Article content continued

Trudeau spoke of how, in 2003, the U.S. launched a war in Iraq on “false pretenses.” The same thing appeared to be happening with the 2014 Iraq mission, he suggested. “The overheated and moralistic rhetoric is being used to justify more than just air strikes. It is an attempt to justify a war.”

Q. What, if anything, has changed since then?

A. Just 19 days after that speech – on Oct. 22 – Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier at the National War Memorial and died in a subsequent gun battle on Parliament Hill, putting terrorism and ISIL at the top of the government’s news agenda.

However, nothing suggests that Trudeau has altered any of the four principles he outlined in the Commons on Oct. 3. On that day, he said: “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.”

Q. Why does the view of the Liberal party matter?

A. The Liberals believe the economy will be the ballot box issue in the election, but the Conservatives want other hot-button issues – terrorism and law-and-order – to be on voters’ minds too.

Canadians already know the Official Opposition NDP is firmly opposed to the military mission and would bring troops home if the New Democrats won the election this year. But many do not think NDP leader Tom Mulcair will become prime minister; they say that battle is between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Trudeau. If so, how Trudeau votes on the Iraq mission matters.