Hon. John McCallum

Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question. I said that I would not enter into this debate because now that military action is underway, I will not comment on that debate regarding the link or the lack of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Oh, oh.

Order, please. I think the hon. members were given ample time to ask questions and comments. It is very hard for the Chair to listen to the answer when people are heckling back and forth.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, in this short period of time I would like to comment on three things: one, the war against terrorism; two, the weapons of massive destruction; and three, what happens next.

The problem with the war on Iraq is it is based on the dubious premise that disposing of Saddam Hussein is a significant step toward combating terrorism and ensuring world security. This is not to downplay the fact that Hussein is a cruel dictator and deserves absolutely no sympathy. However, in my estimation, there is a true terrorist threat to world peace and security that is far more menacing than Iraq, and that is Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.

Most countries, excluding the U.S., have limits as to how much manpower and money they can afford to spend on extraterritorial military operations. In my view, it would be wiser to concentrate those limited resources on more pressing areas of concern, such as getting at the root causes of terrorism and capturing its most deadly practitioners.

Clearly, the U.S. has been traumatized by September 11 and operates out of a mindset that we in Canada have trouble comprehending. It has become frightened and cautious and its administration has certainly been spooked by terrorism.

Until September 11, Canada and the U.S. lived a somewhat charmed existence. The bad things seemed to happen to other people and other countries. Gwynne Dyer, in his book Ignorant Armies: Sliding into War in Iraq , calls it American exceptionalism. He said:

The citizens of New York should have known that they were not so much exempt as lucky for the moment, but the powerful tradition of American exceptionalism misled them into thinking that invulnerability was their birthright.

The Americans have been shaken to their core. We should respect that fact and resist the temptation to call them names and impugn their motives.

From September 2001 until now, we have witnessed many twists and turns. Canada was and is a loyal ally in the war against terrorism. Even the much maligned France has been there for the fight against terrorism and as the French said post-September 11, “We are all Americans”.

Domestically, Canada has spent significant sums of money on security and legislation. We have updated our laws and have given our security forces the tools that they say they need. In my opinion, some of the expenditures have been questionable and the encroachment on citizens' rights has been very aggressive at times. It is pretty hard to tell whether the gain in security has been worth it and really, only history will answer that question.

We are partners in Afghanistan and have participated in proportion to our resources. I would argue that is where we should remain focused and that is where the U.S. should remain focused. Osama bin Laden has not been captured and the al-Qaeda network has not been destroyed. They are likely in northern Pakistan and still quite dangerous to world peace.

The question is, however, how did a legitimate war on terrorism mutate into a war on Iraq? One day we seemed to wake up and there was an axis of evil with its three charter members: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It almost appeared to be a campaign of propaganda.

All these regimes can be described as tyrannical, anti-democratic and oppressive, but they cannot be described as terrorists in the same sense as al-Qaeda. Nor have they ever been accused of state sponsored terrorism, such as Libya or Syria for instance.

The war on Iraq may be a lot of things, but let us not confuse it with the fight against terrorism.

There are several perverse ironies here, the effect of which may actually give comfort to the terrorists of September 11.

Saddam Hussein is a Shia Muslim in a secular Muslim state. He is the antithesis of bin Laden's vision of an Islamic state.

Bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim from the Wahhabi sect, which sees itself as the only true version of Islam. In addition to being down on infidels like you and me, Madam Speaker, they despise Shia Muslims and they despise Muslims like Hussein.

Bin Laden has tried to have Hussein assassinated twice. In a perverse sort of way, bin Laden will be cheering President Bush, who he hopes will succeed where he has failed, although I dare to say they do not have the same thing in mind when they talk about regime change. I have this perverse image of Osama bin Laden in some cave with a little aerial outside the cave tuned in to CNN and cheering on George Bush.

It is a strange world when enemies such as Bush and bin Laden are cheering for the same result.

This war against Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism and might just be counterproductive. In my view, if the U.S. does not stay focused on bin Laden and his network, he may well enhance the risk of further terrorist attack and give al-Qaeda and others like them comfort.

The war on Iraq will likely exacerbate hatred against the United States, Israel and the west. Iraq will fracture along ethnic religious lines and give encouragement to one of the other members of the axis of evil, Iran. Already we hear of Shia Muslims crossing into Iraq at the Iran-Iraq border to finish off some business left over from the last 12 or 15 years.

In a post-war scenario, the U.S. occupying force will likely control Baghdad, but power will decline in inverse proportion to its distance from Baghdad. How strange it would be that Iran will also be cheering that President Bush has some success.

Having argued that the U.S. has lost its focus on that which threatens it the most, what then is the point of this war? If it is not terrorism, what is it? The argument is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to his people and his neighbours. Some might even argue that he has the ability to transport these weapons and do damage in the U.S. or sell them to terrorists.

Weapons of mass destruction come in three categories: nuclear, chemical and biological. The big one is nuclear. That is basically 98% of the game. It is powerful, very destructive and with a good delivery system can attack anyone, any place, any time.

The flaw in the argument is that no one in the Bush administration believes that Saddam Hussein has a viable nuclear weapons program. He may have bits and pieces here and there, but he cannot deliver them. The weapons inspectors have that one pretty well nailed down. If he does not have nuclear weapons, does he have biological or chemical weapons?

The U.S. has some basis for concern on this score as the U.S. sold the stuff to Hussein in the first place. As Dwyer in his mythical question to President Bush asks, “Mr. President, how can you be sure that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?” The answer, “We kept the receipts”. The U.S. sold him this stuff in order to stalemate the Iran-Iraq war. The problem is that the weaponization of this stuff is very difficult. It is useful in confined spaces such as battlefields and little villages, but not nearly as effective as nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein has no nuclear capability and his chemical and biological capability is severely curtailed, so where are the weapons of mass destruction that warrant going to war? Why would the world's only superpower start a war on those grounds? It does not make any sense.

The Prime Minister has tried to make the point that the Americans have already won the war. For 12 years there have been overflights. There are overflights and there are military satellites. Saddam Hussein cannot blow his nose without the Americans knowing what kind of kleenex he used.

For 12 years there has been a form of sanctions and presumably the coalition forces have a pretty good idea of the goods that are going into and out of Iraq. For 12 years on and off weapons inspectors have been playing hide and seek.

I appreciate the president is frustrated and is impatient, but there have been results. We saw missiles actually being destroyed. It is also a great deal less risky and less expensive to play cat and mouse than to start a war. What is the rush? This could go on for years, I am perfectly prepared to admit that, but during all of that time the mouse cannot run anywhere.

Again if this is not a war about terrorism, and it is not about weapons of mass destruction, and it is not about inspections, what is it about? It is just speculation as to what it is all about, but on speculation, I am not prepared to recommend going to war.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's statement that he is not prepared to go to war. I certainly expect that most Canadians would look for another option.

I would ask him if he would have been prepared to continue the sanctions against Iraq, as well as the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. It sounds to me as though that is his alternative, that we just leave the status quo in place, continue to ignore reality and allow the Iraqi regime to rape, pillage and murder its own citizens by gassing them in the streets of their own towns.

That apparently is not a problem for the member. I would like to know if the status quo is just fine.

Mr. John McKay

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has to realize that this is a choice between quick death or slow death. It is utterly naive to believe that this war will be without civilian casualties.

I do not frankly know how many deaths sanctions have caused over the course of a number of years but it certainly has been a degraded existence for the Iraqi people. I am certainly prepared to concede that. However when bombs are dropped on people, it would be extremely naive to think there would not be collateral damage.

We have a very unhappy equation here. Would it be better to kill a lot of people quickly or a few less people more slowly?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, the opposition complains that we are anti-American because of our stand to not participate in the war. In 1956, during the Suez crisis, the U.K., France and Israel attacked Egypt. The U.S. government was the only government opposed to the invasion. It even threatened to blow up British ships in the Mediterranean. Now they are best buddies.

Some people think by Canada staying out of the war now, it will create such animosity between us that the Americans and Canadians will be fighting forever as enemies. If the U.S. and England were able to unite the day after the war, why can we not support each other to build Iraq after what happens, and continue on to be good friends?

Could my hon. colleague comment on this relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. now?

Mr. John McKay

Madam Speaker, I know there is some concern in Canada about the relationship we have with our American neighbours and in some respects that is a well placed concerned. However I dare say that it was true with former Prime Minister Trudeau when he had some differences with former President Nixon but we seemed to get over it.

Similarly we had differences with former Prime Minister Thatcher from time to time but I dare say we got over it.

We have a constellation of values that is very similar and that constellation of values is one that I think we need to rely on and we will.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Scarborough said that there is only speculation about why the United Nations would go to war. Here is a theory. Because Iraq has violated United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, the violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 allows the use of force in response. The current Liberal Prime Minister said that in The Guardian in Charlottetown. That is rationale.

Could the minister for Scarborough comment on whether he disagrees with his own leader?

Mr. John McKay

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the elevation to minister and if I could learn about that, it would be good.

We are into a realm of speculation as to why go into this war at this time. Clearly there was a cascading series of resolutions which ended with 1441. I think there are something in the order of 14 or 17 resolutions that have built up over time. Ultimately I think they would lead.

The question here is whether we are achieving the goal of those resolutions, which is disarmament. There was some considerable evidence that they were achieving some level of disarmament, not as happily or quickly as President Bush would have liked, and it was not costing any lives or creating divisions among a variety of countries. There was a means by which they were disarming.

I would have liked it to be faster. It was not happening as quickly as the President liked.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ)

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Matapédia—Matane.

Yesterday, at 9:35 p.m., the first U.S. missiles reached their targets in Baghdad. These targets of opportunity were fired on in an effort to eliminate the Iraqi regime and more particularly Saddam Hussein, his sons and his senior officials. These people appear to have survived. The only victim was a Jordanian citizen. He was the first victim in a war that will cost the lives of hundreds if not thousands of women and children, all innocent victims.

Today, we find ourselves in a situation that could have been avoided. Withresolution 1441, which had been adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council, Iraq could have been disarmed in a peaceful way. In a speech he made yesterday morning, the chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, stated in a resigned voice that progress had been made and that he was sorry to see all his good work annihilated by the impending war being initiated by the Americans and the British.

Pursuant to the resolution, Iraq would have had to let UN inspectors in. Before leaving Iraq, these inspectors had found no trace of any chemical or nuclear weapons. Destruction of the few Al-Samoud 2 missiles that had been found in Iraq had begun.

Yes, Saddam Hussein has made his people suffer and is still making them suffer. He is a small local dictator whom we must condemn. But this is not a good enough reason to make war when the international order is not threatened. The action taken yesterday by the Americans and their allies was unilateral.

We set up structures such as the UN and the Security Council, which are aimed at maintaining international order and ensuring that the major powers come to a unanimous agreement before proceeding with economic or military sanctions against a state. Unfortunately, and despite the positive effects of inspections in Irak, the United States and their allies still decided to act unilaterally, which threatens international order.

This precedent is very significant. We now have a new kind of war, the pre-emptive war, that is, attacking a state that might attack us one day. What will be the next step? Will Israel invade the neighbouring Arab countries? Will China attack North Korea?

This principle is quite different from the one that prevailed until last night, at 9:35 p.m. The old principle allowed military intervention against a state only if it had violated the sovereignty of another state. Let us call this the rule of the musketeer, “One for all and all for one”.

Indeed, in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, the other states of the world had the moral and legal right to make war on Hitler. The same happened in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kowait. A massive international coalition was created to force Iraq to withdraw. The coalition and the military intervention of January 1991 were justified on moral and legal grounds.

Today, this is not the case at all. The American intervention is illegal because Saddam Hussein did not attack anyone. I am not the only one to think this way. The Russian president, Vladimir Poutine, asked the United States and Great Britain to quickly put an end to the war in Iraq, saying that it was not justified in any way and that it was a serious political mistake. The same goes for China, which accused the Americans of violating international standards of conduct. The spokesman for the Chinese department of foreign affairs said:

The Iraq issue must be returned to political settlement mechanisms within the framework of the United Nations.

He stressed that the military offensive in Iraq had begun despite opposition from the international community.

In January, I polled all my constituents. The question was very simple: “Are you in favour of a military intervention in Iraq”? To date, I have received over 1,200 answers, and 85% of respondents say they completely oppose military action.

These are very serious times. In January, my constituents said they were overwhelmed by the possibility, now a reality, of armed intervention in Iraq. They said that we should not get involved in other people's affairs, and they absolutely opposed Canada's taking part in such a war.

The result could therefore not be clearer. People said they were fully aware that Iraq was not a threat to us.

I would like to read some of these comments. Suzanne Tremblay, aged 38, wrote:

Why, in the year 2000, can we not find other solutions than resorting to violence? We are forever telling our kids not to resort to violence—

Gilles Gagnon, aged 48, advised George Bush, and I quote:

There is a way to disarm Saddam without making the Iraqi people suffer. Use your imagination.

Jocelyne Tremblay, aged 60, said:

Negotiation is preferable.

Erika Dioskali said:

What right do we have to invade another country or interfere in its affairs when we have not been attacked?

Lisette and Alain Tremblay, aged 53 and 57, said:

If there is a war on Iraq because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, all countries with such weapons should also be attacked.

Yolande Gendron said:

Peace does not come out of the end of a gun.

Finally, Normand St-Gelais, aged 47, said:

No to war. Even if Iraq has weapons of mass destructions, it is not the only country that does.

Members can see how astute and logical are my constituents. They think, and rightly so, that this illegal war is unjustified. Many of them wondered if controlling oil did not have something to do with it.

Of course, the main justification given by the U.S. and Britain is the fact that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has brutalized his people. I am not calling this into question. However, it needs to be said that the inspections were producing results and no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq up until yesterday. The fact that this is a unilateral action makes this conflict illegal and Canada must not get involved in this war, and even more importantly, we must not condone this intervention, which is in no way justified at this time.

In the last hours we have witnessed explosions over the Iraqi and Kuwaiti skies live on television. There is only one thing to say: it is terrifying.

I urge all members of the House to support the Bloc Quebecois motion, which reads as follows:

That this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.

We need to think about after the war. Members will recall that after the first war in Iraq, in 1991, the UN imposed a military embargo against Iraq to prevent it from importing any more weapons. Everyone supported that. However, there was also an economic embargo, and Iraqi civilians suffered enormously. Iraq could no longer import certain products that were designated as “dual use products”, in other words, products that could be used for both harmless and military purposes.

Take chlorine, for example. Chlorine can be used to manufacture bombs. However, the proper and normal use of chlorine is in treating water to make it potable. Because of the economic embargo, Iraq could no longer import chlorine. More than 50,000 civilians have died since 1991 due to disease and malnutrition.

Men, women and children who had nothing to do with the war have died. We must keep this terrible fact in mind during the reconstruction of Iraq to avoid repeating it.

Do you know what an employee of the House said to me this morning? He said that we all had a problem, a sickness: we no longer have a heart. Let us show him today that we still do have a heart, and let us take the legal and moral high road. We must say no to this war. Someone has already died. There will be more deaths. Iraqis will not allow their country to be invaded without standing up for themselves. They will defend their territory, their women and children—

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Jonquière, but unfortunately her time has expired. The hon. member for Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

I have heard from the other side, particularly the Alliance members, that they have a great fear that the Americans will take great umbrage at our decision to stay out of the war. Let me say that I have much greater faith and respect for the Americans than that. The Americans have a long-standing and very deep democracy. While they may be disappointed with our position, I can assure the House that they will respect it. I think that we will remain steadfast friends for a long time to come.

I also want to say that we as Canadians take pride in the fact that we are a nation of laws. We follow the laws and I think that we have to behave in the same way when it comes to international law. In this case, the law is the United Nations and more specifically resolution 1441. It is only the UN Security Council that can decide whether the Iraqis were in breach of resolution 1441. It is only the Security Council that can decide whether there should be consequences as a result of Saddam Hussein not living up to the terms of resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 does not say that if the United Nations remains silent on that resolution some individual country, the United States, Britain or someone else, can take it upon itself to invade Iraq. That is not the way the international law works.

I just hope that when this war is over, and I hope it is mercifully short and there are few deaths, that the world community will be able to address this issue of the Bush doctrine having to do with pre-emptive war or pre-emptive strikes. To me that simply is not fitting and does not match international law. It simply does not. I hope that the United Nations can find a way of dealing with this very serious issue.

If we are going to leave the world at this particular risk, so that strong powers in the world can take the law into their own hands, who knows where that takes us? I would like to address that question to the hon. member who spoke previously.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. member was making a speech, so he kind of lost me there. I can tell him, however, that those who promote peace cannot have enemies anywhere in the world.

Because of all the people who marched for peace in the world and who promoted peace, notwithstanding what the Alliance believes, we will have to promote peace. That is the only way to settle conflicts around the world.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

Madam Speaker, in response to the speaker prior to the member from the Bloc who said that pre-emptive war is a bad idea and that this is a move of unprecedented proportion and without historical precedent, let me say that in fact that is not true.

Israel launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq, and thank God it did because it took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons in the first gulf war, today Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq. That is an example of pre-emptive war working. It led to a more peaceful world. It led to Saddam Hussein not having nuclear weapons and not terrorizing the Middle East. Thank God Israel did it and thank God people have learned that lesson.

I am sorry that the Liberal member opposite has not quite figured that out.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Madam Speaker, I do not know if there was a question in there. All I can say is that pre-emptive war does not work. We will have to promote peace. That is our only hope for world order.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the fact that Alliance Party members for the last few weeks have accused anyone who does not agree with their policy of supporting the American war against Iraq of being anti-American. Would the hon. member comment on that statement that because we do not agree with the war and the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and others do not agree with the war the Alliance Party members think we are anti-American?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Madam Speaker, what I hear from the Alliance members is a bit disconcerting. We do not make enemies by promoting peace. So, why would they think that we are making enemies out of the Americans by promoting peace? I think that they should reconsider their position, stop looking at the little picture and take a good look at themselves.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, contrary to my habit, I am not going to say that I am pleased to speak today. I believe that the situation is extremely serious and dangerous. It may be much more serious than we think it is today and perhaps even more than we may realize now.

This morning, at 11:06 a.m., I was watching and listening to the news. I will give a few examples. Of course, I will not quote all of the examples that I saw. Simply on the news at 11:06 a.m., it was mentioned that the first refugees had arrived in Jordan.

Shortly after the beginning of the attack, around 11 p.m., the United States initiated a global alert in anticipation of potential terrorist acts against American citizens in foreign countries. Artillery fire has allegedly been heard at the Kowait-Iraq border. Israel has asked its people to start wearing gas masks, and I could go on. At 11 a.m., CNN confirmed that two oilfields in southern Iraq were on fire. There might be more now.

Eye witnesses report that southern Iraq has been under heavy bombardment. In Italy, demonstrations against the war are being held in several cities, and I could go on. There is talk of sirens, of attacks. There is talk of people having been injured, but all we see on our television screens is a green image that looks like a video game; an image that looks like what our kids use in our houses on their computers. But this has nothing to do with video games. This has absolutely nothing to do with these games. This is a real war, an intensive war that could give rise to a major increase in terrorism.

We know that all our communities, countries and the countries of the free world have been forced to dramatically increase security because attacks are anticipated.

War has been declared and a country like Iraq is being attacked. Naturally I do not condone the regime that governs Iraq. I cannot condone a dictator. I do not condone the way Saddam Hussein treated his people, the Kurds and his neighbours in 1990.

But was it justified for democracies to attack Iraq without the approval of the United Nations? No, because as a democracy, we must respect democracy and the institutions that we have created, namely the United Nations. This is a fundamental principle. If we no longer respect the institutions that we have created for ourselves, if we as democracies no longer respect the institutions that we have promoted, that we have contributed to creating and continue to run, it will no longer be possible to enforce international law.

The arbitrary war against Iraq by the United States, Great Britain and Australia is very serious. This act is very serious for democracy and our international institutions, but it is also very serious for the women, children and citizens of Iraq who will suffer after already having suffered for years under a dictatorial regime. This desire to destroy a regime and replace a dictator adds to their suffering.

In 1970, I read Building Peace by Dominique Pire, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1958. After the events of September 11, I did not remember the reference, but I said that peace is much more than the silence of guns.

In 1990, after the gulf war, the guns were silenced. We stopped bombing Iraq, but what did we do as a democracy for the Iraqi people?

The Americans had promised to back the Sunni among others, in the south. And what happened? They did not really support them.

We need only look at the present-day situation in Afghanistan. The guns are silent, but have there been any real improvements? I would say not. At the present time in Afghanistan, we can consider that any real improvements are limited to the capital. The country is still under the domination of the war lords, who control the nation as a whole and are once again tyrannizing the population, especially women and children.

As far as the status of women is concerned, it is wrong to claim that Afghani women are living any different lives than they were under the Taliban.

I too have received e-mails, and will read from a few:

You have declared war on me, but I propose peace to you in return.

This reaction may seem as unreal as the 2001 attack on New York did.

In terms of democracy, this is, in my opinion, what our response to those attacks should have been and what our response should be today. You have declared a kind of war on us but we propose peace to you, the sort of peace in which we will provide you with help as a people, will help you develop, will help you to grow and progress.

I know that Saddam Hussein is no angel and that his regime is corrupt and dictatorial. But is it really necessary at this time to take action without the authority of the United Nations? Once again, I say no. As many nations around the world, including France, Russian and Germany, have said, given a little time, we might have been able to bring about a regime change.

Also, had we seriously taken matters into our hands right after the first gulf war, we might not have to change the regime in Iraq now. It would probably have been gone for years.

Let me quote from another excellent e-mail I have received:

Instead of praying for a few hours before launching into war for years to come, acting out of vengeance, out of the desire to fight terrorism, an announcement should be made to the effect that every effort will be made to build peace on justice and sharing.

As long as democracies do not understand that peace must be built, and built on the firm foundations of justice and sharing, we will continue to be faced with the same problems.

Terrorism flourishes in fertile ground. Poverty and misery constitute a breeding ground for terrorism, and there is no shortage of poverty and misery around the world. It is safe to say that two-thirds of the world population currently has to make do with the bare minimum and that the situation of the so-called fourth world is extremely tragic.

What is the Bloc Quebecois calling for today in its motion? It is simple, and I would like to come back to it. The Prime Minister of Canada told us, “We will not go to war.” However, we already have military personnel on site, and the Bloc would like the government to reconsider its position in that respect.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance)

Madam Speaker, the member from the Bloc made the statement that he really did not think much about the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and indeed after the gulf war in Iraq. We all recognize that there are improvements that can be made, but the member also made a statement that he did not think that the situation for women in Afghanistan was any better today than under the Taliban. I take great exception to that.

I cannot comprehend how this can somehow be construed as an excuse for inaction when we have basic human rights being violated by two regimes, one of which has now been overturned. There is an international effort to turn things around and we do not put all of that burden on the original combatants.

As a matter of fact, the Americans have said very clearly that it is not their interest in doing the reconstruction. They are not good at it and they want others to step in and do that. Canada is a country which is very good at that.

I would like the member to respond to the impression he left that people would not be better off.