Mr. Speaker, with this motion, the Prime Minister has finally said in Canada what he said in New York City more than a week ago. He is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq.
ISIL is a threat both to the region and to global security. ISIL murders ethnic and religious minorities across Iraq and Syria. It murders innocent civilians, humanitarian workers, and journalists. These awful acts have been documented, often by the perpetrators themselves.
This is why the Liberal Party supported a 30-day non-combat role in good faith. It was a mission on which we were briefed. This time, instead of briefings, there has been only overheated rhetoric.
The Liberals will take the following core principles into the debate. The first principle is that Canada does have a role to play to confront humanitarian crises and security threats in the world.
The second is that when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada within that mission.
The third is that the case for deploying our forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.
The fourth principle is that Canada's role must reflect the broad scope of Canada's capabilities and how best we can help.
Unlike the Prime Minister, Liberals believe that Canada can make a more helpful contribution to the international effort to combat ISIL than a few aging warplanes. Canadians have a lot more to offer than that.
We can be resourceful. There are significant, substantial non-combat roles that Canada can play, and we can play some of those roles better than many, or perhaps any, of our allies. Whether in strategic airlift, training, or medical support, we have the capability to meaningfully assist in a non-combat role in a well-defined international mission.
The fact remains that the Prime Minister has not been up front with Canadians about his plans.
The Prime Minister and the government have given us no reason to believe that once in combat they will be able to limit our role.
The overheated and moralistic rhetoric is being used to justify more than just air strikes; it is an attempt to justify a war.
For Canadians, it is all too familiar, particularly from the Conservative Prime Minister.
The 2003 Iraq war was waged on false pretenses and flawed intelligence. It was a mission that destabilized the region, sowed further conflict, cost our allies around three trillion dollars, and cost thousands of people their lives.
The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.
Let us never forget how that mission was sold to the public.
Back in 2003, this Prime Minister called President Bush’s Iraq war a matter of “freedom, democracy and civilization itself”.
We know the Iraq fiasco haunts the choices we have to make today, but we cannot make the wrong decision now because the wrong decision was made then.
Canada has asked a lot of our men and women in uniform over the past decade and too often they have returned home only to be let down. If we are to ask more of them now, our deliberations in the House should be honest and forthright to show ourselves worthy of the valour and strength we know our Canadian Forces will always show in the field. We owe them that.
We know there is a role for Canada to be involved in the fight against ISIL, but there is a clear line between non-combat and combat roles. It is much easier to cross that line than to cross back. It is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
The Prime Minister has a sacred responsibility to be honest and truthful with people, especially about matters of life and death. At the end of every decision to enter combat is a brave Canadian in harm’s way. We owe them clarity. We owe them a plan.
Most of all, we owe them the truth. The Prime Minister has offered none of those.
The Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not support this Prime Minister's motion to go to war in Iraq.