Debates of March 9th, 2026

Iran and the Middle East

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing I do not need to ask my colleague to repeat his question.

My answer will be shorter than the question.

The primary duty of a government is to take care of its citizens, to protect them. As I said earlier, not all of the 106,000 or so Canadian expats have asked to be repatriated. There have been only a few thousand requests. How many of them just said that there was no answer? There was no answer. It takes longer than trying to change Internet packages. It is interminable.

This suggest that this particular iteration of the government, which is just as Liberal as the last one, is incapable of understanding what is happening on the ground, what is happening to real people who are facing real threats and real dangers every day.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois talked a lot about taking care of people. We will assume that he is talking about Canadians in general. In order to do that, at a time when gas and energy prices are rising, we have major projects in Canada. For example, there is the agreement with Alberta. There are even rumours of a possible liquefied natural gas project in Quebec.

I want to know the leader's position on energy development projects to keep energy prices low in Canada and also to put money in the pockets of Canadians, which will help us pay for all our social programs.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are talking about oil and gas pipelines. However, there is now a war going on in Iran. The last time Canada wanted to build a pipeline, it took 14 years. I am hopeful that people are a bit more optimistic than that about when this war will end.

After letting a good part of our capacity to develop the electric sector fall apart, the government is now realizing that people who were smart enough to go electric are having a good laugh when they drive past gas stations.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my leader gave a wonderful speech, as always. He mentioned Davos. Everyone remembers the Prime Minister's speech in Davos, despite the fact that he had been in the United Arab Emirates and Beijing three days earlier.

In his opinion, how did the middle powers receive the Prime Minister's first speech on the American and Israeli offensive?

How does he think this was perceived by our allies, whether European or Australian?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have no right to speak for people who are not here and who will not speak publicly. Diplomacy is, by its very nature, discreet. We should ask ourselves what diplomats are currently saying behind closed doors.

It is a troubling inconsistency when a prime minister says that military interventions must be sanctioned by the UN under international law, and then, at the first opportunity, suddenly hides behind the American President, whom he mocks and does not think very highly of. I am certain that international diplomacy has understood this well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Bloc Québécois leader, for his speech.

Now, I want to quote the President of the United States, who said, “When crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen.”

Does my colleague think, as I do, that the President is looking in the mirror?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, rhetoric aside, I will not rise in this Parliament to declare that the President of the United States is a crazy person. I will exercise restraint. However, I get the impression that insanity in the use of nuclear weapons has much in common with insanity in the use of weapons in general. We see that all too often here, in the United States and everywhere else. Using violence and wishing for someone's death is, in and of itself, crazy.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his remarks. They are always well thought out and well explained, with truly inspiring language, although sometimes I do not entirely agree or I really disagree with the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that, unfortunately, for some, Davos is not the House of Commons and the House of Commons is not Davos. Everyone makes their own choices. However, my question is this. He mentioned that the head of the government has, in fact, changed his mind on a number of occasions. What is the member's impression of how this might affect international relations with our European allies, our American allies and our Asian allies?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns, and they are not exactly easy to express. I will explain why. There is a tendency to give a bit of a free pass, so to speak. It is as though, whenever there is a crisis, it is important to not question what the Prime Minister says, does, thinks, writes or changes. That is our job as parliamentarians, however.

Over the past few months, in a number of speeches and moments to which he, at least, attaches great importance, the Prime Minister has taken positions and made commitments that have not materialized so far. Had it not been for what appears to be a honeymoon phase, he would be having a harder time politically. It is risky for his party, which does not really bother me, but the fundamental problem is that it is risky for the well-being and the economy of the entire population of Quebec and Canada.

Incidentally, I salute my colleague. I am as keen as he is to disagree sometimes, but a gentleman is a gentleman.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the current position of the Conservatives, who unequivocally support the American and Israeli offensive, an offensive that, by all appearances, goes against international law and is aiming for regime change. We all hate this regime, but that does not change the fact that this is an offensive designed to change an established regime in violation of international law.

Is the Leader of the Opposition not in fact telling Vladimir Putin that, basically, what he is doing is okay?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question brings up the whole issue of precedent, that is, questioning the multilateral institutions that ensure that people talk to each other before they take action. Many of these institutions were created in the aftermath of the Second World War to safeguard against the proliferation of armed conflict. It is very risky to play games, calling for an end to such institutions.

I would remind members that, without much more support, President Trump intervened in Iran a few months ago, boasting about the outcome. Nobody took him to task for that. We may not have done enough either, and I speak for myself as well. He felt emboldened to do the same thing again without, as I said, consulting with those who might have served as guardrails.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the events unfolding in the Middle East remind us that, in today's interconnected world, no conflict is far away and no nation is immune to the repercussions of upheavals elsewhere.

The stakes of what is unfolding in the Middle East extend far beyond the region itself. The past weeks have brought a stark reminder of this reality. Military operations, retaliatory strikes and the threat of escalation have sent waves of concern across the globe. As our Prime Minister noted in Sydney, the world's focus must remain on restraint, preventing further escalation and ensuring that the Iranian regime does not acquire nuclear capabilities. At the same time, the hopes and aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom, dignity and self-determination must not be ignored.

Canada has a direct stake in what happens in that region. The Middle East lies at the heart of global trade, energy flows and international security. Instability there reverberates around the world, touching economies, alliances and the lives of Canadians, both at home and abroad. For decades, the Iranian regime has sown instability, and deliberately so, through support for militant proxies, armed groups and terrorist organizations. Through its pursuit of nuclear capabilities, the regime has threatened its neighbours and undermined the security of the international community.

Recently, the United States and Israel conducted coordinated military strikes targeting elements of Iran's leadership and military infrastructure. Canada was not consulted, Canada did not participate and Canada has no plans to participate in these offensive operations.

Our focus is clear: the immediate de-escalation of hostilities, the protection of civilians and the prevention of further conflict. Few will mourn the weakening of a regime that has oppressed its own people and destabilized an entire region. Canada stands with the Iranian people who seek a future defined not by fear or repression but by freedom and the ability to chart their very own path.

At the same time, we recognize that conflict carries consequences far beyond its origin. Gulf states and other regional partners, including Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have borne significant consequences from attacks on their civilian infrastructure and essential services.

Canada places great importance on these partnerships and continues to work closely with these countries, as well as with its G7 allies, to defuse tensions and promote diplomatic solutions.

Let me be unequivocal when it comes to our Canadian Armed Forces on the ground. All Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the region are safe and accounted for. The Canadian Armed Forces continuously assesses threats, adjusts its posture and enhances protective measures to ensure the safety of personnel while maintaining effectiveness.

When necessary, adjustments are made quickly and decisively, with the protection of the forces always being the top priority.

Again, protection of our personnel is the highest priority. The nature of modern conflict extends beyond conventional operations. Cyber-threats now form a critical dimension of national and international security. The Communications Security Establishment, together with the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, stands on Canada's digital front lines, protecting government networks, critical infrastructure and Canadians from malicious activity.

Following recent developments in the Middle East, Canadian authorities have assessed the potential for Iranian-linked cyber-activity. Threats could target critical infrastructure, attempt influence operations or harass our military personnel, diaspora communities and activists. In response, guidance has been issued to organizations across the country to remain vigilant and to protect their systems. Cyber-capabilities are also integral to supporting Canadian military operations abroad. The Communications Security Establishment can provide intelligence, situational awareness and active cyber-protection to ensure the safety of deployed personnel. Legal authorities allow Canada to respond to foreign threats in a measured, lawful and proportionate manner, consistent with our democratic values.

Canada continues to invest in its cyber and defence capabilities. Modern secure communications, resilient networks and advanced defence systems strengthen our ability to act decisively, protect our personnel and operate alongside allies with greater confidence.

These investments enable Canada to address the challenges posed by a constantly evolving and increasingly complex threat environment.

What defines Canada's response in moments of international crisis like this is principle. First, act responsibly. We do not join conflicts without consultation or request. Second, protect Canadians. All personnel deployed abroad and citizens in affected regions remain our very highest priority. Third, support our partners. Those enduring consequences of a conflict they did not choose deserve our solidarity. Fourth, promote stability through diplomacy, engagement and adherence to international law. Canada has long maintained that global security is best preserved through co-operation, restraint and respect for international norms. These principles guide our actions today.

The Middle East faces a period of profound uncertainty, but also of possibility. The weakening of an oppressive regime opens the door to a different future, a better future, one shaped not by violence or proxy wars but by the aspirations of the Iranian people for dignity, security and self-determination. We will continue to focus our efforts on protecting Canadians in the region and we will work with partners to de-escalate this conflict. We will continue defending democratic principles, human rights and international law.

We will continue to act responsibly, protecting Canadians and contributing to the stability of a world too often disrupted by conflict.

In moments such as these, the choices we make define the values we uphold. Canada chooses responsibility. Canada chooses courage. Canada chooses the protection of human life, the support of partners and the promotion of peace. Canada chooses de-escalation. In doing so, Canada continues its unwavering commitment to a more secure, stable and just world.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I just want to add my voice to those of other Conservatives including the leader of the official opposition, who has said that our support for the people of Iran is clear and unwavering. They deserve to have a peaceful government, democratically elected, and that is why we support the removal of the terrorist regime in Iran.

I have to reiterate that we can never forget all the illegal terrorist activities, the state-sponsored terrorism, throughout the region that the Iranian regime has conducted, not just in the last few years but over the last 47 years; and never forget that when they shot down Ukrainian Airlines flight PS752, that was the murdering of 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents. We know that Iran is a major supporter of Russia in what it has done in invading Ukraine with the Shahed drones and the lessons learned there.

The minister talked about making sure there are consultations about ongoing conflicts. It has been part of this House to actually pronounce itself with a vote on whether we ever deploy troops. Can he guarantee that there will be a vote in this House if the government decides to deploy Canadian Armed Forces members and our kit in support of the operations against the Iranian regime?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his concern for the situation. He and I share that concern and stand on the same ground.

I have made it very clear. Canada has no intention whatsoever of entering into this prosecution of a war led by Israel and the United States. Canada was not consulted. Canada did not advise. Canada does not have personnel actively engaged in this conflict. That is very clear for this government. We are going to use our best efforts first to have Canadians who are in the region removed. We have made sure that our military personnel are in safe locations, away from harm. The third thing I would say is we are going to make sure that we can work with other like-minded parties to de-escalate this situation, which appears to be actually spiralling out of control.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister a question. First, since he mentioned it in his speech, what is Canada's official position now? I understand that when a situation evolves, positions have to be adjusted, but why have there been so many contradictory messages in such a short time?

Furthermore, I know that a contingency plan is now finally in place, but why is it that, while everyone else was getting ready, Canada was not making any plans regarding consular services?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that I accurately described Canada's position. It is fairly clear, and the Prime Minister himself has been very clear in his most recent remarks.

Preparations to assist Canadians in the region began immediately after the attack by Israel and the United States. We have hundreds of people in place, both here and in the region, to help Canadians leave the area. We are talking about tens of thousands of people.

We organized flights and increased the number of seats per flight, and we continue to support those who want to leave the region. There are a lot of retirees and a lot of people who live or work in the region. Canada's position is clear: Our priority is to protect Canadians, evacuate them as necessary, protect our military and take part in negotiations to de-escalate the situation.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I would like the Minister of National Defence to convey the gratitude of all Canadians to the members of the armed forces for the work they do every day. This weekend, General Carignan said, and the Prime Minister was very clear, that it is possible that the Canadian Armed Forces may be involved at some point. However, he said that we would not be involved in any offensive strikes. General Carignan said she was working with her team on all sorts of possible situations.

Can the Minister of National Defence explain to us what the armed forces may be asked to participate in in situations like this? Is it about evacuating people, escorting oil tankers? Based perhaps on past examples, can he tell us what the Canadian Armed Forces might do in such situations?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Armed Forces are in a constant state of readiness. They are always monitoring what is happening geopolitically around the world. In this case, following the attack in Iran, the Canadian Armed Forces are doing their job.

There is always the possibility of helping other countries, especially in the Middle East, that may need assistance, for example with desalination plants, thermal power plants or other power plants. There are always ways we can help. Assistance could also be provided by the Communications Security Establishment Canada, which does a lot of intelligence work. It will depend on the needs, and we are listening.

Today, our priorities are first and foremost Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. Next, we are trying to see how we can help reduce the intensity of this war. That is what we are hoping for.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, in the last exchange, the minister said that they are not considering any participation from the standpoint of sending military to the region. At the same time, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question last week, “One can never categorically rule out participation”. As we know, the chief of the defence staff has also said that they are looking at what they could do.

Historically, we have brought motions to the House and voted on whether there will be any deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces. Those forces could be used in supporting those already in the region or to support the Gulf states or other allies in the war against the Iranian regime, but we had votes in the House for Afghanistan in 2006 and 2008, for Libya in 2011, and for Iraq and Syria and the war against ISIS. Even under Justin Trudeau, we had a vote on the Iraq and Syria war in 2016.

Will the minister guarantee that there will be a vote before we send any Canadian Armed Forces into the region to assist our allies? Will he also address the issue of whether the 244 troops currently in the region, in Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and the Golan Heights, are safe, armed and able to protect themselves or just sheltering in place?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, the first thing I would remind the member of is that there is a difference between offensive and defensive activities. Right now, I have made it very clear that the government is not going to be pursuing offensive activities. This is not something we are contemplating. It is not something we have been requested to do. We have not been approached by the prosecutors of this war, Israel or the United States, and we have no intention of following up on that front.

We are going to focus on de-escalation efforts. It is not helpful in my mind right now to gin up the volume around this conflict on any side of the House. Canadians are worried enough right now. We have enough family members and enough Canadians in the region. What we should be doing is letting cooler heads prevail, and I think we should be assisting neighbouring states, if it is requested, with civil matters, water systems, desalination plants, electricity and other challenges that countries in this region are facing.

It is not a simple matter, and the member knows this. We are not talking about the prosecution of war in this country today. We are talking about trying to get things to de-escalate so we can find a successful outcome.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I divide all Conservative caucus slots in two.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I know he is very interested in the United Nations, of course. We have actually travelled there together on a couple of occasions.

I would like him to comment on the fact that the majority of members of the United Nations Security Council expressed serious concerns and immediately called for de-escalation and a return to diplomatic negotiations.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres is particularly concerned about the risk of renewed violence throughout the region.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that what is being discussed at the United Nations should be taken seriously. However, we also have to admit that there is a problem at the UN. I used to work for the UN. The organization has a problem. It does not seem to be working. Over the past decade, the UN and its security council have failed to resolve a number of conflicts.

I think there is work to do and progress to make to rebuild this multilateral institution, but at the same time, it is a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the minister so debate can continue.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills North.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government's position on the war in the Middle East has been contradictory and incoherent. I think, when I say that, I am being generous in my criticism. The Prime Minister and government members have said multiple times that they support U.S. air strikes against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran's regime from further threatening international peace and security.

When the U.S. air strikes began on Saturday, February 28, the government issued a formal statement, issued jointly in the names of the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister, which can be found, if the public is interested, on the PMO's website. It states unequivocally, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” In other words, the government unequivocally supports the U.S. air strikes against Iran. This is clear, unambiguous, coherent and consistent.

However, then several days passed and some Liberals became uneasy with the Prime Minister's clear, unambiguous, coherent and consistent statement, so the government started to backtrack ambiguously, incoherently and inconsistently. On March 3, the Prime Minister said, with respect to his support for the air strikes, that he took the position with regret.

Here is exactly what he said:

We take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order. Despite decades of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains.

In other words, the Prime Minister took the position in support of the air strikes with regret and says the current conflict is an example of the failure of the international order, including diplomatic frameworks.

On the same day, the national defence minister came out and called for a diplomatic end to the U.S. air strikes, saying that the government would prefer to see the U.S. air strikes cease. Here is what the national defence minister said on the very same day the Prime Minister issued the previous statement: “We're also calling for a diplomatic end to it. We very much would prefer to see peace and a ceasefire.” In other words, the government, on the same day it said diplomacy had failed, was calling for more diplomacy. It said it supported the U.S. air strikes but regretted supporting the U.S. air strikes.

Does the government support the air strikes, or is it calling for a ceasefire? It is not clear. Which is it?

Then, on March 4, the Prime Minister said this about the U.S. air strikes: “Canada’s policy itself is to always and everywhere respect international law.” He then further said, “Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerence.” The foreign affairs minister tonight in the House said that “international law binds all parties.” At the same time, on March 4, the Prime Minister said about the air strikes that they appear inconsistent with international law. He said, “Prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law.”

However, the Prime Minister has said multiple times, as has the government, that he consistently supports the air strikes. Does the government see the air strikes as inconsistent with international law, but support them anyway, while its policy is to call on Canada and the United States and all international parties to always and everywhere, all the time, support international law? This is completely contradictory and inconsistent.

To summarize, here is the government's position on the conflict in the Middle East: It supports the U.S. acting with air strikes, but it also regrets having to support the U.S. in air strikes. It calls for a ceasefire of the air strikes, but it calls for the air strikes to continue. The international order and diplomacy have failed, but it is calling for more diplomacy. It calls on all parties, including Canada and the United States, to uphold international law, but it believes the air strikes are inconsistent with international law, yet it supports them. The government's foreign policy is a complete, incoherent mess.