Hit the snooze button, Mr. Chrétien. Nothing to see here.

It appears that an eight-year nap, interrupted only by those pesky Quebec sovereigntists in 1995, has left Canada's fearless leader with little, if any, response mechanism.

The terrorist attacks on Tuesday, September 11 were the largest scale terrorist actions in world history. Mr. Chrétien managed to hobble to Washington two weeks later for a meeting with George W. Bush, but chose to rush home for a Liberal Party fundraiser rather than visit New York City, where numerous Canadians died alongside thousands of their U.S. counterparts.

As he had done for the past two weeks, Mr. Chrétien gave little indication of how Canada would be willing to support its greatest ally and mutually greatest trading partner in his speech that evening to party supporters.

Perhaps Mr. Chrétien's lack of action led to Canada's omission by Mr. Bush's speechwriters in the President's address to Congress, or perhaps it was because Mr. Chrétien didn't make the one-hour flight to Washington to attend Mr. Bush's address. Regardless, Canada has been noncommittal in terms of what role it is willing to play in the emerging war against terrorism. Mr. Bush cannot be faulted for his omission—Canada has become forgettable.

When Mr. Bush diplomatically responded during Mr. Chrétien's visit that the omission was made because he felt it was not necessary to praise the U.S.'s "brother", he also noted that Canada's military assistance was not necessary (yet).

U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice spent the following day insisting that this was not because Mr. Bush feels Canada's military is weak. Perhaps Mr. Bush simply couldn't assume Canada's military support, since Mr. Chrétien has never explicitly stated Canada would give it.

This lack of commitment of military assistance, in itself, is not the problem in Canada's response to the attacks. It is the lack of commitment—period.

The root of this problem is the Chrétien government's ability to stand on its heels because of a political climate that allows it to rule Canada by default.

In 1995, the Quebec referendum became the nearest "crisis" Canadians have observed since the 1970s. Mr. Chrétien, however, preferred to pretend that nothing was happening. It was not until the final days of the campaign, when polls showed that Quebec nationalists might win, that he delivered a nationally televised speech lacking any meaningful content.

But a lack of commitment or motivation still seems to carry the wave for this government. Even in the recent World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, Canada sent a junior minister to the conference, then continuously threatened to leave, while remaining until the end. CBC commentator Rex Murphy referred to Canada's role in the ill-fated Durban conference as being "both there and not there."

The phrase is fitting for the Canadian government's role in the current crisis as well. Note, for example, that Solicitor General Lawrence McAulay, head of Canada's national police force and intelligence service, did not brief the public until Thursday—two days after the attacks.

Another disturbing factor is that Mr. Chrétien waited until the following week to meet with his Cabinet. At least in this case, an excuse could be given that air travel was difficult in the days following the attacks.

However, up to this point no committee or sub-committee of the House of Commons has met to discuss issues relating to terrorism or the attacks.

The week of the attacks, Mr. Chrétien did announce a national day of mourning in Canada, but only after similar announcements had been made in Israel and various European nations in the preceding days.

Canada has a history of playing significant roles in global conflicts, including fighting in both World Wars, helping establish the United Nations, brokering peace in the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, and acting in various peacekeeping missions. More recently, Canadian planes were active in both the Persian Gulf and Kosovo.

The war that the world now faces will not be like any before it, but that does not mean that Canada must sit on the sidelines.

Canada can now use its position to help ensure that a lasting peace will emerge from the U.S. led action. Canada must back the U.S. in bringing the perpetrators of these attacks to justice, but also recognize its duty to help the more than 1 million people in danger of starvation at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and to mediate the concerns of other nations in the conflict. Canada should attempt to end terrorism by cohesion and respect, not by division or disregard for civilians of a different religion, ethnic origin or ideology.

What Canada should not do, in any case, is lose its seat at the table. There is much to be contributed, and too much at stake.

Leadership has been granted, Mr. Chrétien. Leadership is now expected.

Copyright © 2001 Kelly Blidook. All Rights Reserved.

Kelly Blidook has never fought in any wars or been subjected to terrorism or discrimination. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) considers him a pacifist in sheep's clothing.