Debates of Feb. 6th, 2003

Supply

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we can say that if war was declared today, it would not be legitimate. But it is necessary to follow the process. This is what we have always said, and not one party in this House thinks that war will be declared without the UN process being followed. That is what Colin Powell did yesterday.

He asked that Hans Blix return to Iraq to give that country a chance to respond. The UN chief inspector will return before the Security Council. That is the process. As in any war, if war is declared, and we all hope it can be averted, the process will have to be followed. The process continues. Let us not pass judgment on the legitimacy of the process until it is complete. Let us not be premature. The legitimacy is in the process of Mr. Blix. Let us wait until he returns before the Security Council.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter into this extremely important debate. I first want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for bringing his motion forward today, which has helped further the debate in the House of Commons. I know we have had some initial debate, but it is such an important issue that I believe it needs to be more fully discussed.

With respect to the whole issue of resolution 1441 by the United Nations, clearly some of the current evidence tends to strongly support the position that there is a question of non-compliance by the state of Iraq to the intentions of the United Nations. I think the problem for a lot of international communities is the non-compliance somehow then translates into moving us directly into a confrontation involving war. I question whether that is a natural evolutionary process. I believe all sane-minded people would want to prevent conflict and war. I believe it is really more of an opportunity for Iraq to reconsider its position and for the international community to find ways to avoid this.

I know I speak for many of my constituents when I say that when we entered the 21st century we believed the cold war was over. We believed that we were entering into an unprecedented time of peace. Now we find ourselves a short three years later on the precipice of war. I know I speak for my constituents who have great consternation with that approach and believe there is a better way.

People have questioned time and time again whether we are really friends of the United States. I think we are its best friend, but I do not believe that friends always have to agree. Friends can have disagreements, which can be very constructive.

I am very concerned about the regime in the United States called the national doctrine, which was entered into by the president and accepted by Congress. It more or less lays out the U.S. foreign policy. It is interesting and I will read a few lines from the policy. It states:

In keeping with our heritage and principles... We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors humanfreedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewardsand challenges of political and economic liberty.

It goes on to state:

--the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedomacross the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, freemarkets, and free trade to every corner of the world.

It may sound like brave new worlds in the 21st century.

I harken back to another document that states:

America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle fields, but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations, of the rights of conscience, the rights of personal enfranchisement.

We have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples. The expansive future is our arena, and for our history.

This sounds very similar to the national doctrine. It is a statement by John O'Sullivan, back in 1839, who wrote of the whole concept of the manifest destiny of the United States. This has led to so many wars, both within the United States and within the western hemisphere, even in conflict with this country because the United States at one time had a presidential election based on the theory of fifty-four forty or fight. In other words, it was a conquest of Canada's sovereign area as well.

Because of that we are very concerned that the United States is prepared to enter into this in a unilateral framework. To support that, I go back to the national doctrine which says:

--identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders...we will not hesitate to act alone,if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting preemptively...

This doctrine entitles the United States to attack any country in the world that it preconceives to be a threat to it. While I suppose some of us might argue that a country has a right to self-defence, it is a difficult and unusual concept of international diplomacy that we would sanction a doctrine which gives a country the right to attack any country. We are talking about country of Iraq. I think that most people--

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that one of the rules of debate in the House is that of relevance. I recognize that the member is talking to the issue of what the foreign affairs minister referred to as the key international question. The motion today specifically is on the key Canadian parliamentary question, not on the issue of whether the U.S. should go to war without the sanctions of the UN, and all the doctrines about which the member is talking.

Could the member address the issue of should the House have the ability to vote on whether Canada goes to war?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I do not know if at some point in time the hon. member for Durham will tie in his remarks to the motion at hand, but the message has been made to him and we all expect to hear his views on it.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the opposition would want to interrupt a debate which is profound to the parliamentary governance issue. For members of Parliament to stand in this place and vote on something as profound as whether we go to war, surely we would want to have a debate on the merits of that. I am surprised at the member. He simply wants to say yes or no today to that issue. This seems to be part of the Alliance's basic foreign policy, that we should go to war based on a simple yes or no. It is not as simple as that. We are talking about something very profound.

What is the long term agenda? What happens when we make that decision, when we vote in the House and vote for confrontation? What is the long term result of that situation in the Middle East? What happens when a hundred thousand Iraqi citizens are killed? If we have this great build up of military might in the Middle East, there must be some other rogue regimes there with which we are not very happy. Where does it all end? It is not as simple as saying shall we vote on having a war today. We have to think of the long term consequences of that.

Quite frankly, the whole motion may well be hypothetical because we are not even at the stage of discussing whether Canada should enter this conflict. Maybe the House leader will put some of those arguments before us. I question whether the motion itself, because of its hypothetical nature, should be voted on in the House.

We are debating the motion before us today. I am happy to go back to looking at the consequences of the policy the United States has entered into, this so-called national doctrine. I hear people in this town in particular say that anybody who objects to that must be anti-American. I do not believe that for one moment. I think we are pro-American.

When the word conflict is added to the fear and the combination of religion and poverty in that part of the world, we enter into a significant period of aggression. The kinds of detriment that could be caused in this country and others are not from nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Rather, anyone who has a paint factory could create chemicals which could annihilate huge sections of populations wherever they may be.

I and my constituents are very concerned. I am before the House representing my constituents. I want to convey to the House the concerns of the people of Durham. Not only do they not want to go war, nobody ever wants to go war, but they also do not want to be committed to a long term aggression where their personal safety is also on the line and where the safety of our men and women in our armed forces is in jeopardy over an issue such as this.

The United States is not talking about disarming India. India and Pakistan are probably more of a threat to world peace than Iraq. We know North Korea has nuclear weapons and we are not talking about a war on North Korea. We are talking about war on Iraq. The issue with Iraq is these people are more of a threat to their own people than they are to the rest of the world, and that was my point.

We have to give the United Nations greater time to work and our responses to that have to be proportional to the threat of war.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the member and I may have differences of opinion on a number of issues. Unfortunately, the member did not clearly understand the reason why I brought up the point of order. I will try to be more precise in my question.

It was the belief of the gentleman, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada, when he was the leader of the opposition, it was the belief of the gentleman who is currently the House leader for Liberals, when he was a member of the opposition, and it is our belief that the House has a responsibility to bring the views, wishes, desires and the direction that we receive from our constituents along with our ability to think independently to this chamber and to vote on the question of whether Canada should go to war.

Therefore my question is not on the content of the member's speech. My question is precisely on the point: should the House be given the opportunity to have a vote on Canada going to war? A simple answer would suffice.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to defer to my House leader. That may be thought of as a cop-out but the reality is that this debate is much more important than debating the semantics and workings of the House.

It is important to get our message across to the people of Canada and more important, to get their message into this place. We have been limited on the amount of time we have had to debate the whole issue. I have been frustrated and I am sure many other members have been also, to bring the issues of Canadians to the House. I am more concerned about that than I am about having a simple vote. We have to have more opportunity to vet this issue for the people of Canada.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather contradictory for a member to talk about his fellow citizens and then make such a statement. I cannot believe that your fellow citizens are different from my fellow citizens. They do not want us to merely debate the issue, they want us to vote. They want you to represent their views on whether or not to send soldiers to war and what we ought to do. There has to be a vote.

The motion by the Canadian Alliance is clear. Your government and you, as a government member, claim to be listening to your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens are asking that you vote, not just debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Durham, I will remind the hon. member for Châteauguay that remarks must always be addressed to the Chair, not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again we could propose votes on just about anything in the House but the reality is we are not even close to making a decision about sending troops to anywhere for that matter. It is incumbent on to us to debate the whole issue of whether we should be going down that road at all. I dispute the premise of the member's question because I believe it is premature to even be talking about a vote that would send Canadian troops anywhere.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the day will come when the people in the front row on the government side, because they are the government, will make a decision. They will decide either to go to war or to not go to war, or some other decision along those lines.

The motion says that after the government makes that decision every member in this Parliament should have the opportunity to concur in that decision through a vote. That is called democracy. Does the member believe in democracy, that we should concur in that decision with a vote?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I believe in democracy. The recognition is that this is a majority government, that it has the support of the people generally, and the executive of that governing body is entitled to make decisions which affect the country.

I am sure within their wisdom the time will come when they will possibly want to go back and consult with people through the House as well. But there are many different ways of consulting the people; there is the House but there are also other venues within the general population.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleagues that my speech will focus on the fundamental reasons for which I feel, particularly in relation to this conflict, parliamentarians must get to vote.

In this new millennium which, for many, started with the events of September 11, 2001, one superpower is dominating the world economically, culturally, militarily and politically, and this superpower is our neighbour and friend.

The international community, Canada, Quebec and each of us individually, must strenuously affirm that might does not make right. As imperfect as it may be, the United Nations is the seat of international law. This has been especially true and necessary since this war of civilizations, which we oppose with all our being, was announced.

But to oppose war is not enough. To many the twin towers tumbling down in New York revealed the existence of not only al-Qaeda, but also some twenty or more such international terrorist groups. We have seen them at work recently.

We know that the war against international terrorism will be long term, that it will involve combating inequality around the world, as well as hunger and injustices, and resolving the conflict in the Middle East. We know that war on international terrorism will not be won, be it in Iraq or elsewhere, even with 150,000 troops and sophisticated equipment. In the name of peace, such conflicts claim thousands of innocent lives in the civilian population, and at the same time they set the stage for extremists with a death wish.

To win the war, as was done in Afghanistan, is one thing. But those who take an interest in it know that this war may not be totally over. Fighting was recently reported. Numerous Taliban groups are fighting at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

However, what the international community was seeking was to establish the conditions necessary for peace and democracy to be maintained in Afghanistan. This is a completely different story. The current situation in Afghanistan shows us that while the war may have been won, peace is far from restored, and the conditions for democracy are still far off.

Recent information submitted to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, indicates that currently it is not safe anywhere in Afghanistan, except in the city of Kabul. There are sections of that city too where soldiers are known to steal and rape. Outside of Kabul, warlords have resumed control. Sharia is the reigning law.

I have just been told that I should have indicated to the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

So, it is not safe anywhere except in Kabul. Without security, there can be no freedom, rights, or justice. The case of the Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Sima Simar, is a good example. She is the subject of a Fatwa and has been reduced to almost complete inactivity. The Supreme Court, assigned the task of establishing tribunals throughout the region, is presided over by a judge who does not meet the requirements of the new constitution of Afghanistan. He had not been there for two years, but was closely linked to the disturbances in Afghanistan.

Far from preparing the conditions for democracy, and without the billions of dollars promised for reconstruction, Afghanistan is in a difficult situation. Why mention this again? Because on the eve of a war that promises to bring peace, democracy and security to Iraq, we must look at what has been done recently. War is a last resort that—since the adoption of the UN charter—can only be lawfully used under the aegis of the United Nations.

Furthermore, according to law, a pre-emptive war may only be started when there is an established and imminent threat.

I point all this out because this conflict has not acquired legitimacy, even with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation, with all due respect to him. It has not been established that Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace right now, or even that he is an urgent threat.

This lack of legitimacy is widespread in Europe and not one country there seems to have changed its position following yesterday's presentation. Time will tell, but the public may not be on the verge of changing their mind. In Europe, 82% of people are against a war, and in Canada, as I already said, 46% of people are opposed, even with a second UN resolution. In Quebec, 49% of people are against any war.

What about the way Muslims view this war? Like it or not, if Iraq did not sit atop the second largest oil reserve in the world, there probably would not be 150,000 soldiers heading for the region.

The fight against terrorism, which we cannot escape, absolutely must involve a broad coalition, including Arab and Muslim countries. An attack against Iraq under the current circumstances, without a new explicit decision from the United Nations and without providing proof, would only make the fight against terrorism extremely difficult. I am not referring to leaders of countries, but their citizens.

Because of this, we need more proof than we were shown yesterday to launch—with the support of the UN, but especially without its support—a full-blown war such as the one announced by the Pentagon with 3,000 bombs in 48 hours, before troops would enter Baghdad.

It is important to continue the inspections, which have been effective in the past. According to Charles-Philippe David, a frequent commentator in Quebec:

The surprise UN inspections seem to have produced tangible results. UNSCOM has destroyed more material used for weapons of mass destruction since 1991 than the entire coalition army did during the gulf war of 1991.

And I have more figures. We will also need to wait for the report of the chief inspectors. But I would like to recall Hans Blix's comments to the New York Times . I was much moved by these comments, which I will have to read in English:

Mr. Blix said he continued to endorse disarmament through peaceful means.

“Mr. Blix said he still supports disarmament through peaceful means.” This is my own loose translation. “I think that it would be terrible if this situation ended in military action, and I hope that disarmament continues through peaceful means”.

That is why Saddam Hussein must be pressured, and that is why inspections and peace must be given every opportunity to succeed. Even with a second resolution, this conflict's legitimacy will not be easily accepted by everyone, not by any means.

That is why, even if the Security Council votes for a second resolution ensuring international law, the Bloc Quebecois is more than ever committed to holding a vote in the House where the parties could say if they thought that our participation in war should be supported because we considered that war legitimate. Each party, and perhaps each individual member, has the duty and the responsibility to represent the electorate and to vote on such an important question, which is related not only to a conflict but to the advancement of peace throughout the world.

In closing, pursuant to Standing Order 85, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding between the words “Hussein” and “a motion” the following:

“or, in the event the decision is made while the House stands adjourned, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Speaker shall convene the House at the earliest opportunity,”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier for her speech, which clearly shows not only how concerned she is with this situation but also how well she grasps all the information and nuances surrounding it.

I would like to ask her a question that refers perhaps more to the motion per se on the necessity of a vote in the House on this matter. When we were campaigning for election, not one of us did so on the platform “We will go to the House and, if possible, avoid voting on any controversial questions, particularly anything to do with war”. It seems to me that all members, regardless of party allegiance, hoped that once they were elected they would be able to really speak out on essential matters.

I would like the hon. member for Mercier, history buff that she is, to give us a bit of the historical background on the votes that have been held in this House in connection with war situations.

I would like her to tell us if this has indeed always been a practice of the Liberal government since 1993, or whether there was not a different tradition in the past, one that merits reviving.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. His constituents have every reason to be proud of his work.

We did some research in my office, and a good thing. We found, and this was a pleasant surprise, that despite what the government is saying, since 1914 there has only been one time, under the Trudeau government, when troops were sent to take part in a conflict without a vote first being held. That is the only time when a vote was not held in the House on this issue.

There were various approaches, but in the case of World War I, it was during the throne speech, because of the timing. For the Korean War, a debate took place and there was a vote on government ways and means motions authorizing the measures to be taken regarding the war. No vote was taken regarding the Suez Canal conflict. A debate took place without a vote, but the issue was merely the sending of 11 people to monitor the truce.

So, as we can see, there have been debates and votes in the past. There were no debates and votes when the issue was merely the sending of a few people for peacekeeping purposes or similar reasons.

However, since 1993, troops have been sent abroad on several occasions, following take note debates, but not votes. The Prime Minister, who wants to leave a legacy and who surprised us somewhat with his proposal on party financing, should make his legacy to bring back the past practice of allowing members of Parliament to vote before troops are deployed to conflicts abroad.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Bloc foreign affairs critic on her as usual very lucid and visionary presentation. In the process I also want to congratulate her for moving a very important amendment to the motion, because we know the current Liberal government is not one that values and respects the participation of parliamentarians in a timely way, even on an issue as serious as taking our nation into a war. Therefore we need to be sure that it does not use a procedural delay as a way of basically continuing to disregard parliamentarians.

I also want to congratulate the member on having spoken today and many times very eloquently on the inherent danger of pre-emptive military strikes. I think that is one of the great concerns about the U.S. continuing to signal that it is hell bent to launch an attack on Iraq no matter what.

I wonder if the member might take the opportunity to speak on this subject about what a slippery slope it is for the U.S. or any country to take it upon itself in total defiance of international law to engage in pre-emptive strikes. If the U.S. can do it, then who else can do it? If in this case--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to rise, but I ask members to keep in mind that when members share their time it obviously leaves only five minutes for questions or comments.

So, I am asking the hon. member for Mercier to be brief in her reply to the hon. member for Halifax.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is now the foreign affairs critic. I greatly enjoyed working with her predecessor, but I am certain that the committee will benefit from her presence.

I will be brief. We stated our position very early when we learned of the plan for pre-emptive strikes, and we have not changed our position; on the contrary. Of course, international terrorism seems to be an opportunity for the United States to ignore the rule of law, but it cannot be ignored, because without it, as my hon. colleague mentioned, any country could take the law into its own hands. This takes us right back to the 19th century, when each country thought that it could fix its problems through war.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right off the bat, I want to draw the attention of people listening to the fact that, today, we are debating a votable motion.

The official opposition had to work some procedural magic to ensure a vote in the House of Commons, in the event of a decision to deploy troops. This is far from a sure thing right now. To force this debate, special procedures have to be resorted to. However, God knows that it is extremely important to have this debate, followed by a vote in the House of Commons before troops are deployed.

For example, I can mention the last conflict, in Afghanistan. During the NATO meeting here, in Ottawa, I received a call from an assistant to the Prime Minister telling us “The Prime Minister has just committed to war against Afghanistan, and there will be a take note debate when the House returns, next week”.

The decision had already been made. People were in the midst of preparations. Ships were preparing to leave. Troops were ready, at the ports, to be deployed to the theatre of operations, and the members of Parliament had not even had the opportunity to discuss it yet. Furthermore, we were not even given the opportunity to vote on this issue.

There are most certainly risks to Canadians and Quebeckers deployed to these theatres of operations. What happened in Afghanistan? Four Canadians from PPCLI, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry—I always salute them when I say their name, because they are the ones who helped us in Saint-Jean in 1998, during the ice storm—were killed under friendly fire. We remember. They may have been based in Saint-Jean. It is always difficult to deploy people to a theatre of operations and it is always very risky.

I attended the commemorative ceremony in Edmonton. It was very difficult to see the intense sadness of the 25,000 people who filled the hockey arena. They mourned the loss of four of their friends and colleagues, whose guns and helmets were placed front and centre during the ceremony. Canadians and Quebeckers who watched the ceremony on television certainly recognize the merit of these people who lost their life in a conflict that—I repeat—we had not even been called to vote on.

Yet, despite the many shifts and the fatigue of these soldiers, if they were deployed again tomorrow, with all the known risks, still they would go. I hope we will be able to vote to give our approval as members of Parliament.

There is no doubt that even after losing four men, if the members of the PPCLI were told that they were going back to a dangerous theatre of operations tomorrow, they would say “let's go”. The Royal 22

e

would do the same, as well as the Royal Canadian Regiment in the Atlantic provinces. I know how dedicated these people are. I trained with the Royal 22

e

and I am very glad I did. I know the level of dedication and commitment of these soldiers. When they are ordered to deploy, they do not ask any questions; they just go.

A vote is all the more important now because of the issues at stake. There were issues at stake then as well. The Prime Minister and his cabinet made the decision on their own. Now there are other issues at stake in this new war. Will we join a coalition of volunteers? Will we respect the UN, the multilateral organization that is supposed to deal with these international conflicts?

If we decide to go to war without a UN resolution,—and that is the instrument that was put in place after the war for the exact purpose of settling this type of issue—if we decide to join the Americans in a coalition of volunteers outside the bounds of the UN, I believe that there would be imminent danger. I am talking here about a return to the law of the jungle.

What would prevent North Korea from attacking South Korea on the grounds that it poses a threat? What would prevent Pakistan from attacking India on the grounds that it poses a threat? If the Americans can do it with their friends, other countries could also decide that they can do it with their own friends.

There is the importance of the UN, and then there is the importance of allowing the inspectors to finish their job. Are they going to be allowed to do that before action is taken? Is there going to be a second UN resolution?

There are a lot of issues involved, we understand that. Talking about them is not enough. There must also be a vote on them. The members in this House, the parties in this House, must get some idea of all the issues I have listed, so that they can they say “Here is what our position is”.

There are, of course, take note debates, and our Liberal colleagues are constantly telling us that they do consult us. Consultations are, to our mind, all very well, take note debates are all very well. We take part in them but it is a bit frustrating, when the debate ends at midnight, to know that we will not have any say in the decision to be taken.

[An hon. member]

The decision is already made.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The decision is made, or will be, but without the vital input of the members of the House of Commons. In a Parliament, words, oration, discussion are not enough. There must also be a vote. When a candidate is appointed at a party nomination meeting, there is a vote. When we are here and there are major issues at stake, people expect us to be called upon to vote.

I see that time is flying and I would like to raise the question of the vitality of public opinion before I close. People listening to us know how important a vote in the House of Commons is. They think they elected us to vote. I can tell them that we often do. We vote on just about everything, from budgets to health, on all manner of things.

At this time an attempt is being made to prevent us from exercising our right to vote on something as important as the deployment of troops. The only thing protecting peace is public opinion. We have seen the polls, and my colleague has referred to them. We have referred to them regularly and they have been reported by the media. I think that the public is critical of participation in a war. They are fully aware that they themselves cannot turn up at the House of Commons and announce “I am opposed to this”. They have to influence their member of Parliament. There are people who want to influence us. Many of them let us know “Careful, don't do that”. Of course we bring their concerns here, but if we are deprived of our fundamental right to vote, the whole exercise will, in my opinion, have been pointless.

In closing, if we vote on things such as a tax increase, which requires a Parliamentary vote, on additional money for health, on the Kyoto protocol, on new financing for political parties, if we are allowed to vote on these issues, we should be able to vote on the dangers to which we would be subjecting young Quebeckers and young Canadians. They stand to shed their blood for their country if they are sent to a dangerous theatre of operations.

We must give members the opportunity to vote on this issue. If we are allowed to vote on tax increases, it seems to me more important that we also be allowed to vote when Canadians and Quebeckers are asked to risk their lives.

I would like to say to the government that if it does not allow a vote, it will pay a price for ignoring members of the House of Commons and only paying attention to the cabinet. The government will say, “legally, it is our right”, but legitimately, we are here to represent the public. In our ridings, we probably all have soldiers who may be called up if troops are deployed. The government must understand that we want to have our say. It must also understand that we must be able to vote to decide on what is said.

If the government cannot respect this, it will have to pay the political price. The voters, who go to the polls every four years, will be the ones to denounce this government's arrogance. They will know that they have the right to vote. They will definitely vote against those who prevented members of Parliament from voting on issues after debate, especially when it is important.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Jean on his speech, and I know that, as defence critic, he is very aware of the state of the troops. I would like to ask him a question that seems relevant.

In the end, would not the soldiers who might have to go to the front in a military campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein—if that is what the government decides—want the support of the Government of Canada, the support of the House of Commons where their elected representatives sit, on this decision that will be made? Is it not important also for soldiers to know exactly what parliamentarians think about this issue? Would it not be important for them to have this information?

The Minister of Defence has said many different things. He even went to the United States and, each time he spoke, the message was not very clear. Would it not be better to send a clear message, to know exactly what the members representing the people think of this, so that the military can be informed?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, I have never seen such fancy footwork. Personally, although I am not a French figure skating judge, I would certainly give a 10 to the national defence minister, the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister. They have been dancing around the possibility of having a vote, which is far from a sure thing. And what about their position? Will they choose to follow the United States, yes or no?

Any soldier about to be sent to the theatre of operations needs to know what is going on, as well as his or her family, who will also be greatly affected. You just have to see the families bid farewell to their loved ones to understand that this is a risky business.

Since the decision is only up to the Prime Minister or his caucus, those who do not have the chance to have the Prime Minister or a minister as their member of Parliament will soon realize that their elected representative has had no say in the matter. He or she might have had a say, but not the opportunity to vote on this issue, which is something very important for the legitimacy of the whole process.

Let me remind my colleague that the U.S. Congress and the House of Commons in Great Britain have always promised to have a vote. Tony Blair mentioned it again. There was a vote in Washington, and there might be another one because of the newest developments. Prime Minister Blair stated in the House that he would uphold tradition and ensure that the House of Commons holds a vote on such a fundamental issue.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious concern this morning and I would like to have the opinion of the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

I am concerned that 49% of Quebeckers say they are against sending soldiers to Iraq under any circumstance and that 38% of all Canadians say no. That is the same percentage the Liberals had in the last election.

Are all the members of this House not starting to be concerned about the polls on whether or not soldiers should be sent to Iraq?