Mr. Chair, there are moments in global affairs when the decisions of powerful nations echo beyond their borders, when the international order is tested, when rules meant to prevent mass violence are cast aside and when innocent people pay the ultimate price. We are living through such a moment now.
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched coordinated air strikes against Iran. This was a patently unlawful act of aggression and the consequences were entirely foreseeable: Iranian retaliation across the region, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a rapidly escalating conflict with massive damage and the loss of innocent lives.
It is a war being prosecuted with appalling brutality and disregard for international humanitarian law. Instead of protecting civilians, U.S. and Israeli forces are deliberately striking non-military sites and civilian infrastructure, a pattern disturbingly reminiscent of Israel's recent siege of Gaza. Targets hit thus far include a girls' elementary school, attacked by missiles once to kill the children and then again to kill the parents frantically looking for their kids; hospitals; desalination plants; oil refineries; and historic cultural sites. Densely populated cities are being carpet-bombed. The death toll is now in the thousands.
These are war crimes. This disregard for civilian life is no accident. It is being openly celebrated by the Trump administration. On March 2, U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the United States will not be following “stupid rules of engagement” or fighting “politically correct wars”. Instead, he said that “death and destruction” were the prime objectives of the U.S. forces.
What has been the Liberal government's response to this illegal, dangerous assault? It is a position that is unprincipled, contradictory and incoherent. In fact, it has changed almost daily. The Prime Minister's initial response offered a full-throated endorsement with no caveats, conditions or even a mention of international law. That is a telling and tragic omission.
Under the UN Charter, force between states is prohibited, except in two prescribed circumstances: self-defence from an actual attack or authorization by the Security Council. These strikes met neither test. Trump administration officials admitted there was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack the United States, and neither the U.S. nor Israel even attempted to bring a case before the Security Council, the only body under international law empowered to determine when the use of force is lawful. Put bluntly, this attack is clearly and completely illegal under international law.
Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that their inspectors had found no evidence of a coordinated Iranian program to build nuclear weapons. On the contrary, at the very time the U.S. and Israel attacked, negotiations were ongoing, with mediator Oman saying that significant progress was being made and that Iran had made all the necessary concessions asked of it. This is against the backdrop of Donald Trump ripping up the previous nuclear agreement with Iran that had, by all accounts, been working, as well as the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists by Israeli forces last June, which Trump said, at the time, conclusively took out Iran's nuclear weapons capacity.
However, the Prime Minister chose to endorse this war. Only four days after doing so, he then admitted that the attack appears inconsistent with international law, but in the same breath declared he supports it, with regret. Then, when asked directly whether Canada might participate militarily, the Prime Minister refused to draw a firm line, saying only that “One can never categorically rule out participation”.
This is untenable. One cannot logically and ethically acknowledge that a war is illegal, but continue to support it and refuse to rule out participation in that very illegality. More disturbingly, the words and actions of the Prime Minister completely contradict the foreign policy doctrine he outlined at Davos just weeks ago. There, he told the world that Canada and other middle powers “are not powerless” and that we have “the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, like respect for human rights...sovereignty and territorial integrity”.
He said that we aim to be principled in our commitment to the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter. He claimed that middle powers must “live the truth” by “acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals.”
Canada has rightly condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine as illegal, but when the United States and Israel launched air strikes that equally violated international law, the Prime Minister offered his support. This is a stark betrayal of the Prime Minister's own words.
In our view, Canada's security is always dependent on a rules-based order that constrains great powers. The moment we decide international law applies only to our adversaries, we undermine the very protections that shield countries like our own. This is not just my position as leader of the New Democratic Party. Former Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy has been blunt in his critique of the Prime Minister's approach.
Mr. Axworthy said Canada is abandoning its historic commitment to preventing illegal aggression. He warns that the Prime Minister is becoming a “complicit partner” to Trump's ambitions, and he indicts the Prime Minister with endorsing Trump's new “obsession with becoming an imperial power”, calling that the “worst kind of situation for Canada.”
Canada ought not continue down this path. The time for ambiguity is over, and principled clarity is required now. That is why New Democrats are calling on the government to take three clear positions immediately: Condemn the war and explicitly recognize it violates the UN charter, categorically rule out any Canadian military participation and call for an immediate ceasefire and a return to multilateral diplomacy.
I would like to address the key arguments raised by the Liberals and the Conservatives throughout this debate. The first is that Iran's regime is oppressive and dangerous. New Democrats are under no illusions about the Iranian regime or its brutal repression, nor do we dismiss concerns about nuclear proliferation, but an illegal war is not the answer. It can never be if we desire a world of order, security and justice. The real remedy is harder: diplomacy, engagement, arms control and rigorous inspections, which are tools that were working when this war was launched.
Furthermore, we know from painful experience what follows U.S. regime change wars. Similar attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria did not yield stability or democracy. On the contrary, these societies are now lawless and fragmented, economic basket cases run by the people we once labelled terrorists, with prolonged conflict, civilian suffering, mass displacement and regional chaos. Most fundamentally, the events unfolding in Iran today will not bring freedom to its people. They will bring catastrophe.
Second, we heard the argument that with tariffs already weaponized against our economy, Canada cannot risk further retaliation from Donald Trump. We must be honest about what that position demands, placing a price on Canada's independence, reputation and humanity. I remind the House that Canada's ability to chart our own foreign policy was not gifted to us. It was earned through immense national sacrifice, and it cannot be sacrificed on the altar of expediency or by bending to a bully.
However, I think the best answer is to quote the Prime Minister again just weeks ago in Davos. He invoked Václav Havel's image of the greengrocer who placed a sign in his window to avoid trouble and signal compliance, and the Prime Minister proudly declared that Canada was “taking the sign out of the window.” He said that if we think we can go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble and to hope compliance will buy safety, it will not.
What sign has the Prime Minister put in Canada's window by his recent statements and clear contradictions? It is a sign that says our values are conditional, our words lack integrity and our foreign policy is for sale. That is not the Canada New Democrats envision, and we believe it is not who Canadians want us to be.
On the gravest questions any government can face, such as whether to commit our country to war, whether to implicate Canadian forces in illegal violence, whether to abandon the principles we proclaim, Canadians deserve clarity, consistency and moral courage. That is what we owe the people we represent. That is what I and my New Democrat colleagues are here to demand tonight.
