John McKay

Mr. Speaker, it is more than mildly ludicrous for Conservatives to lecture this government. Their requirements went from $9 billion, to $16 billion, to $26 billion, to $42 billion, to $45 billion, and they are telling us how to manage a procurement.We have a capability gap. We have to manage the NATO requirements and the NORAD requirements. Those two requirements create a capability gap, which we no longer are prepared to manage; hence the decision this week.

Madam Speaker, it is only the Conservative opposition that can turn happy news into bad news.Surely to goodness it is good news that the barracks did not have to be used. Surely to goodness the ultimate deployment of $6 million to upgrade the facilities is good news. The good news is that all of these refugees are now located where they should be, in the towns and cities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, for the sixth time, Bill Browder was arrested on an Interpol arrest warrant. Mr. Browder has been tireless in his advocacy of the Magnitsky legislation. To retaliate, Russia has added him to the Interpol warrant list. Could the Minister of Public Safety speak to what the Government of Canada is doing to ensure that individuals unjustly blacklisted by Russia, such as Mr. Browder, will not be unlawfully detained if they come to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I have my Kleenex at the ready, in case I cannot get through this. I want to continue the theme that the hon. member has spoken about, which is that this is a God moment. Seldom do we hear a speech in this chamber that is filled with such honesty, such directness and such frankness. There was such candour that I actually looked up the definition of “candour” in the dictionary while he was speaking. It said “he spoke with a degree of candour unusual in political life”. Indeed, the hon. member's speech was unusual in the political life of us all, because we do not speak with candour, as we should. That is the tension of people of faith who work in this chamber. The priorities and beliefs of faith do not always line up with the needs and desires of being a practising politician. I know that the hon. member has faced that tension. I know that many of us in this chamber face that tension. I would say that the hon. member has navigated that tension about as well as any of us, because his candour in his admission of his faith in Jesus Christ is not something we hear every day in this chamber. In some circles, frankly, it is frowned upon.The hon. member has, from time to time, joined us all at the prayer breakfast. It is probably the one hour in the entire week when we are no longer Liberals, no longer Conservatives, no longer NDP; we are just members of a faith community. Then as members of a faith community, we actually pray for each other. I know the hon. member has been a subject of our prayers in the last while, as have others, to be frank.I would ask the hon. member how he has navigated that tension, but I would also ask him whether he has sung with his singing colleagues the song with the lyric, “thou hast taught me to say...it is well with my soul”?

Mr. Speaker, all of us are incredibly proud of the work that our troops are doing to eliminate the threat of Daesh in that region.Our troops are equipped with robust rules of engagement that allow them to protect themselves, our partners, and civilians from emerging and immediate threat.I can say it no better than General Rouleau, who said, “My forces continue to advise and assist Iraqi security forces in their fight through the provision of training, advice, and planning, and the conduct of those operations is in accordance with our mandate with the CDS orders and the rules of engagement.”

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a coalition. The coalition has quite a number of partners. We do some things very well. Advise, assist, and train, we do very well. Intelligence missions, we do very well. We are engaged, as I say, in a coalition. We are working together to delete this scourge from that particular part of the world. The idea of this coalition is to end this combat. We are contributing in a significant and major way.

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin placed one of his fiercest critics, Bill Browder, on Interpol's most wanted list for the fifth time. It was removed a few hours ago for the fifth time. Mr. Browder led the campaign seeking justice for murdered Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. The notice was submitted to Interpol one day after this Parliament unanimously passed Magnitsky legislation.Does the Minister of Public Safety believe this is an appropriate use of Interpol resources?

Madam Speaker, the dream of home ownership seems to be moving further and further away from middle-class Canadians in my riding of Scarborough—Guildwood. While many of my constituents try to save for what will likely be the biggest investment in their lives, we continue to see stories of rampant speculation by certain individuals who cheat the system.Would the Minister of National Revenue update the House and all Canadians on the progress made to crack down on those who do not comply with real estate tax laws?

Mr. Speaker, as I said in earlier responses, this is sensitive information. This is critical information. This is information that we simply do not want to have in the wrong hands. Therefore, non-disclosure is a sine qua non for those who are handling that information. We have asked those who are handling that information to sign non-disclosure agreements, which extend past their employment with the crown, and—

Mr. Speaker, General Vance has actually done us all a service in pointing out that the conflicts that will be going on now and in the future will largely be conflicts that will not get easily resolved; hence, the important emphasis on assisting, training, advising, and intelligence. That is what the minister and the chief of the defence staff have been emphasizing as they engage further in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, maybe a little Conservative history would be in order.When the Conservatives announced the F-35 purchase, it was 65 jets for $9 billion. Nine billion dollars became $16 billion; $16 billion then became $25 billion to $27 billion; $25 billion to $27 billion became $42 billion to $45 billion. Then the Conservatives were the only government in the history of Canada actually cited for contempt. Then they dropped the program. Now the jets are 10 years older; and, now the minister is trying to repair this very unfortunate situation largely caused by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has been saying for the entire week, we are trying to manage the capability gap, and no decisions have been made. Therefore, the question is based upon gossip and rumour, and wherever else the hon. member gets his source of information. At this point, no decision has been taken.

Mr. Speaker, that is from a member of Parliament who was part of a government that made lapsing military funding an art form in order to get to a bogus balanced budget.There are no monies being cut from projects. Had the members opposite spent more time getting the fiscal and procurement cycles in order instead of climbing in and out of fake airplanes, and did the hard work that is needed to match those cycles, then just possibly, the men and women in uniform would be getting their—

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to remind the hon. member that there was an election. In the election, the Prime Minister's position was very clear. The position of the former prime minister was very clear, and Canadians made a very clear choice. The very clear choice was to give this government a mandate to refashion that mission, which all of the ministers and the Prime Minister are engaged in while refashioning the mission into one that is acceptable to Canadians. That will be produced in due course.

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is absolutely incorrect.The deferment of funds was entirely due to the inability of the previous government to match fiscal cycles with procurement cycles. As a consequence, the money that the member references has actually been pushed off to future years and available to equip the men and women in uniform in the manner that they need to be, unlike the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member inadvertently gave me an illustration of the problem we face, which is that he has “information from abroad”. We cannot, under any circumstances, react to information from abroad, which would potentially jeopardize the security of our troops.I am sure the hon. member would not wish to pursue the issue of jeopardizing the security of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to an open and transparent process to replace the CF-18 fighter. Regrettably, the previous government left behind a procurement process that is so Byzantine as to defy anyone trying to get major procurements through. As a consequence, the only procurement that was obtained in the last 10 years was a photo op with the previous minister on a plywood F-35, along with the leader of the opposition.We intend to get—

Mr. Speaker, it is true that our soldiers will be at greater risk, as was said by the Chief of the Defence Staff. However, I cannot do better than quote him at the committee yesterday where he said, in an engagement like this, “...specifically allow Canadian Forces to defend themselves, anticipate their defence so that they can engage a hostile act, or a hostile act or an intent before it materializes.”Therefore, our soldiers are not engaged in combat, they are allowed to defend themselves, and their rules of engagement are clear for all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to explain what he does not get about democracy.We have had an election over the past year, the longest election campaign in Canadian history. The decision of the Canadian people was definitive on October 19.We then had a debate here for four or five days, with 98 speakers. The vote this week was definitive.What part of democracy does the hon. member not get? We have debated this and debated this. The people have spoken. It is unfortunate for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, it is passingly strange to get a question from the Conservatives about the fiscal mess left behind. There was a perpetual mismatch between the procurement cycle and the fiscal cycle, and the Minister of National Defence is now trying to rectify that. Accordingly, there are no funds that will be not applied to projects as they are needed.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to getting the best possible equipment at the best possible price for our men and women in uniform. Today, we are risk-managing a gap between our NORAD commitments and our NATO commitments, in part because we inherited a bit of a mess from the previous government. No decision has been made on the replacement of the CF-18s. All commentary to the contrary is merely rumour and speculation.

Madam Speaker, the CAF has been engaged, along with other elements in the government, in this massive repatriating of these refugees. It has contributed to the medical screenings, to the air lift, and to the potential housing. However, because Canadians have stepped up, the housing that was renovated at the time, in anticipation of the refugees coming to our country, was not used.The happy consequence is that these refugees are—

Madam Speaker, members will be interested to know that in the last four years, while that member's government was the majority government, it cut back the funding for the forces by $3.3 billion. It took lapsing to an art form, to the point that it has lost a lot of money that was available for the men and women in uniform that she professes to be concerned about.Had her government done the proper procurement cycles, we would not have the problems that she—

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to replacing the CF-18s. They were originally acquired in 1982 and by now have had several life extensions. We are approaching a capability gap, which we mean to remedy.It is a pity that the hon. member does not adopt the former Minister MacKay's views, which was, “Do I regret that we did not make a final purchase of that aircraft? Absolutely”. Its cost and capabilities, however, forced a halt to the process.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for a long time and I do not recollect the Prime Minister saying at all that he had committed the troops to Africa, at any place or any time. The Minister of National Defence took two of Canada's foremost experts, Roméo Dallaire and Louise Arbour, on a five country mission. No decision has been made and when that decision is made, we will then inform the House.

Mr. Speaker, the consequence of the previous government's so-called life extension program is that we only have at this point 20 CF-18s ready to fly through to 2025. That is an unacceptable risk that has to be managed by the Minister of National Defence, and so he is only taking what needs to be taken in the circumstances, which is the responsible decision to keep our capability up to its necessary level in order to meet our commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually a bit surprised that the hon. member would raise issues of images of Canadian soldiers, alleged or otherwise. It is an important operational security issue that the government, if I may use his words, remains tight-lipped about these issues. The siege of Mosul is under way. It is enjoying some success. Canadian soldiers stay within their mandate to train, assist, and advise.

Madam Speaker, we have always been open and up front with Canadians about the risks involved. We will not share information that would put soldiers in harm's way. I take note that the minister briefed the critics himself, personally. He has made himself available to the media. Three weeks ago, the Department of National Defence and I gave a briefing for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently focused on the train, assist, and advise mission in Iraq with our coalition partners. We are not taking military operations in any place else, and we are not about to engage in speculation as to where anything might go in this conflict.

Mr. Speaker, there is no disguise. This is in fact a non-combat mission, as I just outlined, with what the Chief of the Defence Staff just said.The hon. member can argue with the Chief of the Defence Staff, but he has in fact outlined this as a non-combat mission. We are there to train, to assist, to advise, and to produce intelligence.The hon. member may wish to argue with the CDS, and I welcome his opportunity to do that, but this is a non-combat mission as defined by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Madam Speaker, the mission is train, assist, and advise, and that mission has not changed. Speaking of generals, for the sake of the hon. member I will quote U.S. Lieutenant-General Townsend, commander of the Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, who recently told the media, “the enemy's listening to this broadcast.... So, I'm not going to talk about timelines.... And I'm not going to go into great detail about what [our soldiers] do”.That is the position of our minister as well.

Madam Speaker, Canada will increase its support to UN peace operations. The minister has toured five countries, along with former senator Roméo Dallaire and Justice Arbour. We are going into this with our eyes wide open. The minister has been on four deployments himself. No decisions have been made about specific deployments to countries. We hope the decision will be made before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, major funding has been set aside for future years in order to address the continuous mismatch left behind by the previous government. We are trying to match the fiscal cycle and the procurement cycle. Accordingly, as procurement comes forward, our funds will match those procurements. There has been no cutback in the procurement funding.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I would quote the chief of the defence staff, who said that we are in a state of “armed conflict” with a “non-state actor”. There is no doubt that this is a mission of significance. This is a mission where there will be danger. Our coalition partners have welcomed us into the theatre, and we are providing really useful and effective services to our coalition partners.

Mr. Speaker, the question by the hon. member was raised by her colleague earlier in the year. It is an important question, and I think all of us in the House can agree that the practices prior to 1992 are unacceptable in 2016. As this is an important issue, the whole of government is engaged in this in an appropriate and fulsome response to the question she has raised.I am hoping that in the fullness of time we will get back to her in a way that is quite appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for corporate social responsibility in Canada. In the 10 years since the introduction and ultimate defeat of Bill C-300, the responsible mining bill, Canada has evolved from a strong resistance to naming an ombudsman for the Canadian office of responsible enterprise. This office will help support Canadian companies around the world to operate in accordance with international human rights standards.Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on the appointment of the ombudsperson and the establishment of her mandate?

Mr. Speaker, as I previously said, the government is committed to an open and transparent process. The procurement process that was left behind is Byzantine in its nature. Regrettably, we are in a situation where we have to make a decision, and that decision will be made soon. The process was so complicated that in fact the Prime Minister has felt compelled to create a special committee just to straighten out the process.To get a question about procurement from that particular party is a little rich.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question, and it is clearly a historical wrong. It is a societal wrong. It is a governmental wrong. It is a departmental wrong.In fact, the government is fully engaged on a wide departmental basis to address the very issue he raises. I am rather hoping that we respond in a fulsome way.

Mr. Speaker, the information being referenced by the hon. member is possibly some of the most commercially and security sensitive information that the Government of Canada has.Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the employees who work with that very sensitive information be required to sign non-disclosure agreements.We are determined not to make the same mistakes that the previous government made.

Mr. Speaker, the goal of this mission is to achieve long-term success through self-sustainable security. Hence, we are in a mission that advises, trains, assists, and provides intelligence. That is the way forward in order to minimize the unwanted consequences of this conflict. As we go forward, I would encourage the hon. member to support our troops as we engage in this conflict with a non-state actor.

Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with our allies and multilateral organizations in the fight against terrorism and in meeting today's security challenges.The minister, as the member will know, has been to Africa twice. He took with him General Dallaire and Justice Louise Arbour, who are both experts on conflict. As he has taken advice, he is going into these missions with his eyes wide open—

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada always prefers to be open and transparent, except when classified information is on the website. That report has been deleted because there was potential classified information there. The government is looking at trying to re-post that report as a redacted report.It should be noted that a mixed fleet is not optimal. Possibly the Conservatives should have thought of that 10 years ago, when they should have held an open and transparent competition.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question does raise a very serious issue when contemplating peace support operations. It does demonstrate a willingness on the part of the forces to change doctrines when necessary. I want to thank General Dallaire for his contribution and for forcing us all to rethink the doctrine with respect to child soldiers.This is clearly a good outcome from the defence policy review, and it puts the Canadian military at the forefront of military thinking in international affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that we have in fact received a request. We do honour all of our NATO commitments as and when they come due. We have a considerable number of military people over in that part of the world, and this request is being actively reviewed as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, it is another day and it is another Conservative question on procurement.The Conservatives showed no leadership on the procurement file. In fact, ironically, they now show a love for the parliamentary budget officer. I remind them of the report with respect to the F-35, and wonder whether they still appreciate the views of the parliamentary budget officer.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Canadian Forces are engaged in an anti-ISIL coalition. There was a meeting in Europe this week and we are proud partners in that coalition. At this time, the coalition is pursuing its mandate to advise, to assist, and to train and it has not gone beyond that mandate.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response, this is clearly a historical wrong, and it is wrong on the part of the government prior to 1992. It is a wrong by the Department of Defence. It is a wrong by other departments.The letters have been received. In order to be able to have a proper response to the person, we need to address this with a whole-of-government approach. The defence department takes the view that it is the policy of the Canadian Forces that any member can—

Mr. Speaker, after long debate in the House many months ago, the government received a mandate to pursue this mission. That mission is in fact being pursued. There has been no change in the mandate. There has been no change in the mission. There has been no change in the rules of engagement.This mission is being pursued within the terms of the mandate, as provided by the House. Briefings will be given as and when we can secure the safety of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my voice to the memorandum with respect to the loss of Gordie Howe. For those of us of a certain age and generation he brought great joy to all fans, except of course Maple Leaf fans, but then that was kind of a universal sentiment.I just wanted to point out to the honourable member that the Government of Canada has not withdrawn from the joint strike fighter program. It continues to make these payments under the memorandum of understanding, and those decisions will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to explain what he does not get about democracy.We have had an election over the past year, the longest election campaign in Canadian history. The decision of the Canadian people was definitive on October 19.We then had a debate here for four or five days, with 98 speakers. The vote this week was definitive.What part of democracy does the hon. member not get? We have debated this and debated this. The people have spoken. It is unfortunate for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The mandate has not changed. It is a train, assist, and advise mission. In addition, we have provided air support and we are in the process of providing hospital services as the fight proceeds. To think of the hon. member's party as an open and transparent party is, in some respects, a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response, this is clearly a historical wrong, and it is wrong on the part of the government prior to 1992. It is a wrong by the Department of Defence. It is a wrong by other departments.The letters have been received. In order to be able to have a proper response to the person, we need to address this with a whole-of-government approach. The defence department takes the view that it is the policy of the Canadian Forces that any member can—

Mr. Speaker, it is passingly strange to get a question from the Conservatives about the fiscal mess left behind. There was a perpetual mismatch between the procurement cycle and the fiscal cycle, and the Minister of National Defence is now trying to rectify that. Accordingly, there are no funds that will be not applied to projects as they are needed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question, and it is clearly a historical wrong. It is a societal wrong. It is a governmental wrong. It is a departmental wrong.In fact, the government is fully engaged on a wide departmental basis to address the very issue he raises. I am rather hoping that we respond in a fulsome way.

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we inherited a procurement system that by many measurements was a broken procurement system. Accordingly, the minister has had to take serious decisions—all ministers, in fact, have had to take serious decisions—with respect to getting the equipment the hon. member and I would agree is the equipment that needs to replace the CF-18. Accordingly, we are proceeding with the decision process, and hopefully we will have a decision soon.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in earlier responses, this is sensitive information. This is critical information. This is information that we simply do not want to have in the wrong hands. Therefore, non-disclosure is a sine qua non for those who are handling that information. We have asked those who are handling that information to sign non-disclosure agreements, which extend past their employment with the crown, and—

Mr. Speaker, this issue had been subject to some considerable inquiry over the last number of years. These are policies and procedures that the Canadian military takes very seriously. The previous inquiries have included the vice chief of the defence staff in 2010, an investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service in 2011, a public interest hearing by the Military Police Complaints Commission over four years in 2012, and there is a continuing investigation that commenced in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, major funding has been set aside for future years in order to address the continuous mismatch left behind by the previous government. We are trying to match the fiscal cycle and the procurement cycle. Accordingly, as procurement comes forward, our funds will match those procurements. There has been no cutback in the procurement funding.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier response to a question, the unfortunate reality is that we have lost five years on this particular procurement. As a consequence, we are now approaching a situation where we have a capability gap. If we are going to manage the capability gap, we need to move to the point of making a decision. Unlike the previous government, we will be making a decision.

Mr. Speaker, maybe a little Conservative history would be in order.When the Conservatives announced the F-35 purchase, it was 65 jets for $9 billion. Nine billion dollars became $16 billion; $16 billion then became $25 billion to $27 billion; $25 billion to $27 billion became $42 billion to $45 billion. Then the Conservatives were the only government in the history of Canada actually cited for contempt. Then they dropped the program. Now the jets are 10 years older; and, now the minister is trying to repair this very unfortunate situation largely caused by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to an open and transparent process to replace the CF-18 fighter. Regrettably, the previous government left behind a procurement process that is so Byzantine as to defy anyone trying to get major procurements through. As a consequence, the only procurement that was obtained in the last 10 years was a photo op with the previous minister on a plywood F-35, along with the leader of the opposition.We intend to get—

Mr. Speaker, once again, had the former government, the party opposite, actually done its work, then the procurement cycle would have matched the fiscal cycle and accordingly, we possibly would have had some procurements met. The mess left behind on the procurement cycle by the party opposite means that we are having to realign all of our fiscal priorities. Accordingly, we are now funding matters as they become due.

Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, the replacement of the CF-18 is an absolute priority for this government. Regrettably, we have lost about five years in that process, as indicated by the previous minister.Following that, the analysis of the industrial benefits of various options is still open and is still ongoing, but we mean to close this capability gap.

Mr. Speaker, that is from a member of Parliament who was part of a government that made lapsing military funding an art form in order to get to a bogus balanced budget.There are no monies being cut from projects. Had the members opposite spent more time getting the fiscal and procurement cycles in order instead of climbing in and out of fake airplanes, and did the hard work that is needed to match those cycles, then just possibly, the men and women in uniform would be getting their—

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that we have in fact received a request. We do honour all of our NATO commitments as and when they come due. We have a considerable number of military people over in that part of the world, and this request is being actively reviewed as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, getting a question from the Conservative Party, having manufactured, in effect, this capability gap, is ironic in the extreme. We are, therefore, in a position where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion we have been carrying on. Had these decisions actually been addressed and done in the last three or four or five years, we would not be here talking about this matter today.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently focused on the train, assist, and advise mission in Iraq with our coalition partners. We are not taking military operations in any place else, and we are not about to engage in speculation as to where anything might go in this conflict.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for a long time and I do not recollect the Prime Minister saying at all that he had committed the troops to Africa, at any place or any time. The Minister of National Defence took two of Canada's foremost experts, Roméo Dallaire and Louise Arbour, on a five country mission. No decision has been made and when that decision is made, we will then inform the House.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the minister has initiated an entire defence review process in which we have invited all members to engage.Clearly, the issue of the reopening of the Saint-Jean college is of utmost importance to the minister and to my colleague, who has tirelessly promoted this reopening. I hope that all members do engage in the defence review process, and certainly that would be one of the serious considerations.

Mr. Speaker, as I previously said, the government is committed to an open and transparent process. The procurement process that was left behind is Byzantine in its nature. Regrettably, we are in a situation where we have to make a decision, and that decision will be made soon. The process was so complicated that in fact the Prime Minister has felt compelled to create a special committee just to straighten out the process.To get a question about procurement from that particular party is a little rich.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs for sharing his deep concern along with, I am assuming, everyone else in the House on Equador's disaster.The Government of Canada immediately responded with $1.1 million in emergency relief assistance. We now have a team down in Equador doing an assessment as to what further help can be given in order to make recommendations to the government, including the possible deployment of the DART. I thank the hon. member for his concern and indeed the concern of all members in the House.

Madam Speaker, Canada will increase its support to UN peace operations. The minister has toured five countries, along with former senator Roméo Dallaire and Justice Arbour. We are going into this with our eyes wide open. The minister has been on four deployments himself. No decisions have been made about specific deployments to countries. We hope the decision will be made before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, as I recollect, the hon. member standing in the House in a previous Parliament was because his government wanted some photo ops. Accordingly, we have fixed that system. Accordingly, the members who were recently profiled were approved by Canadian Armed Forces leadership. It had nothing to do with the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Speaker, for the sixth time, Bill Browder was arrested on an Interpol arrest warrant. Mr. Browder has been tireless in his advocacy of the Magnitsky legislation. To retaliate, Russia has added him to the Interpol warrant list. Could the Minister of Public Safety speak to what the Government of Canada is doing to ensure that individuals unjustly blacklisted by Russia, such as Mr. Browder, will not be unlawfully detained if they come to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to replacing the CF-18s. They were originally acquired in 1982 and by now have had several life extensions. We are approaching a capability gap, which we mean to remedy.It is a pity that the hon. member does not adopt the former Minister MacKay's views, which was, “Do I regret that we did not make a final purchase of that aircraft? Absolutely”. Its cost and capabilities, however, forced a halt to the process.

Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion, it mentions expressing thanks for the hard work of the department and its evidence-based analysis. I wonder whether the motion should be amended to recognize that its hard work and evidence-based analysis was ignored by the previous government.The motion goes on to thank the deputy minister and his team. Maybe we should further amend that and express our sympathies for having had to work with the ministers.Does the member think those would be appropriate amendments that the Conservative Party opposite would appreciate?

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Canadian Forces are engaged in an anti-ISIL coalition. There was a meeting in Europe this week and we are proud partners in that coalition. At this time, the coalition is pursuing its mandate to advise, to assist, and to train and it has not gone beyond that mandate.

Mr. Speaker, there is no disguise. This is in fact a non-combat mission, as I just outlined, with what the Chief of the Defence Staff just said.The hon. member can argue with the Chief of the Defence Staff, but he has in fact outlined this as a non-combat mission. We are there to train, to assist, to advise, and to produce intelligence.The hon. member may wish to argue with the CDS, and I welcome his opportunity to do that, but this is a non-combat mission as defined by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Mr. Speaker, it is another day and it is another Conservative question on procurement.The Conservatives showed no leadership on the procurement file. In fact, ironically, they now show a love for the parliamentary budget officer. I remind them of the report with respect to the F-35, and wonder whether they still appreciate the views of the parliamentary budget officer.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my voice to the memorandum with respect to the loss of Gordie Howe. For those of us of a certain age and generation he brought great joy to all fans, except of course Maple Leaf fans, but then that was kind of a universal sentiment.I just wanted to point out to the honourable member that the Government of Canada has not withdrawn from the joint strike fighter program. It continues to make these payments under the memorandum of understanding, and those decisions will continue.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I would quote the chief of the defence staff, who said that we are in a state of “armed conflict” with a “non-state actor”. There is no doubt that this is a mission of significance. This is a mission where there will be danger. Our coalition partners have welcomed us into the theatre, and we are providing really useful and effective services to our coalition partners.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than mildly ludicrous for Conservatives to lecture this government. Their requirements went from $9 billion, to $16 billion, to $26 billion, to $42 billion, to $45 billion, and they are telling us how to manage a procurement.We have a capability gap. We have to manage the NATO requirements and the NORAD requirements. Those two requirements create a capability gap, which we no longer are prepared to manage; hence the decision this week.

Madam Speaker, the mission is train, assist, and advise, and that mission has not changed. Speaking of generals, for the sake of the hon. member I will quote U.S. Lieutenant-General Townsend, commander of the Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, who recently told the media, “the enemy's listening to this broadcast.... So, I'm not going to talk about timelines.... And I'm not going to go into great detail about what [our soldiers] do”.That is the position of our minister as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fredericton for his concern and his question.Aid to civil authority is one of the key responsibilities of the Canadian Forces. The joint task force transported 367 evacuees to safety and 173 firefighters in and out of the affected area. The air task force conducted one search and rescue mission, eight reconnaissance flights, and eight night surveillance flights.I want to thank the men and women who took part in this effort, and I am happy to say that they all returned safely.Canadians know that when the Canadian Forces are needed, they will be there for them.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that our soldiers will be at greater risk, as was said by the Chief of the Defence Staff. However, I cannot do better than quote him at the committee yesterday where he said, in an engagement like this, “...specifically allow Canadian Forces to defend themselves, anticipate their defence so that they can engage a hostile act, or a hostile act or an intent before it materializes.”Therefore, our soldiers are not engaged in combat, they are allowed to defend themselves, and their rules of engagement are clear for all concerned.

Madam Speaker, it is only the Conservative opposition that can turn happy news into bad news.Surely to goodness it is good news that the barracks did not have to be used. Surely to goodness the ultimate deployment of $6 million to upgrade the facilities is good news. The good news is that all of these refugees are now located where they should be, in the towns and cities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, as a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence, I was privileged to chair a policy round table on behalf of the minister to engage experts, stakeholders, and interested Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Discussions were lively, interesting, and thoughtful, a highlight of my time working with an incredible team at National Defence.Would the minister give this House an update on the progress being made toward the launch of the defence policy for Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel and the security of our operations are of primary concern. Canadian Forces thoroughly assess and implement appropriate measures to ensure safety and security.The members who were recently profiled were preselected and approved by Canadian Armed Forces leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the goal of this mission is to achieve long-term success through self-sustainable security. Hence, we are in a mission that advises, trains, assists, and provides intelligence. That is the way forward in order to minimize the unwanted consequences of this conflict. As we go forward, I would encourage the hon. member to support our troops as we engage in this conflict with a non-state actor.

Mr. Speaker, after long debate in the House many months ago, the government received a mandate to pursue this mission. That mission is in fact being pursued. There has been no change in the mandate. There has been no change in the mission. There has been no change in the rules of engagement.This mission is being pursued within the terms of the mandate, as provided by the House. Briefings will be given as and when we can secure the safety of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the question by the hon. member was raised by her colleague earlier in the year. It is an important question, and I think all of us in the House can agree that the practices prior to 1992 are unacceptable in 2016. As this is an important issue, the whole of government is engaged in this in an appropriate and fulsome response to the question she has raised.I am hoping that in the fullness of time we will get back to her in a way that is quite appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member inadvertently gave me an illustration of the problem we face, which is that he has “information from abroad”. We cannot, under any circumstances, react to information from abroad, which would potentially jeopardize the security of our troops.I am sure the hon. member would not wish to pursue the issue of jeopardizing the security of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the only explanation here that needs to be given seems to be to the Conservative Party, because the military understands that in order to be able to have the equipment that they need, the fiscal cycle and the procurement cycle need to match.This has been an ongoing problem under the previous government. We continue to work on this so that when we have procurements that need to be funded, they will be funded at the appropriate time. That is exactly what the budget says.I regret that the hon. member does not seem to be able to understand that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see that the amendments to the Rouge National Urban Park Act received royal assent yesterday. Now the Rouge park has the same level of environmental protection as every other national park. This was a Liberal platform commitment, it was a mandate priority of the Prime Minister, and, most importantly, it was a fulfillment of the dreams of citizens of Scarborough and the GTA.Would the Minister of Environment and Climate Change please inform the House of the next steps in the completion of this national park?

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a coalition. The coalition has quite a number of partners. We do some things very well. Advise, assist, and train, we do very well. Intelligence missions, we do very well. We are engaged, as I say, in a coalition. We are working together to delete this scourge from that particular part of the world. The idea of this coalition is to end this combat. We are contributing in a significant and major way.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually a bit surprised that the hon. member would raise issues of images of Canadian soldiers, alleged or otherwise. It is an important operational security issue that the government, if I may use his words, remains tight-lipped about these issues. The siege of Mosul is under way. It is enjoying some success. Canadian soldiers stay within their mandate to train, assist, and advise.

Mr. Speaker, all of us are incredibly proud of the work that our troops are doing to eliminate the threat of Daesh in that region.Our troops are equipped with robust rules of engagement that allow them to protect themselves, our partners, and civilians from emerging and immediate threat.I can say it no better than General Rouleau, who said, “My forces continue to advise and assist Iraqi security forces in their fight through the provision of training, advice, and planning, and the conduct of those operations is in accordance with our mandate with the CDS orders and the rules of engagement.”

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Canadian Forces is among the best in the world for training and advising and assisting missions. Accordingly, it has been deployed by this Parliament and this government to do exactly that. That mission has not changed. Anything beyond saying that would be a matter of operational security. I am unable to comment further on that.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to getting the best possible equipment at the best possible price for our men and women in uniform. Today, we are risk-managing a gap between our NORAD commitments and our NATO commitments, in part because we inherited a bit of a mess from the previous government. No decision has been made on the replacement of the CF-18s. All commentary to the contrary is merely rumour and speculation.

Mr. Speaker, General Vance has actually done us all a service in pointing out that the conflicts that will be going on now and in the future will largely be conflicts that will not get easily resolved; hence, the important emphasis on assisting, training, advising, and intelligence. That is what the minister and the chief of the defence staff have been emphasizing as they engage further in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for corporate social responsibility in Canada. In the 10 years since the introduction and ultimate defeat of Bill C-300, the responsible mining bill, Canada has evolved from a strong resistance to naming an ombudsman for the Canadian office of responsible enterprise. This office will help support Canadian companies around the world to operate in accordance with international human rights standards.Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on the appointment of the ombudsperson and the establishment of her mandate?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I were in the same committee meeting on Tuesday morning with the chief of the defence staff. At that time he made the distinction between a training, advise, and assist mission and a training, advise, assist, and accompany mission. He was abundantly clear. He said clearly we are in a training, advise, and assist mission.As General Rouleau has said many times, “to assist the security forces of the sovereign state of Iraq”. The chief of the defence staff has himself made this point unequivocally.

Mr. Speaker, the consequence of the previous government's so-called life extension program is that we only have at this point 20 CF-18s ready to fly through to 2025. That is an unacceptable risk that has to be managed by the Minister of National Defence, and so he is only taking what needs to be taken in the circumstances, which is the responsible decision to keep our capability up to its necessary level in order to meet our commitments.

Madam Speaker, the CAF has been engaged, along with other elements in the government, in this massive repatriating of these refugees. It has contributed to the medical screenings, to the air lift, and to the potential housing. However, because Canadians have stepped up, the housing that was renovated at the time, in anticipation of the refugees coming to our country, was not used.The happy consequence is that these refugees are—

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin placed one of his fiercest critics, Bill Browder, on Interpol's most wanted list for the fifth time. It was removed a few hours ago for the fifth time. Mr. Browder led the campaign seeking justice for murdered Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. The notice was submitted to Interpol one day after this Parliament unanimously passed Magnitsky legislation.Does the Minister of Public Safety believe this is an appropriate use of Interpol resources?

Madam Speaker, we have always been open and up front with Canadians about the risks involved. We will not share information that would put soldiers in harm's way. I take note that the minister briefed the critics himself, personally. He has made himself available to the media. Three weeks ago, the Department of National Defence and I gave a briefing for everyone.

Madam Speaker, members will be interested to know that in the last four years, while that member's government was the majority government, it cut back the funding for the forces by $3.3 billion. It took lapsing to an art form, to the point that it has lost a lot of money that was available for the men and women in uniform that she professes to be concerned about.Had her government done the proper procurement cycles, we would not have the problems that she—

Mr. Speaker, Canada's national parks play a critical role in shaping our national identity, protecting wildlife, and preserving national heritage. Last year a record number of Canadians visited parks and heritage places across the country, including the Rouge National Urban Park in Scarborough. In 2017, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change held the most comprehensive consultation ever to be undertaken. Could the minister tell us what she heard and what her vision is for Canada's parks?

Madam Speaker, the dream of home ownership seems to be moving further and further away from middle-class Canadians in my riding of Scarborough—Guildwood. While many of my constituents try to save for what will likely be the biggest investment in their lives, we continue to see stories of rampant speculation by certain individuals who cheat the system.Would the Minister of National Revenue update the House and all Canadians on the progress made to crack down on those who do not comply with real estate tax laws?

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is possibly some of the most commercially and security sensitive information in the files of the Government of Canada.It is therefore not unreasonable that non-disclosure agreements be signed by those very people who are handling that information.We are determined that this procurement will be handled in the right and proper way, and that the mistakes that were made in the past will not be repeated.

Mr. Speaker, mefloquine is a Health Canada approved drug, and continues to be an option for malaria prophylaxis, as recommended by the Public Health Agency of Canada and by most public health and travel medicines around the world.Having said that, however, the Chief of the Defence Staff has caused the Surgeon General to look into the use of mefloquine prior to any future deployments.

Mr. Speaker, I have my Kleenex at the ready, in case I cannot get through this. I want to continue the theme that the hon. member has spoken about, which is that this is a God moment. Seldom do we hear a speech in this chamber that is filled with such honesty, such directness and such frankness. There was such candour that I actually looked up the definition of “candour” in the dictionary while he was speaking. It said “he spoke with a degree of candour unusual in political life”. Indeed, the hon. member's speech was unusual in the political life of us all, because we do not speak with candour, as we should. That is the tension of people of faith who work in this chamber. The priorities and beliefs of faith do not always line up with the needs and desires of being a practising politician. I know that the hon. member has faced that tension. I know that many of us in this chamber face that tension. I would say that the hon. member has navigated that tension about as well as any of us, because his candour in his admission of his faith in Jesus Christ is not something we hear every day in this chamber. In some circles, frankly, it is frowned upon.The hon. member has, from time to time, joined us all at the prayer breakfast. It is probably the one hour in the entire week when we are no longer Liberals, no longer Conservatives, no longer NDP; we are just members of a faith community. Then as members of a faith community, we actually pray for each other. I know the hon. member has been a subject of our prayers in the last while, as have others, to be frank.I would ask the hon. member how he has navigated that tension, but I would also ask him whether he has sung with his singing colleagues the song with the lyric, “thou hast taught me to say...it is well with my soul”?

Mr. Speaker, the information being referenced by the hon. member is possibly some of the most commercially and security sensitive information that the Government of Canada has.Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the employees who work with that very sensitive information be required to sign non-disclosure agreements.We are determined not to make the same mistakes that the previous government made.

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern air force. Unfortunately, the last five years have been a bit of a loss. As a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed. We have obligations to NATO, we have obligations to NORAD, we have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.Accordingly, we are proceeding forward on this matter, and we will be moving toward a decision soon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to remind the hon. member that there was an election. In the election, the Prime Minister's position was very clear. The position of the former prime minister was very clear, and Canadians made a very clear choice. The very clear choice was to give this government a mandate to refashion that mission, which all of the ministers and the Prime Minister are engaged in while refashioning the mission into one that is acceptable to Canadians. That will be produced in due course.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in previous answers, the mandate has not changed. We remain committed to an advise, an assist, and training mission. We are an important and committed partner in the international coalition against Daesh. We will assess the needs of the coalition as time goes on, but under this current mandate, our mission is focused in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, being in the NDP, that for the last five, six, seven, eight years, the CF-18 decision had been pending and pending and continued to be pending. Had the previous government actually done something more than get in and out of photo ops, possibly we would not actually be talking about this at this point.

Mr. Speaker, we take the health of our troops very seriously.Malaria is a life-threatening disease present in many areas of the world. Individuals are carefully assessed and screened by their health services. The Chief of the Defence Staff stated lately that the Surgeon General is looking into the use of mefloquine and will report back imminently.

Mr. Speaker, as you will recollect, the House debated the train, assist, and advise motion back in February and March of this year, and based upon that motion, and based upon instructions from the government, the military is, in fact, conducting its train, advise, and assist motion. Any other commentary beyond that, such as suggested by the hon. member opposite, would, in fact, jeopardize operational security, and he would not, I am sure, wish to do that.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is hearing is that the Minister of National Defence made a five-country trip through Africa. He took with him two of Canada's, if not the world's, foremost experts, General Dallaire and Justice Arbour, who are both experts in conflict resolution. At this point, no decision has been made, and so the member's question, if it is at all legitimate, is entirely premature.

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is absolutely incorrect.The deferment of funds was entirely due to the inability of the previous government to match fiscal cycles with procurement cycles. As a consequence, the money that the member references has actually been pushed off to future years and available to equip the men and women in uniform in the manner that they need to be, unlike the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I request unanimous consent for the following motion: Recognizing that 2019 marks the 10th anniversary of the end of armed conflict in Sri Lanka and honouring the tens of thousands of lives lost and countless victims displaced during this 26-year war; and recognizing further that the Government of Sri Lanka has made insufficient progress in implementing its commitments on reconciliation, accountability and transitional justice and that frustrations persist among those seeking to heal the wounds of all those who have suffered; therefore, the House of Commons calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to fully implement its obligations under the Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and to set a clear timeline bound strategy for ensuring a process of accountability that has the trust and confidence of the victims, including the families of those who have disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with our allies and multilateral organizations in the fight against terrorism and in meeting today's security challenges.The minister, as the member will know, has been to Africa twice. He took with him General Dallaire and Justice Louise Arbour, who are both experts on conflict. As he has taken advice, he is going into these missions with his eyes wide open—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question does raise a very serious issue when contemplating peace support operations. It does demonstrate a willingness on the part of the forces to change doctrines when necessary. I want to thank General Dallaire for his contribution and for forcing us all to rethink the doctrine with respect to child soldiers.This is clearly a good outcome from the defence policy review, and it puts the Canadian military at the forefront of military thinking in international affairs.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the inaction of the previous government, we are developing a capability gap, and that capability gap needs to be managed. So four years out, five years out, 10 years out, the chief of defence needs to be thinking about how to manage that capability gap. Accordingly, the minister has taken the responsible action, and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.