Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood.

As members have heard before, the Liberal Party is desirous that Canada plays a substantial role in this war but, for reasons I will explain, we are not in favour of a combat role. Therefore, we do not support the government motion.

Before getting into the reasons for that position, on the subject of Iraq in general, I do not think we can trust the judgment of the Prime Minister.

I say that because I remember that in 2003, Mr. Chrétien's government said that Canada would not help the Americans invade Iraq. I remember it well because I was the defence minister at the time. More than ten years ago, the Prime Minister was completely in favour of going to war against Iraq.

The Prime Minister in those days in 2003 went so far as to write a letter to the Wall Street Journal denouncing the position of the Canadian government to not join in the invasion of Iraq led by George Bush at the time. He was so rabidly in favour of war at that time. If we flash forward more than 10 years, he is rabidly in favour of war again.

It is true that the circumstances of the two occasions are dramatically different, but the fact that the Prime Minister was rabidly for war in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when history has shown that was a terrible decision and indeed the root of many of the problems today can be laid at that misguided invasion, leads one to the conclusion that if he was wrong then, one has no trust that he will necessarily be right the second time.

That is one reason why the Liberal party really does not trust the judgment of the Prime Minister on this issue, and that is why we came to our own conclusion. Our own conclusion is that yes, the situation is entirely different, yes, ISIL is evil, and I do not use that word lightly, and has to be combatted, and yes, Canada should play a major role in that struggle against ISIL.

However, the war has more than one dimension. A part of the war involves fighter jets and another part of the war involves assistance for those on the ground who are suffering untold horrors as we speak. Therefore, as important as dropping the bombs is the need to assist those people, to provide humanitarian support, to provide medical support, to provide refuge for those people as refugees in our country, possibly also to provide non-combat military support in terms of reconnaissance, transport or things of this nature.

One side of this war is not more important than the other side, but in our judgment, the capabilities of Canada, the comparative advantage of Canada favours us on the non-combat side in this war. We know that a number of countries have already lined up to take part in air strikes, but there are less resources being applied to the humanitarian side of the war. We therefore believe that is where Canada can add the most value added and make the greatest contribution to a solution in that troubled region.

I note the government says that it can do both. That is like a millionaire saying to a pauper, “We can both have the fruits of this world”. The millionaire has a whole lot more fruits than the pauper. The point is that the government's military contribution to the war will cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We do not know exactly how much. The Conservatives have not told us. However, I know a bombing mission of that kind would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Yesterday, the Conservatives announced with great fanfare a humanitarian gesture, which is a few million dollars.

We can do both, but we are putting virtually all the eggs, in terms of money, on the combat side and very little, in comparison, on the other side. The Liberal position is that we want Canada to have a major effort, which means putting significant resources into the humanitarian side, something roughly equivalent to what would be spent on the combat side.

I will give the House one example, which came up in question period today. The government's record on refugees since coming to office has been abysmal. The number of refugees in total under the Conservatives' watch has dropped by 33%. The number of government-assisted refugees has dropped by 23%. Those are the ones it controls directly.

It takes money to bring in refugees. Our position is that the government should invest money in the staff and resources required to process refugees more rapidly so that we could bring in much larger numbers from Syria and Iraq and other places in that region. The government's record in that area has been dismal.

As one component of our non-combat, substantial proposal for a Canadian contribution, we would propose that significant resources be devoted to beefing up the resources in our immigration department so that we would be able to admit a substantial number of refugees.

Listening to the minister in question period today, my sense was that he did not display a great deal of enthusiasm for that proposition. While the Conservatives say they can do both, combat and humanitarian, it is clear from their body language and from the dollars involved and from just about everything they say that their heart, if that is the right term, is truly in the military mission, and only a few little trinkets are left over for the humanitarian side.

We in the Liberal Party think that the great bulk, indeed all, of our effort should be on the humanitarian side in terms of medical help, humanitarian help, absorbing refugees, providing transit, and all those other issues that are crucial to this war effort in its entirety. I for one do not think Canada's role would in any way be diminished or reduced because we in the Liberal Party chose to focus our efforts on that side of the war rather than on the combat side of the war.

John McCallum

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)