Mr. Chairman, I have waited some time, with a fair amount of patience, to take part in this take note debate. A number of thoughts come to me concerning this debate, but I have to say that I gave some thought to not even participating in this form of debate in the House of Commons.
Surely with an issue of this magnitude and of this importance, we should not simply participate in a committee of the whole on a take note debate where every member of parliament, as long as members of parliament are willing to show up and speak up, can speak for 10 minutes and simply sit down, with no requirement for the minister of defence to speak, for the minister of transportation to speak or for the Prime Minister to speak. Surely this is a matter of much greater importance than that.
As it worked out, we were able to hear from the leaders of all the respective political parties and I applaud all of them. I did not agree with all of them, but I certainly applaud all of them for their contributions.
However, it is certainly disgraceful, perhaps even disdainful, that we do not look at this issue with more importance and take the opportunity to have a full fledged debate in the House of Commons. We have committed troops to war. We did not do that with a debate and a motion on behalf of the House of Commons. We did not use the parliamentary system in the way it was meant to be used.
There has been a lot of discussion about the events of September 11. In no way, shape or form have any parliamentarians spoken in favour or even partially in favour of what happened on September 11. Everyone in the House has raised that issue, many of them very poignantly, and everyone has been adamantly against that type of violence in the world. What has been missed is the interpretation of how Canada should react to those events and even how other countries in the world, especially the United States, have reacted to those events.
It was with some concern that I listened to the debate on our opposition day motion and did not hear support for it from the New Democratic Party. It was with profound regret that I realized the New Democratic Party had no intention of supporting our opposition day motion. For the benefit of people who are watching this debate at home, I would like to explain very briefly what that opposition day motion was. It is very important to the debate at hand here this evening.
The motion put forth today by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, from the PC/DR coalition, states:
That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism; and
That this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.
This was amended to read “frequently, including joint meetings”.
There is nothing in the motion that would prevent any member of parliament or any member of any political party in the country from supporting it.
It is appalling that members of parliament chose to vote against that. We have committed troops to war. It is our job as parliamentarians to support them. We do not necessarily have to support the government in every action the government takes, but certainly we have to support our men and women in the Canadian military.
There were a number of issues that were brought up concerning this action. One of them was the fact that somehow our NATO allies, Britain, the United States, including Canada, were bombing civilians in Afghanistan. The way this was brought up, especially by the leader of the NDP, was as if those civilians were being targeted.
It needs to be noted here in the House, the record needs to be set straight, that no one is suggesting that innocent people do not get killed or injured in war. There is a huge difference as to whether or not that was the intent.
What happened on September 11 was a deliberate act of intent to murder innocent men, women and children. What has happened in Afghanistan, where perhaps civilians have been killed, was not intended. They were not the intended target. Certainly all members of the House should recognize that.
There was a lot of discussion on whether or not Canada, the United States, Britain and the rest of our NATO allies had the right to even respond to the events of September 11. I would suggest to members who question this that they should look at a number of precedents. First, they should look at article 5 in the NATO agreement. Second, they should look at article 51 in the UN agreement.
Article 51 in the UN agreement states:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
This clearly gives any member country in the UN the right to self-defence and, more important, the right to act and react in self-defence.
I would suggest that there are a number of members of parliament who talked today in the discussion and debate in the House about article 51 in the UN charter, but it is obvious that they have never read it, just as they have never read article 5 of the NATO agreement; that is the part in the NATO agreement which states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
I would suggest that not only did the members who spoke against the opposition day motion today and who stood and voted against it in this House not understand the motion, but they did not understand their job as members of parliament. They did not know what article 5 of the NATO agreement and article 51 in the United Nations charter entailed. However they should have because they referred to them in their speeches in the House.
Although I do not agree that this is the way we should debate this issue, although I do not agree that we should be coming to the House of Commons after the fact that war has been declared and we have committed troops to the field, and I vehemently do not agree with that, I still chose to participate in the debate this evening because I thought there was the matter of setting the record straight on a number of issues.
A lot of members of parliament wanted to be on the record on this issue and I am one of them. I would hope in the future, however, that we have clear and open debate with opportunities to question ministers and, most important, the Prime Minister and that we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians in a session where questions can actually be answered.