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.