Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this important debate is to clarify Canada's position on Iraq and its participation in any conflict involving Iraq.
It is important to remember that Canada's participation in Afghanistan in late 2001 and through 2002, while involving great honour and bravery and the loss of life on the part of our individual soldiers, was not the result of an immediate commitment on the part of the government to assist the United States immediately following the events of September 11.
Many will remember how President Bush did not identify Canada when he thanked those countries that had come immediately to the aid of the United States shortly after September 11. We have seen repeatedly that the closest ally of the United States in the war against terrorism has been Great Britain, while the Canadian government has been a reluctant later participant. One positive outcome of this debate will hopefully be a greater degree of public concern with respect to the government's foot dragging and the dereliction of its duty in the war on terrorism.
On the one hand the government's behaviour has involved reluctant support for our closest ally and trading partner in this time of great need. On the other hand, even if the government were committed to full participation in the war against terrorism, it has only limited assistance to offer. Year after year, both opposition politicians and the general public have tried to motivate the government to make a more substantial and immediate commitment to the revitalization of our defence capabilities. Year after year the government has chosen to balance its budgets on the backs of our armed forces through continued cutbacks and delays.
For example, our helicopters in Afghanistan were a true disgrace, being many years older than those who were flying them and requiring 35 hours of maintenance for each hour in the sky. Their flight capabilities were severely limited in terms of how far they could fly without risk of accident or failure. This situation should have been remedied 15 years ago by replacement helicopters, yet it was not. Liberal politics of the past interfered with Canada's military capability of today. Our troops showed up in Afghanistan in dry lands wearing bright green camouflage which the troops spray-painted beige just to make do.
The government has been warned repeatedly that there will be consequences in terms of its global influence if it depends upon a policy of piggybacking on and borrowing U.S. defence capabilities to defend Canada's own borders. In matters of defence, the government has made Canada the true free rider. Free riders always get dumped eventually since countries will not let themselves be taken advantage of indefinitely.
We wonder how many of Canada's trade disputes with the United States, be they softwood lumber or agriculture subsidies, could be more readily resolved if the government were not seen as riding on the back of the United States in matters of defence.
Throughout the text of the September 30 Speech from the Throne there was much reference to what a great country Canada is and how there are so many social issues to be addressed by further federal spending, but very little indication of the government's financial commitment to enhancing Canada's defence capabilities. When a country is attacked as the United States was attacked, it is very important to know who one's friends are relative to acting decisively against one's enemies. In issues of our mutual interests with the United States, our government has turned Canada into a peacetime, fair-weather friend; a friend who is only there to share in the benefits and the good times but is unwilling to make the commitments and sacrifices that are necessary to overcome the bad times.
One result of our free rider status in defence matters is that Canada now has been described as little more than an afterthought in the United States' North American defence plans. Our government has made our country largely irrelevant. The United States northern command structure has been designed largely without reference to Canada. Could this be because time and again in recent years and months, the government and the Prime Minister have demonstrated that they cannot be counted upon?
Many have been concerned that the new United States missile defence system again has been planned without Canadian input. Why should the United States consult Canada when the current Canadian government has demonstrated that it is not interested in making a significant commitment to the defence of its own country, quite apart from any allied defence commitment?
We are here today to address how Canada will approach the United States' position that a demagogue, Saddam Hussein, must be removed from power.
Some say that Iraq is barely months away from having nuclear capabilities. We know that Iraq already has chemical weapons of mass destruction and that it has used them in the past.
Some may remember the folly of the position of the United States at the time of desert storm. It was the United Nations that determined to let Saddam Hussein go free despite his atrocities in Kuwait. The United States was in a position to topple him 10 years ago but stopped short out of respect for the United Nations position.
This time around it is noteworthy that the United States is not waiting for the direction or the opinion of the United Nations prior to determining to act. As President Bush has said, the actions against the United States on September 11 were an act of war and that the United States would act against both perpetrators of those acts and against those who would harbour or support them.
Iraq is a principal supporter of Islamic terrorism. The Deputy Prime Minister's view at the time was that there was no possible excuse or moral justification for the actions of September 11 and Canadians must demonstrate that they unequivocally support the United States in its actions against terrorism. It is regrettable that our Prime Minister and the government he currently controls do not demonstrate a similar degree of moral conviction.
In terms of Iraq, the Prime Minister's fairly consistent position is that he must see a smoking gun. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, there was terrorism in Afghanistan but no terrorism in Iraq. The Prime Minister stated his position as follows. The logic of the Prime Minister is illustrated in the recently reported quote from him:
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
The current Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated that before one invades a foreign country there has to be a reason for it. The reason here should be self-evident. Supporters and harbourers of terrorism are no different from the terrorists themselves. Supporters and harbourers of terrorism are complicit in the terrorist acts of war against the United States and must be counted. If we stand on the sidelines, we risk becoming the last Jew in the Berlin of the 1940s, continuing to deny the threat that is self-evident until the enemy is at our door ready to take us to our destruction.
To those who would say to wait until the evidence is crystal clear, I say never again. Terrorist activities by their nature are covert and concealed with terrorists ready to strike at the moment of greatest weakness. Waiting for crystal clear evidence of intent can be far too late. Acting on good intelligence and striking based on a high probability of terrorist action is a prudent response given the current times and also given the lessons of history. Supporting England and the United States, our allies in both war and peace, becomes imperative if we consider ourselves to be national citizens of the free world.
