Antoine Dubé

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is in my capacity as Bloc Quebecois member on the Subcommittee on Human Rights that I am taking part in this debate, which is closely related to human rights.

In my opinion, it is always good to reread the motion by my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay:

That this House call upon the government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United Nations.

First, I wish to commend the hon. young member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay who proposed this motion. I have known him for five years and I think this is very representative of the work he has been doing so far. This hon. member speaks with generosity and always for the people in his riding.

I also appreciated the approach of our colleague from Trois-Rivières, who presented here in parliament the thoughts of students, of young people about this whole issue as well as the questions they are asking themselves.

A few weeks ago I was invited by a secondary 5 class and an Amnesty International group at a high school. Young people are very concerned about the current crisis. Everyone is concerned, including young people. They are very interested in this issue and they are very worried. The comments made by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay accurately reflect the feelings of the members of his generation. I continued my consultation with teachers and many other people.

This morning, the results of a poll--I will not go into the details--indicated that Quebecers see the Afghan conflict from a slightly different perspective than other Canadians do. I am not surprised.

Let me be clear. We supported a response, a reaction by the Americans, under the aegis of the UN, to punish those responsible for the September 11 attacks and their accomplices. I think we should be clear on this.

All this brings us to the source of the problem. In my opinion, the growing gap between poor and rich countries is at the root of this problem. We must be careful not to let the current conflict degenerate and become a terrible ordeal for civilians, not only in Afghanistan, but also elsewhere in the region, and even at home. A victim, whether in the United States or in Afghanistan, is a victim nonetheless. We must never forget that.

The reason I reread the motion earlier is precisely because it puts us in the context of the current crisis. Let us not forget it. Of course the pre-September 11 humanitarian assistance is an altogether different issue but there are people and NGOs who are meeting. They were even consulted by the minister. They told her as recently as September 6, before the attacks, that they wondered about the international humanitarian assistance provided by the Canadian government. They felt that the aid provided was increasingly governed by a commercial or economical framework or vision.

Coming back to Afghanistan for example, this country has been suffering the horrors of wars for at least 20 years. People do not know where to go so they keep moving. Even before September 11 this country had the greatest numbers of refugees of all, with over 2.5 million people displaced.

Since September 11 at least 500,000 more people have been internally displaced or have fled to neighbouring countries to be safe. They have to protect themselves not only from the Taliban but also from the bombings. More and more misfires are reported. A victim, whether in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world, remains a victim.

I was sitting in my office this afternoon getting ready for my speech when I overheard some MPs talking. I do not want to tell you who they were but I can tell you that what they said worried me somewhat. Members from the other side were saying that we could perhaps question the international and humanitarian aid to which Canada currently contributes. As if it were very significant.

One of the problems is that Canada's international assistance is dwindling. At 0.25%, it is far from the 0.7% target. It is actually less than half what former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson had proposed for all countries. At the time, OECD countries had agreed to move in that direction but since the Liberals took office, we have been moving in the opposite direction, with declining assistance. Some members are wondering if we should continue in that direction while others suggest it is not worthwhile.

I am in favour of the most urgent humanitarian aid. Let us take for example a person whose life is in danger, whose health is threatened or who is hungry. Maslow taught us that when primary needs are not satisfied is not the time to consider development projects. How can a person think of development projects when his life or the lives of his children or his neighbours are in danger?

Since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, I would like to read once again a few sections of the charter of human rights that was adopted by the UN more than 50 years ago. It is not asking too much to read this again.

Article 1 says, and I quote:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

We must ask ourselves whether there is still a spirit of brotherhood in this conflict. There are 30 articles in the charter. For example, Article 3 states:

Everyone has the right to life--

This is essential when we are threatened with death by bombs or by people pursuing us. I go on:

--liberty and security of person.

Article 13 says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

When people are forced to flee their residences, I do not think they do it freely. They do it to save their lives. When people cross borders they do it because they are threatened.

Article 14 says this:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

It is a right. People are given that right, but they also need food and medical care.

Article 22 says this:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

An underdeveloped country may not have the same ability to provide foreign aid as another country.

Article 25 says this:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability...or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I wanted to remind members of that. Human rights are fundamental but too often we have a tendency to forget that. We can ask ourselves why. Yes, bilateral aid from Canada or any other country must be conditional on respect for human rights.

This is the meaning of the motion and it is in this context that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay is presenting the motion. International aid would be sent out through the UN, the international organizations of the UN, the UN High Commission for Refugees and international agencies accredited by the UN, therefore, we could help the countries within an independent framework.

Over the weekend I discussed the issue with many people of all ages in my riding. This is what I came out with. Why would Canada not contribute as much to humanitarian aid, and we are talking about 0.7%, as it contributes to the military for participation in the offensive? We do not disagree with offensive action but we should always give as much to build and to save lives as we give to destroy a country.

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the adjournment motion I would like to talk about a matter I have raised in this House and the answer given to it last Thursday. I asked the following question to the Minister of Industry:

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Industry told Davie Industries officials that he could not do anything to help their company until the proposals made to the government are accepted.

I was referring to an action plan that the minister had prepared and tabled in June.

Could the government pledge to quickly adopt the proposals of the Minister of Industry regarding the shipbuilding industry, so as to avoid the closure of another company and, more importantly, the loss of jobs?

The parliamentary secretary is the one who answered, and I see that he has been asked to answer again today. I will let him give his answer, but what he was saying was that the Minister of Industry had met with the officials but agreed with the decision made by Investissement Québec to reject Davie's request. He therefore said that he agreed and answered that the federal government would not do anything.

I would like to point out that shipbuilding, under the constitution as it stands, is first and foremost a federal responsibility. People from Davie Industries approached Investissement Québec because they were fed up with nothing happening on the federal side. Yet, the Minister of Industry did present a plan of action in June, the week after the House rose.

Week in and week out, day in and day out, we are told that soon there will be announcements of funding. Meanwhile, not only in Lévis but elsewhere in Canada shipyards are closing. We are losing a whole infrastructure that was important to us.

Today I hope the government and the parliamentary secretary, who has former shipyard workers living in his riding and who long chaired his regional caucus and is aware of the situation, given that the matter is up for discussion at Treasury Board and in cabinet in the coming weeks, will seize the opportunity I am offering them today to announce that the government will do something to help Davie Industries.

I warn him that I will not be very happy if he says, as usual, that they can do nothing for shipbuilding.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Mercier, I too would like to congratulate our colleague from the New Democratic Party for initiating this debate in the House today.

It is as important today as it has been since September 11, particularly because today we see the focus being concentrated on more precise and more targeted declarations of war. This is an appropriate time to speak of respecting human rights.

I would like to repeat the NDP motion, because every word of it is important. It reads:

That this House:

(a) condemn the terrorist attacks in the United States—as crimes against humanity, and call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice in accordance with international law and within the framework of the United Nations—

I believe that what happened on September 11 may have made North Americans aware of the existence of terrorism. The more we examine the issue, the more we realize that terrorism has been around for a long time and that it can be found in many places on our planet.

The events of September 11 have raised Canadians' and Quebecers' awareness of this problem, because they have felt more affected. While the attacks were aimed more specifically at the Americans, we must not think that we here are free from terrorism. Much as we would not want it to happen here, it could.

The first part of the motion says that reference must be made to international law and within the framework of the United Nations. This would be desirable. Since September 11, we have only to turn on the television or read the newspaper or listen to the comments coming from all sides, to realize this is perceived as an American crisis, whereas it must be placed instead in a context of terrorism against democracy, against individual freedoms, against human rights.

I believe that all countries of the world should form as broad and as effective a coalition as possible in order to fight terrorism, which is taking on totally new and different forms.

For example, there is an International convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. The events of September 11 had nothing to do with conventional bombs. Aircraft were used in attacks on buildings. Not only were there victims on the planes, there were far more because of all the people in the buildings. This has affected many aspects of people's lives and thousands no longer feel safe to fly; this has meant a heavy blow to the economy.

The second paragraph of the NDP motion reads as follows:

(b) endorse the objectives of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and call upon the Government, in accordance with this resolution, to deliver a report to the U.N. Security Council Committee, within 90 days, setting out the steps Canada will take to implement resolution 1373, and further direct the Government to table this report in the House.

I think that we have to acknowledge that this morning's debate has been carried out in a non-partisan manner. The minister promised us that he would table the report in the House.

As far as we are concerned, it will take more than tabling reports in the House. During a Bloc Quebecois opposition day last week, we proposed that there be a vote by parliamentarians if ever a military offensive was to be undertaken.

The UN resolution is comprehensive. It contains nine elements, but it would take too long to list them all here.

The first element deals with the financing of terrorist acts and consists of freezing funds and other financial assets of persons who commit, or who attempt to commit, terrorist acts. It contains a whole series of measures to this effect.

While I do not wish to make a partisan speech this morning, I cannot help but note that Canada has yet to ratify two international conventions regarding terrorism. This is regrettable, in my opinion. The first convention, which I referred to earlier, the convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings, makes all terrorist activity illegal and requires that states party to the convention prohibit all terrorist activity through their own laws. Thus, any person who takes part in a terrorist attack, inside or outside a country's borders, would be imprisoned.

This convention has yet to be ratified and I think that the government should move quickly to get parliament to ratify it, or at the very least, refer it to the relevant parliamentary committee as soon as possible. I hope this will be done in the days or weeks to come.

There is a second convention. It is the convention for the suppression of terrorist funding. The Americans acted very quickly. We saw President Bush's statement last week to this effect, in which he invited other nations to do likewise. This then is something we must do quickly.

I am no expert on international matters since my role as an MP does not require me to be. However, it does require me to listen to and hear the people who have sometimes divergent opinions to express. There is no feeling of consensus on these issues. On the weekend, my constituents pointed out that, following reports on the CBC, in particular, they feared Canada may have many terrorist organizations represented by individuals within its borders. They expressed their concerns about this.

According to the Internet site of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service:

With perhaps the singular exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist organizations active here than any other country of the world. As of mid-1998, the Service’s Counter-Terrorism Branch was investigating over 50 organizational targets and about 350 individual targets.

That is not my opinion. I rely on what this federal body reports. I continue:

The vast majority of terrorist activities in Canada relate to the support of actions elsewhere that are linked to homeland conflicts. These activities include providing safe haven for terrorist supporters and may involve using the refugee stream to enter Canada, or immigrant smuggling.

I am not saying that I am opposed to admitting refugees but, under the United Nations convention for the suppression of terrorism, all countries must be asked to be very cautious when refugees knock at their door, and to pay particular attention to the past activities of these people and their possible connections with terrorist networks. I do support the NDP's objective, which insists that this must not mark the beginning of a witch hunt against people who have nothing to do with terrorists. To be an Arab in Canada does not mean to be a terrorist. There are over 1.5 billion Arabs in the world, but there is not of course 1.5 billion terrorists. So, this is an invitation to all Canadians.

However, there is one aspect of the NDP motion with which I do not necessarily disagree, but which should be qualified. In my riding and in my region, I do not feel with the same acuteness any anti-Arab of anti-Muslim movement.

The federal state has a role to play, but when we think about schools, we should not forget that the provinces also have a role and we must ask all of them to fulfill it. I know that, in Quebec, Mr. Landry has already asked the public to be as tolerant as possible.

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is justifiably concerned about the environmental impact that a change in the water level of the Great Lakes would have.

As a Quebecer, I too am concerned about this because when the water level of the Great Lakes goes down, it affects the water level and shipping on the St. Lawrence.

This is a serious issue and the solution that he is proposing is a major one, but he is forgetting something critical; namely, the constitutional aspect of the issue. Water is under provincial jurisdiction.

What did his government do, or what does it intend to do regarding this responsibility, which is usually assumed by the provinces? Does his government intend to consult provincial ministers responsible for this issue?

Before passing such an important bill, we should consider this aspect. I do not know whether the hon. member agrees with me, but we cannot downplay the importance of this issue.

[Sudan, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate, but I point out right off that I am no expert in the matter. I wish to express here the opinion of our critic, the hon. member for Mercier, who is out of the country, as well as that of my party, which is that there can be no military solution to the war in Sudan, except through the annihilation of the people of the south.

The member said “Let us stop funding this war and put our weight behind the peace plan of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. First, the Special Economic Measures Act must be amended to give the government the power to act and the credibility it needs to advance the peace process”.

I listened carefully to the member who proposed the motion before us, and he touched on a number of important points. I congratulate him on introducing the motion in the House, because the situation in the Sudan is really untenable. I thank him as well for putting this issue before all members.

Perhaps when he introduced the motion, he did not suspect it would be so relevant. I clearly understood the presentation of the specific context, on the subject of terrorism. This motion is really relevant, and I congratulate him on it.

However, I regret he did not get the unanimous support of the House to have the motion be a votable item. It is all very well to debate in the House, but if the motions are not votable, how can we identify the opinion of the various parties here? Personally I gave the Bloc's approval for it to be votable.

I have, however, some reservation with respect to the word “genocide”. We must rely on the reports coming out of the UN commission on human rights. I also noted that the American congress voted 415 to 1 to condemn the Sudanese regime's continual human rights violations, its support for terrorism and its participation in a genocide.

In the reports by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, the word genocide was never used. I am maintaining a degree of reservation on it therefore, although it is fairly obvious that what is happening at this time is that one group has assumed a dominant position. The group in the south is placed in a virtually untenable situation. I believe that it might be advisable to again look into the use of the word genocide, but I have reservations about using it because the reports we have date back a few months.

The hon. member has merit in presenting a motion that criticizes, perhaps we should not go so far as to use the word condemn, Canada's lack of any real position.

It is easy to take refuge behind a multilateral commission, as the hon. member has just done, but if no actions are forthcoming as a result, this comes down finally to tolerating a situation in which human beings, civilian populations, are being killed and attacked in all manner of ways.

In my opinion, this is position that is hard to sustain. I would prefer to address the position of the Government of Canada. Not to go too far back in time, I have read in the reports that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Axworthy, whom we can now name because he is no longer in parliament, said the following on October 26, 1999:

If it becomes evident that its activities are exacerbating the conflict in Sudan, or resulting in violations of human rights or humanitarian law, the Government of Canada might consider applying economic and trade restrictions under the Export and Import Permits Act, and the Special Economic Measures Act, or other sanctions.

I neglected to clarify that this was in connection with the role of Talisman, the oil consortium, which is now effectively financing the war and the present Sudanese government.

Until then, both sides were more or less equal. The war went on, and they had no funding. But with the economic upturn, 25% of the government's income now comes from oil revenues. This, then, is the money that is being used to continue the war between the government and the other community in the south. There is, therefore, a very direct link.

Three weeks after Mr. Axworthy's statement, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report. Minister Axworthy responded that he was deeply troubled by the report.

He decided to send two people to Sudan, Senator Wilson, I think she can be named, and John Harker, to study the impact of oil related activities on human rights violations and on the intensification of the war. The Harker report was presented in February 2000 and its conclusions were in line with the previous reports.

Questioned again, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Mr. Axworthy, responded that he would take no action against Talisman or Sudan. He explained that there was no legislation that would allow the Government of Canada to act. The Export and Import Permits Act was not applicable in the case of Sudan, and the Special Economic Measures Act could only be used in a multilateral context.

This was back in February, 2000, over a year and a half ago. We cannot help but notice that the Government of Canada has taken very little real action, other than simply saying that this requires multilateral action.

I do not want to needlessly prolong my comments. I know that I have one minute left, and so I would like to conclude.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for moving this motion. I would have liked to have had a vote on this so that we could take action on this motion, and so that it could be studied by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and presentations could be heard, especially given the new context since September 11. We are now in the context of a war on terrorism and I think that there have been links made to the groups that are currently being targeted.

I too would like to ask for unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.

[Shipbuilding, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Industry told Davie Industries officials that he could not do anything to help their company until the proposals made to the government are accepted.

Could the government pledge to quickly adopt the proposals of the Minister of Industry regarding the shipbuilding industry, so as to avoid the closure of another company and, more importantly, the loss of jobs?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. However, in terms of consistency, I would say that the Prime Minister is consistent, because I did not find him very democratic and very transparent during the summit of the Americas in Quebec. Quite the contrary. It may have been the case in the speeches with the presidents, but apart from that, we did not feel that the Prime Minister was concerned about this issue or that democracy or respect for the peoples made him lose any sleep.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I may not be as harsh as my colleague, the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup-Témiscouata--Les Basques, by saying “Is there a lack of planning”.

I think we can understand that no one could have anticipated such an unpredictable situation. Clearly, there is a lack of leadership, but I believe there is most of all a lack of influence. We saw it in the United States, where the president, to a certain extent, treated the Canadian Prime Minister as someone who did not have to be consulted, as it was a foregone conclusion that he would give his support because we are family.

Somehow, we are the United States of America. In that regard, I can understand that it is not the right time to squabble with the president of the United States, though this attitude is somewhat bizarre. Nevertheless, it proves that the Canadian Prime Minister does not have the influence he claims he does.

However, as far as planning is concerned, since almost two weeks have passed since the events which took place, I believe that we should do everything in our power, my father used to say “Everything could be turned upside down”, to start planning. However, my main criticism of the government at this moment is its total lack of transparency.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this being the first opportunity I have had to speak in the House since the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, I wish to join with all those who have already offered their condolences to the friends and families of the victims.

I may be a Quebecer but, in circumstances such as these, we become citizens of the world. What happened in New York and Washington could have happened here. It could happen anywhere. Everyone hoped it would not, but the extent of the devastation is unbelievable. It all unfolded on television; we heard the words of witnesses to the tragedy and they moved us.

These attacks took place in the United States but, as I said, they could have happened elsewhere. Basically, it was democracy that was attacked not a country, but the democratic values we all defend were attacked.

As a member of the Sub committee on Human Rights and International Development, I am particularly concerned about this aspect of human rights, not just here or in the United States, but throughout the world. The confrontation which we dread and which will take place will affect civilian populations. The victims of the events in New York and Washington were primarily civilians.

As wars and methods of attack evolve, there are increasing numbers of civilian victims, innocent victims who have nothing to do with the will of their leaders, or leaders of groups, as seems to be the case here.

When it comes to human rights, it is fairly easy to agree that these issues are related to democracy. Sometimes, when I have a speech to make, I have adopted the habit of consulting a dictionary. For instance, the entry for the word democracy says that it comes from the Greek “demos”, meaning “people”. “Democracy” is defined as follows: “political doctrine holding that sovereignty must belong to all citizens”.

I find the words “all citizens” very significant. What have we seen across the way for the past week? The Prime Minister says that they have the situation in hand, that he is speaking regularly to officials throughout the world.

He is even speaking with the president of the United States, who has no memory of their discussions, because he neglected to mention him in his speech on Thursday. Democracy is based on respect for the freedom and equality of citizens, of citizens everywhere.

This morning, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois moved that there be a debate and a vote before committing our armed forces. Military resources naturally mean human resources and financial resources, but we have to bear in mind that those resources should never be deployed any which way. A military offensive action is the last option which should be considered, though it has to be considered. No options should be dismissed. They say that “if you want peace, you have to prepare for war.” Planning is good.

Before deploying forces, a decision has to be taken. Based on the meaning of the word democracy, this decision should be taken by all citizens.

How did the government react to that proposal? The first speaker was the Minister of National Defence, who spoke about four or five options. His first argument struck me. He said it was contrary to what had been the practice of this government over the last eight years.

Actually, it is the opposite. It seems to me that, even if it involved changing this practice in such an extraordinary situation, it ought to be contemplated.

I will not repeat what other colleagues and the hon. member for Laurentides said, but I will read commitments made in the red book, which clearly stated that before committing important military resources to offensive actions, there would have to be a debate followed by a vote in the House. This was one of the promises upon which the government was elected the first time. It was elected on that basis; that is what the government was saying. Besides, when they were in the opposition, the Liberals said the same thing. Again, I will not repeat the amendment moved by the deputy prime minister to a motion by the then minister of foreign affairs, who is now a member of an opposition party, the Progressive Conservative Party.

What is happening here? We are witnessing a situation where people who are in opposition promise to do something, but once they are in power, they do the opposite or do not meet their commitments. How then can young and ordinary citizens be attracted to politics if election promises are not held? I will not talk about the GST and other issues like free trade, about which the government changed its mind, they have already been pointed out, but this is a matter of utmost importance.

People listening to me could obviously say: “Yes, but it is impossible to predict such an event. It certainly could not be predicted or mentioned in a red book written more than eight years ago”. However we were in a quite similar situation in 1990 with the gulf war. In all that connections could be made with the current confrontation. However, that is not what the government intends to do.

On November 29, 1990, the current Deputy Prime Minister tabled an amendment which said:

This support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultations with and approval by this House.

I say again, the Bloc Quebecois, this is my understanding of our position, has given and is giving its support to the Canadian government in order for it to study, discuss and give its opinion to influence the opinion of the American authorities on this matter. We must of course give our support to the fight against terrorism, to a world war against terrorism. We have to do that. However should the use of military means be contemplated immediately? Worse, should the use of such means be considered behind closed doors? For so-called strategic reasons, we cannot mention what we will do. It is somewhat like baseball. It will be a hit and run situation, where they will hit first and consult later. This is not the way things should be done.

In this case, I believe the greatest paradox is that the Canadian government, through its Prime Minister and its external affairs and national defence ministers, says that it cannot vote for the proposition put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Whereas the country that has been the most concerned up till now, the United States, through its president, obtained a resolution from its two houses, the senate and the House of Representatives. The president, the one responsible for the strategy, has the sanction of his parliamentary authorities but not Canada.

The member for Laurentides reminded us that France has agreed to support the Americans but that it intends to consult the national assembly before making a decision with regard to the deployment of its armed forces. The same goes for Germany, for Argentina, and I am sure it will be the same most everywhere.

This morning, the Minister of National Defence referred to the constitution when he said that we were a representative democracy. He wanted to show that that is the way it is and that is the way it has always been. I must say that, a few moments ago, someone made a mistake.

I will not hold it against the member who made that mistake. Contrary to what a Liberal member said, there was a vote on the issue of the Korean War.

Our society has evolved since 1867. I should remind members of certain facts. Women could not vote in 1867, but they can today. The only people who could vote under the representative democracy of that time were landowners. Today, all taxpayers have the right to vote. Even the voting age was lowered to 18. Now, as elected representatives of the people, we would only have the right to talk. Parliament would be a place for discussion and nothing else.

There is something else that I deplore and that I find rather incredible. Parliamentary committees, namely the national defence committee and the foreign affairs committee, are not even used to discuss this issue. It is now my turn to urge all members of the House to support our motion that says that a vote must be taken in the House before offensive military resources are deployed.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to all the speeches made since this morning and I sense that the Liberal member, whom I know quite well, is somewhat receptive to the motion. While he could not directly support it, he seems to have left the door open.

This is the second week of debate. I wonder if he could explain to us why given the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves, the parliamentary committees that are the most appropriate venues to look at this issue, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on National Defence, were not convened by the government? Meanwhile, we are having a debate here today that was initiated by the Bloc Quebecois, an opposition party.

Does the hon. member find it normal that, contrary to what it said in its 1993 red book, the party in office is not getting parliamentary committees involved in the study and review of the current situation?