians.
An enduring lesson from the battle in 1876 was that conflicting military objectives would lead to the needless deaths of soldiers. Custer split his troops and resources in what he believed was a useful way, only to be wiped out by the Lakota, who took advantage of an untenable plan, a lack of resources, and a simple unwillingness to agree with what Custer wanted to do.
I reference the past not only because it allows me to talk about an area near my beautiful riding, but because it is a bit of history the government can learn from as we discuss the motion on Canadian military involvement against ISIS. Much like Custer who believed his plan was right but was proven to be impetuous, the government, believing it is right, is presenting Canadians with an incoherent plan that appears to be impetuous.
The government would like us to believe that it was elected by Canadians to refocus Canada's military contribution against ISIS to training local forces, providing more humanitarian support, and to immediately welcome refugees to Canada. To fulfill one of the many tales it promised Canadians in order to get elected, the Liberal government is now ending the combat mission against ISIS.
The government has announced it will increase humanitarian funding in the area to help those displaced by the scourge of ISIS. It is announced that it will increase the number of Canadian troops in the area in a training and advisory role so that it may better prepare the allied forces to fight against the scourge that is ISIS. It was announced that it will pull some military resources from this arena and that all will be good in the plan on how to deal with ISIS.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that ISIS would agree with the government. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Vance, said the Canadian mission is not a combat role, yet ISIS has not agreed to that plan by the government.
I am uncertain how the government's plan to withdraw against ISIS yet leave our troops active to counter the scourge of ISIS without proper resources and scattered in different locations will be a benefit in defeating an enemy that has declared its intention to be at war with the values of religious diversity, human dignity, economic freedom, and a belief in individual human rights that we, as Canadians, believe help to define us.
Canada's air campaign against ISIS has helped to destroy ISIS troops and supplies. It has contributed to ISIS not being able to do as it pleases in trying to create the caliphate of terror and destruction. To pull the CF-18 resources no longer allows us to participate in these activities.
The biggest military difference between the forces of ISIS and the Canadian military is an air force.
The Battle of Britain in World War II was won thanks to the many brave pilots of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and others. This battle led to the defeat of the Nazi regime. The ISIS air force is non-existent. Canadian Forces had an advantage, but have now decided to play fair, despite the fact that ISIS is not playing fair, and therefore removed that advantage.
While our allies are stepping up with contributions to the destruction of ISIS, Canada is cutting and drawing away. Canada is placing humanitarian aid at the forefront of its activities before ISIS is defeated. Canada is offering to train forces in Iraq to counter ISIS. Canada wants to do all the administrative tasks of monitoring, training, education, provisions of social services, before the war against ISIS is finished.
The Canadian resourcefulness that the government talks about appears to be “let others do the work, while we stand in the background and offer our advice”. We are becoming the back-seat drivers in a war zone. Canada is showing its back to its allies. Sunny ways indeed.
We, as Canadians, have an obligation to stand up for the victims of genocide, to fight against the extremist ideology, and to protect Canadians at home and abroad. I am sure everyone remembers the tragic events that took the lives of two Canadian soldiers back in 2014. These were ISIS-inspired attacks that happened right here at home. How can the government justify the decision to step back from this international fight against terrorism when Canadians are being murdered, both at home and abroad?
The public opinion of Canadians is also being ignored by the government. A February 6 poll found that 63% of Canadians say that they would like to see Canada continue bombing ISIS at the current rate or go further and increase the number of bombing missions it conducts; 47% say that withdrawing Canadian CF-18s from the mission will have a negative effect on Canada's international reputation.
We know that the 47% of Canadians are right. Canada was snubbed by our own coalition allies when we were not invited to attend an anti-ISIS meeting that was held in Paris in January. The snub happened just after the government signalled its intentions to withdraw our CF-18s from the air combat effort. Under our previous Conservative government, Canada was hosting these meetings, and yet now, due to decisions made by the Liberals, we are not even invited to attend.
The opinions of Canadians are clear. The requests for assistance from our allies are clear. The only thing lacking clarity is the reason behind the government's choice to step back from the fight against ISIS. The government motion mentioned significant investments in humanitarian assistance, which while necessary do nothing to solve the issue of the root of the problem. This is putting a band-aid over the issue. It is forcing our allies to fight without the help of our combat resources for no reason other than the Liberals wishing to keep campaign promises.
It is disingenuous and dangerous to our soldiers for the government to believe that combat training, humanitarian interventions, and dialogue with countries affected by ISIS in an active war zone is a coherent plan. A whole bunch of highly trained assets are being sidelined by a government that promised to let facts and science guide its decisions. The Lakota were not interested in Custer's plan, and wiped him out. I do not suspect ISIS will care much about the government's plan either.
In closing, I wish to offer my sincere thanks to each and every woman and man in our Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Canadian Reservists, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who partake in these dangerous operations. I wish them Godspeed and a safe return to their family, friends, and country.
Natural Resources February 19th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, does the delay-and-study party, a.k.a. the Liberals, understand that the people of Saskatchewan are hurting? The downturn in the oil and gas industry has left thousands of Saskatchewanians out of work. I see the devastating effects every time I drive in my riding.
Now the Liberals are scheming to impose a carbon tax, against the will of Canadians in Saskatchewan. Why are they imposing a job-killing carbon tax at a time when people in the energy sector are losing their jobs daily?
Charitable Giving February 5th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kelly and Jo-Ann Panteluk and their children Riley, Mary, and Elly. Last year they financed the construction of the high-tech running track for the Saskatchewan Summer Games in Estevan this July 2016. They have sponsored teams in minor softball, baseball, and hockey.
With the reality of the downturn in the economy in Saskatchewan, often times donations are placed on the back burner. However, this family makes an impact to Saskatchewan as a whole. On January 12, 2016, the Panteluks made a $450,000 donation to the Children's Hospital Foundation of Saskatchewan on top of a $50,000 hospital donation made earlier to the Child Life Zone, a new multidisciplinary room that will provide space for children at risk to genetic, neuromotor, and metabolic disorders.
The Panteluks are a humble family. They do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They give back to their community, their province, and their country.
I am thankful to Kelly and Jo-Ann.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2016
Madam Speaker, we do have an obligation to take care of our environment for the betterment of tomorrow's Canadians, but Canadians need jobs now to feed their families and save for retirement. They do not have time to wait.
The member talks about the economy and what the government will do. Can the member tell us how we are to respond to the welders, mechanics, roughnecks, motor hands, derrick hands, drillers, rig managers, tong crews, well site supervisors, geologists, and the owners and operators of trucking companies that move the pipe, who will be left out in the cold because this infrastructure program the government is proposing will not help them in the slightest?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, Souris—Moose Mountain is a riding in Saskatchewan where the pipeline will go. The pipeline is coming through a community called Moosomin. Moosomin is supposed to get a receipt and delivery terminal, otherwise known as a tank farm, which will accommodate 1.05 million barrels of oil.
In the two-year process of building this tank farm, there are projected to be 150 jobs, which will come from local welders, builders, and construction.
I would ask the member if he could comment on where he sees other losses in the industry as this progresses.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply January 26th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I really understood the question put by the member to me. However, I can say that there has been a national energy program that has looked at and assessed all the issues of pipelines. It has gone through all the proper steps, has done the assessments and came up with the assessment to say that these are the steps that need to be met. It is up to the proponents to come up and finish those comments.
A lot of these processes would be furthered if members from the New Democratic Party would stand up and support the process.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply January 26th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and the comments about infrastructure.
In Estevan in my riding, there are thousands of areas and communities that have put out applications. These are out there, and they have been waiting. They were told they were being put on hold because of the election. The election was in October. There is time enough for people to turn around and say what has been approved, what is out there, and to get it out there so that they can get those things going. These communities have shovel-ready projects already set up and ready to do those things. It is just a question of the government giving them the okay.