Tony Clement

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, of course we on this side of the House know that we have to be part of the longer-term plan. Once ISIS is displaced from its territory, there has to be a plan, there is no question about that. The Iraqi government has to be able to be a force in bringing people together in that country, which, during the al-Maliki period, it was not. There is no question about that. Of course, there has to be some kind of political resolution in Syria that again brings people together, in a way that they can do safely in the face of homicidal government.

The hon. member is correct, but she should realize that as long as the Islamic State has territory and controls territory, it is a threat. It is a threat to peace in the region, to stability in the region, and to stability in Libya now as its tentacles move further away from Iraq and Syria, and it projects its violence around the world. That is the point. That is why air cover is necessary for the military objectives. We have humanitarian objectives and diplomatic objectives as well, but for the military objectives, the aerial cover is not only important but absolutely critically necessary.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a good point. There seems to be, on the other side of this chamber in the Liberal government, a reluctance to use terms like “genocide”, like “terrorism”, and like “Islamic extremism”. The fact of the matter is each of these terms applies to the Islamic State. They do not have to take our word for it. Ask the Yazidis, ask the Christians, and ask the minority Islamic sects who have been targeted by the Islamic State. This is a war not only against our modern notions of civilization; this is a war against people in the region, who are the first line of targets and violence by these homicidal maniacs.

I do believe we have a responsibility and a duty to protect them as part of this grander alliance. To remove the aerial cover is a wrong decision. It cannot be defended, from a military point of view but also from a moral point of view.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Islamic State is a threat both to regional security and to global security. The sooner it is dismantled and holds not one square centimetre of territory, the better the world will be. There is no question about that.

Let me just expand quickly on my point about Mosul. The next move of the coalition is to displace Islamic State from the city of Mosul. Let us be clear for people perhaps watching from home. The Islamic State is not a bunch of guys in tents in the desert. It controls a city of one million people, the city of Mosul. To displace the Islamic State and its ability to use all the resources of a major centre like Mosul for its death and destruction is a key element in the eradication of the ISIS threat. That is the next project of the alliance, and that is why Canada has to be in the air as well as on the ground.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a couple of things.

The Liberal government uses this 2% number, but I have gone through the actual facts and figures of the 249 sorties, and the impact they have had in reducing and degrading the ability of the Islamic State to wreak its havoc, death, and destruction in the region and to project that violence to other corners of the globe as well. I would say to the hon. member that we should be training and engaged in support services. Indeed, were we on the other side of this chamber over the last few months, we may have made those same decisions as well in terms of upping our training. We are not against that.

However, the fact of the matter is that the aerial mission remains a critical component of the campaign. As the hon. member may know, there are discussions going on in defence ministries around the alliance to move ahead against Mosul, to liberate Mosul from the grip of the Islamic State. Aerial power is going to be critical to that endeavour.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate, surrounded by colleagues of the Conservative caucus, as we continue to debate this motion on the future mission against the Islamic State.

I thought I would start with bit of background information for the members, and for those perhaps watching on television, about the mission to date, particularly the mission regarding Canada's CF-18s. I think the numbers speak for themselves about what our brave women and men have already accomplished with respect to this mission and how it has impacted on the general mission, Operation Impact.

As of the beginning of this month, Canada's CF-18s have successfully embarked on 249 missions against ISIS fighting positions, 83 missions against ISIS equipment and vehicles, and 24 sorties against ISIS improvised explosive device factories and storage.

Clearly our women and men have been very impactful in Operation Impact, and they have contributed importantly to a very important mission. Canadians agree with that. Public opinion research has been very steady on this matter since the debate was raised by the current Liberal government. Over two-thirds of Canadians in fact support the continuation of the mission, that is to say, the use of our CF-18s in air strikes against ISIS positions.

That is the reality on the ground in Syria and Iraq, and that is the reality here in Canada as we go forward.

The Conservatives firmly believe that Canada should maintain its air combat role in the fight against ISIS and terrorism and that our CF-18s should be part of that fight.

That is our position. We have expressed it in this place in question period, and during this debate as well. We believe that the withdrawal from the combat mission against ISIS is a step backward from Canada's traditional role as fighters for human rights and international security.

Canada has a long, proud history of defending innocent and vulnerable populations by taking on those who commit mass atrocities. That is exactly the situation that is being countered by our allies in Iraq and Syria as we speak.

I would make the point that the ISIS and ISIS-inspired attacks have now spread beyond Iraq and Syria. This is an issue and challenge that is spread all around the world, in North America and other places where Canadians have been attacked.

Canadians have been attacked in recent weeks. Therefore, halting and degrading the Islamic State is more critical than ever to keeping people safe, not only perhaps in what some Canadians would view as faraway lands, but this has a direct impact on our safety and security here at home as well.

There is no question that Canada is a key ally.

Canada is a key ally in the air combat mission. It is currently the fifth-largest participant. It is extremely irresponsible of the government not only to reduce Canada's contribution, but to do so for political purposes.

It is very clear that the current Liberal government is using its past positions in this place, and its rhetoric during the election campaign, to step back from a critical mission. I would say to my hon. friends on the other side that if they need political cover to do the right thing, believe me, on this side of the House, we would be standing with them. If they would come clean to the people of Canada and say that things have changed since the election, that things are different after the Paris attacks, that they have seen the important work that our brave women and men were doing in the aerial campaign and they want to change their minds, on this side of the House, we would be applauding them.

We would not make any partisan jabs or jibes. This would not be a time where we would try to one-up them and say they are flip-flopping. There are a lot of issues they are flip-flopping on, but on this one, we want them to do the right thing.

They are willing to blow past their promise on a $10 billion deficit, and it is going to be multiples of that now. That promise they do not want to keep: the fiscal responsibility promise. However, now the Liberals feel that they have an important promise to keep at a time when we are needed to be side by side with our allies. That is the unconscionable part of the motion before us, and why we feel so strongly that we have to move to another position on this side of the House. We will, of course, be voting against the motion.

ISIS has declared war. At one point, Canada's Minister of National Defence said that there is no real war here. On the contrary, when the other side declares war on us and has the military means to act against our interests and against the safety of our citizenry, then whether we like it or not, there is a war going on.

ISIS has declared war on Canada and our allies. It is critical that the government continue to fight alongside our allies to defend and protect the safety of Canadians here and abroad.

I would say more in sorrow than in anger that the Liberals remain incoherent on this air combat mission. They have not provided a scintilla of explanation as to how the withdrawal of the CF-18s will help the coalition more effectively defeat ISIS.

Despite the Liberal government's opposition to the bombing, Canadian aircraft are still there refuelling the planes that conduct the air strikes and identifying targets for them. The Liberals are against the bombing but they are helping the bombing. This is the kind of incoherence that confuses our allies and that makes us, quite frankly, a laughingstock in the corridors of power of our allies. This is why we on this side of the House demand a more coherent strategy to work with our allies, to be on their side not only behind the scenes at the meetings we know take place, but to be up front. That is the message we want to send to the enemy. That is the help we want to give our allies. The government's motion is incoherent and contrary to the interests of Canadians.

We are a great country. We can do a lot of things simultaneously. We can be involved in the diplomatic mission, we can be involved in the humanitarian mission, and we can be involved in the aerial mission. We can contribute to the air strikes alongside the training, the humanitarian support, and the diplomatic endeavours to seek to contain the Islamic State.

Our personnel have been very effective over the past year. President Obama has said that air strikes are a key pillar in the fight against the Islamic State. Members do not have to believe me. They can believe the Democrat in the White House if they so choose.

While we support having a focus on humanitarian and security assistance, which is simply a continuation of what the Conservative Party did whilst in government, we should not distract from the effectiveness of the CF-18s in the mission.

The Prime Minister is sometimes prone to a bit of rhetorical fancy. He said, “The lethal enemy of barbarism isn't hatred. It's reason.” If reason is the answer, what reason justifies backing away from a just fight? This fight is just. This could be the fight of our generation. Alas, it could be the fight of future generations. I wish it were not the case but it could very well be the case.

The Prime Minister and the Liberals have said that Canada is back and yet one of the first substantive things that government did was to back away from the fight of a generation. We on this side of the House cannot countenance that. We cannot support that. We cannot vote for that. We will be voting against this resolution.

[Foreign Affairs, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this very place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and I quote:

...the government has very stringent criteria for determining [who will be provided] humanitarian aid. We control every aspect from A to Z.

This is in stark contrast to an interview given by the Minister of International Development last week, who acknowledged that aid could go to Islamic State fighters.

Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs confused? Are Canadian tax dollars going to terrorists?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech in the House, of course we support the idea of democracy and the idea that we can discuss all of the issues surrounding this question here in this country. I must point out, however, that because of the situation facing the State of Israel, it is important to protect that state, both now and in the future.

It is important that we have a proper discussion. No democracy is perfect. No democracy is without rancour or questioning. However, we must not support a movement that seeks the eradication of this democracy.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is so important to have this discussion here in the House of Commons, which lies at the heart of our democracy. At the same time, it is important to protect a democracy in the Middle East that is being attacked by everyone all the time, by this movement and by other nations that would prefer that the State of Israel did not exist at all.

It is important to protect this democracy because there are forces in the world, in the region, I dare say in our country, unfortunately, but also around the world, that wish Israel did not exist, and that quite frankly support any movement that could eradicate Israel from the face of the earth.

I would encourage the hon. member to support the motion because I think this is an important principle, not only of Canadian foreign policy, but of human rights as well.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that we do not want this motion to be a partisan issue, not at all.

We are here because we believe it is critically important to support the Jewish State of Israel against a movement that seeks to isolate it in the world. I think this motion accurately reflects Canadian values, Canadian interests, Canadian principles, and Canadian morality. I will take no offence if the hon. members opposite vote for the motion.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

moved:

That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I seek to divide my time with my hon. colleague and seatmate, the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I am glad that the House will be discussing and debating this very important issue. For those who are watching or listening in, I will be talking a lot about something called BDS, which is an acronym for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement that seeks to delegitimize and isolate Israel, and quite frankly single Israel out around the world.

The premise behind this movement is the promotion of the odious narrative that Israel is uniquely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Further, the activists who are involved in this movement push for a complete worldwide boycott of the only Liberal democracy in the Middle East, while simultaneously exempting some of the worst human rights offenders in the world from equivalent attention.

These boycotts manifest themselves in many ways, from pressuring consumers not to buy Israeli products to calling on universities to cut ties with Israeli academia, to calling for Israeli athletes to be banned from international sports competitions.

By advocating these things, these activists are assaulting all Israelis of all political persuasions and of all opinions within that country. They use the discourse that is uniquely reserved for pariah states, and apply this standard, uniquely and singularly, to the Middle East's only Liberal democracy and the world's only Jewish state.

It is clear that the intent of those in favour of this movement is not to resolve the conflict but to single out Israel and contest the Jewish state's right to be treated with fairness.

I would put it before this House that this BDS movement is actually a form of discrimination. In targeting all Israelis, BDS is a present-day blacklist and a form of discrimination, strictly based on national origin. Just like boycotts have targeted Jews throughout history, today BDS activists call on boycotting people who come from the Jewish state.

I would stress that it is in no way pro-Palestinian; it is in fact anti-Israel. I would put it to my colleagues and members of this chamber that BDS actually undermines peace. It does nothing to bring the two sides together, to promote peace or improve the quality of life for Palestinian citizens. Indeed, BDS absurdly lays the blame completely on Israel, and completely refutes any other responsibilities, including Palestinian responsibilities. If BDS were successful, the livelihood of thousands of Palestinians employed by Israeli companies would be in jeopardy.

In addition, BDS imports the conflict by illegitimately targeting businesses, universities, and civil society institutions. BDS tries to bring the conflict in the Middle East to Canada. Canadian organizations should never be used as a vehicle for social exclusion and the demonization of Canadians based on their national origin.

As I said, this movement imports the conflict. By illegitimately targeting businesses, universities, and civil society institutions, it tries to bring the conflict in the Middle East to Canada.

Canadian organizations should never be used as a vehicle for social exclusion and demonization of Canadians based on their national origin.

Already this movement has had some consequences which are injurious. An example of this is the BDS target of the company SodaStream. In September 2015, SodaStream moved its factory out of the West Bank and into the Negev as a direct result of this boycott movement. The Palestinian employees were the victims of this move. Yet these misguided activists claimed it as a win.

This is just one example of how this movement can be used for nefarious purposes. We on this side of the House value our freedoms. We value our rights and value the ability to speak freely and to act freely. This is not what this debate is about. This is not a motion that would seek to shut down people expressing themselves either in the marketplace or in the political commons. We should take a stand. This is an important issue not only for Israelis, but for Canadians of all points of view who value the proper discourse and value a democracy in, let us be frank, a very bad neighbourhood of the world.

I seek all members of all political parties to side with us. This is not a partisan issue. Side with us on this motion. Send a strong message to our fellow Canadians and to freedom lovers around the world and support this motion.