MONTREAL—If there is one major Liberal policy Justin Trudeau ran on in the election campaign that puts him at odds with a majority in public opinion, it is his commitment to end Canada’s participation in the international coalition’s bombing campaign on Islamic extremists in the Middle East.

That was true before the Paris terrorist carnage and it is almost certainly even truer in its aftermath. More than a few Canadians voted for the Liberals last month in spite of the party’s stance rather than as an expression of support for it.

Opposition to Trudeau’s commitment has always extended well into the Liberal family and it spreads across the usual divide between hawks and doves.

Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, a past nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, is among the prominent Liberals who believe Canada’s current combat role is appropriate. Leading rights activist and former Liberal minister Irwin Cotler is of the same mind.

In traditionally pacifist Quebec, both former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard have spoken out forcefully in support of Canada’s muscular role within the coalition.

Post-Paris Trudeau says his commitment to transition Canada out of its combat role remains unchanged. He can expect that to be seen as a lost opportunity by some of the best Liberal foreign policy minds and, possibly, as a matter of some debate within the ranks of his caucus.

As an aside, this will be a first opportunity to test the resolve of the new government to restore debate both within its ranks and in Parliament.

Hours before the Paris shootings, Trudeau released the marching orders he had handed each of his ministers upon their swearing-in earlier this month.

Government House leader Dominic Leblanc has been instructed to “give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons by promoting free votes and limiting the circumstances in which Liberal members of Parliament will be required to vote with the government.”

It will be interesting to see how that intention fares when the Liberal rubber hits the parliamentary road on the anti-ISIS mission.

Ultimately though, recasting Canada in the war on terrorism in the Middle East along less combat-oriented lines will likely come more easily to the rookie Liberal government than shoring up public confidence in its plan for settling tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in Canada.

While the debate over Trudeau’s intentions vis-à-vis the anti-ISIS coalition took up more space in the domestic post-Paris media analysis this weekend, on the street it was heightened concern over the imminent arrival of the first waves of refugees that seemed to be the top of mind issue for many Canadians.

If anything Trudeau’s intention to lead by example on the refugee issue is more important than ever. For many of Canada’s partners — starting with Turkey, the country that hosted the weekend’s G20 summit — relief on that front is at least as critical, if not more, as the handful of planes Canada contributes to the Middle East war theatre.

In the wake of the bloody attacks in Paris the pressure on many European countries to bolt shut their frontiers to Middle East refugees has intensified.

This country is not there yet but Canadians are more likely to give Trudeau a pass on a modified role in the engagement against ISIS than to forgive a botched refugee operation, especially if the perception sets in that the government is rushing to meet arbitrary quotas against a self-imposed deadline.

Little could go a longer way to poison the well for the thousands of Middle East refugees the government is planning to bring here, but also that of the incoming Liberal government.

The ability of a prime minister to sell voters on the aspirational agenda that Trudeau has in mind is directly proportional to his capacity to inspire public confidence. The latter is a precious commodity that is not easily renewed. It will be in play in the execution of the Liberal refugee plan.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Trudeau has a stronger rationale for increasing Canada’s contribution to the relief of the Syrian refugee crisis than for opting out of the bombing campaign on ISIS (even as Canada remains in the coalition) but the former could turn out to be a harder sell than the latter.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Read more about: