Mr. Speaker, my party's motion reads as follows:
That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.
I agreed to participate in this debate because since September 11, our individual and collective, freedoms, economic as well as political, have been shattered. I remember several headlines in the newspapers. One in particular said that “On September 11, 2001 at 8:45 the face of the world changed”.
The world changed on that day and we still have trouble going back to the normal rhythm of our lives. We cannot forget that horror. The breath of the tragedy is almost undescribable and unfortunately we are also witness to what I would call an overdose of information in the media.
For two weeks now we have been seeing the same picture of the plane crashing into the second tower and hearing the noise it made. I have nightmares about it. I wake up and see that plane and hear that noise and still find it horrible.
We were convinced that no democracy was invincible but what strikes us is the fact that we never thought that such a horrible attack could happen on American soil. We were hoping never to see that in our lifetime. Since September 11, we have even had to change our vocabulary. We have had to change our collective conscience with regard to what is happening.
The motion we are presenting is totally fundamental in a democracy. Incidentally the Liberals tabled an amendment to the government's motion during the gulf war. I believe it was the member for Saint-Maurice who was then leader of the opposition, or maybe he had not yet assumed that position. However when the then Minister of external affairs tabled a motion the Liberals amended, what did that amendment say?
The amendment moved by the current Deputy Prime Minister said this:
That this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House.
The current Deputy Prime Minister, who was then sitting on the opposition side, had this to say:
Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.
This is just common sense. This amendment is common sense, it is consistent with democracy and with the rights of members. As representatives of Canadians and Quebecers, we have the right to vote on whatever our government will decide to do to support the fight against terrorism.
Unfortunately, we have to admit that the rules of the game are somewhat outdated. At the time the Conservatives did not see fit to accept the amendment moved by the Liberals, who were then in opposition.
Therefore today, we should be dealing with reasonable, intelligent members who use their common sense and say, “When we were in opposition, we wanted a vote in parliament, so now that we are in power, we will lead by example”.
It feels like watching kids play, irresponsible individuals totally unable to change their minds because when they were in the opposition, they did not get their way.
I hope the Prime Minister will give it some thought and that his government will support this motion and give us the opportunity to have our say and debate the issue, should the executive he heads consider dragging us into a war.
We do not know against whom, where or for how long. We ask questions and, in the course of the same question period, we get conflicting answers from different ministers.
How do you expect the Canadian people to trust their representatives? How do you expect the Canadian people to find it worthwhile to have members of parliament and all that it entails to have people who sit here all day long trying to accomplish something?
Why do you think people believe that being involved in politics serves no purpose? Because their is only one person who is playing politics here; the Prime Minister is the only one who went to Washington, where he was asked for nothing, and came back here.
Of course, for the time being, he does not have to consult us because nothing was asked of him. If there was a request, what possible scenario could we be facing?
If the past is an indication of the future, it seems to me that the Liberals, when they were in opposition, had asked for something that made sense. Today, they should grant us that very same thing, but no, they will not.
I am concerned when the government leader rises in the House during oral question period to tell us not to worry because since the Prime Minister has been in office, his government has developed a new system and we now have a new procedure, a new process. There will be consultations.
This government does not know what consulting means. If we look at all the acts under which it has an obligation to consult, which make it mandatory for the government to consult the provinces and territories, we see that the ministers responsible do not meet with their agents, their counterparts in the provinces and territories, to consult them, seek their opinion or ask them how they see things, rather it informed them of the decisions it has made. This is the way every single minister operates. This is what happens in every single department.
We do not trust that we will be really consulted. This is the tragedy. Not only do we want to be consulted, but we want to have the right to vote because we represent the views of our constituents and they, at least some of them, are asking us not to go to war.
In Quebec, the polls are very clear: we have always seen things differently. While terrorism must be fought and ways will have to be found to put an end to it, this does not necessarily mean we have to go to war tomorrow morning.