Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I believe there are certain obligations in international affairs and, when one has to take a tough decision affecting another country, one has to have the courage to go and tell it.
When we took the tough decision regarding the United States not to accept the strategic defence initiative, we did not have a deputy minister phone the ambassador. We talked to the president directly. I talked to the secretary of state directly. That is what courage is about. That is not what happened in this case.
The hon. member, who pays very close attention to these matters, misunderstood what I was saying about the coalition of terror, and that was probably my fault. What I was saying was that the actions that have been taken, without assigning blame for who took them, has broken the consensus in the coalition of terror and we need to restore it. Canada has the unique role, I believe, of restoring the sense of that coalition as it does in NATO and elsewhere. That at least is what I intended to say.
The major point I want to make has to do with whether or not the action that has been taken by the United Kingdom, the United States and by others is an action that is within the authority of the United Nations. I believe it is.
I asked the Government of Canada to publish its own legal opinions, which it did not. I have noted that the foreign minister has said that the question of legitimacy does not matter. I think the question of legitimacy matters profoundly. I think this is an issue, and others can disagree, but I believe, as the British government and as others do, that this action is in fact consistent with a combination of resolutions that were taken by the United Nations and it is, therefore, a legitimate action under the United Nations.
Consequently, the Prime Minister is wrong to say that he alone is defending the United Nations. I think in fact he is stepping aside from an action that is legitimate under the United Nations.