Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2002

Iraq

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because of the issues raised by the hon. member, I commented on the two reasons that seem to be motivating the United States. There is a conflict between these two reasons, if you will, but they are quite clear to me.

How can it be determined whether or not there are weapons? How can these weapons be destroyed? That should be the purpose of our participation. I thank the hon. member for his question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask our hon. colleague where this government was when Saddam's own people were quivering in fear as they were being bombarded with gas by their own head of state, when children were killed as they were playing. Where was the government when Saddam attempted an assassination on the former president of the United States? Why is it only now, when we are dealing with the amassing of weapons of mass destruction, that we are even talking about the atrocities of Saddam? Why is it only now?

Now we are looking at the tables in reverse. We are sympathizing with Saddam instead of looking at--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. Please address your comments to the Chair. The hon. member for Ottawa West--Nepean on a very brief answer.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may be sympathizing with Saddam. I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House who is doing so. I am not sure where she could possibly have come up with that impression.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to debate a very serious issue, one that I think is causing a lot of tension among members. Clearly any sort of aggression in any other country or getting involved in any action using military forces, even though we have not yet discussed that at this point in the discussion, does create some sense of unease among all of us.

Before I begin my speech, I have to take note of what was said by the hon. member who just spoke. It seems to me that she was missing a very valuable point in this whole debate. We are very fortunate in Canada because we do not have to deal with the pressure of having bombs blowing up around us. We live in relative peace and harmony. I can only speak from my family's experience coming here as refugees almost 30 years ago, when we fled an oppressive regime that quite frankly would have killed us if we had not left. Unfortunately, many people did die in the exodus from Uganda. We were very fortunate to come to a country such as Canada. Here I am 30 years later in Parliament, able to discuss what sort of action we should be taking in other countries to stop similar dictators.

The point I want to make for the hon. member is that Idi Amin, the dictator that our family was forced to flee in Uganda, did not pose a world threat. He did not pose a threat to his neighbours. Actually he was kept in check in Uganda. He was quite crazy and was taken care of in that country. The fact is that Saddam Hussein poses a world threat, a threat to people in the region and a threat to other democracies around the world. He may even possess, and actually the proof is there, the type of military equipment to be able to do so.

This is the point we have to start bringing back to this debate, this fact that we are justifying some future attempt. Hopefully we will not even have military action, but in the event that it happens the reason why there is some moral justification here is the fact Saddam Hussein has gone well beyond the bounds, not only treating his own people with huge human rights abuses but posing that same threat around the world. This is why countries like ours should take an interest in what is happening. I wish the government would have taken more of an interest in what is happening. Maybe we could have influenced the process of what was happening in the Middle East. I will get to that during my speech.

I want to start by saying for the people at home who are watching this debate and wondering where everyone is coming from that we need to summarize the context. Where exactly are we going with what sort of action we may take here in Canada or what sort of support we may give our allies? I would hazard a guess that we are debating if Canada should “pledge support to the developing coalition of nations, including Britain, Australia and the United States, determined to send a clear signal to Saddam Hussein that failure to comply with an unconditional program of inspection, as spelled out in either new or existing UN resolutions”, could “justify action to ensure the safety...of people in the region from Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction”, that we would take action in order to protect those people, but even, as I attempted to begin by saying, other areas where this radical dictator may attack next.

It is interesting that as we have been watching the debate unfold, especially on the government side, in my opinion there was no clear direction or focus for what the government's position would be other than supporting the UN in its work in sending arms and weapons inspectors into Iraq. This is something that I think almost all sides of the House tend to agree on.

Recently, though, we have heard even stronger comments coming from the government because, I would hazard a guess, the official opposition has never been shy to make its position clear and quite frankly the government tends to listen to us first before it starts to make any sort of proactive attempt on any policy, now including foreign affairs. I say that because one of the journalists I spoke to today told me that it is interesting that I would tell him what my position is, that clearly there is no difference now between the opposition and the government. I told him there is a big difference: It is called leadership. The current government has shown no leadership when it comes to trying to put something into place, especially when it comes to the influence of diplomatic relations in a wartorn region. The government has been absent.

Rather than hiding behind the UN, we could have led the process. We have the capability and we were respected around the world at one point for doing so. The government has done nothing proactive in that area and now the government is going even further than the official opposition.

I was shocked to hear, from a government that has had no position on how it would handle this, the defence minister saying yesterday that Canada could expect to provide military support to some of our allies if it comes to that. We have to walk before we can run.

I was shocked again at the flip-flop of the government. There was no clear, decisive direction. All of a sudden it is coming from all different directions, now saying that we may even consider going with military action with our allies, or at least that we have the capability to do so, as the defence minister said. We would like to see proof of that because that was one of the concerns in the official opposition.

Can we take any military action against Iraq? The way the government has treated the armed forces in the country and the way it has stretched the budgets and resources, we in the official opposition question what sort of commitment, other than a moral commitment to our allies, we could give. We would not want to send our military troops into a situation that would put their lives at risk, as the government has been prepared to do in the past. We hope that the minister will clarify his statements and say exactly what the position of the government is on this and what sort of military commitment he is talking about, because this was quite a shock to most of us in the opposition.

I would like to talk specifically about any action that the government could take over the next little while when it comes to supporting diplomatic efforts. However before that, we need to back up and put one thing into perspective.

I have been talking to a number of groups as the critic for Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East. One of the groups that is taking a huge interest in what is happening here tonight and in the future is the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. It sent me a report with its concerns. It agrees that the regime of Saddam Hussein is a corrupt one which abuses human rights and that something needs to be done.

Its focus is more on diplomatic pressure. I wish the government would step up to the plate to provide that sort of leadership. One of the things the council brought to our attention, which we must consider no matter what one's opinion is as we continue to move forward on this debate, is about the regional instability. This is why Canada has a role to play. The concern of the council was that an attack on Iraq would increase popular opposition in Arab countries toward governments that are complicit with the United States. This would cause political instability for some of our strongest Arab allies, including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Political instability in these countries could quickly escalate into regional crisis.

“Just open a map,” said a member of the Kuwaiti royal family in close consultation with Washington. “Afghanistan is in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you want to open a third front in the region? That would truly turn into a war of civilizations”.

Ultimately we may still be facing a case of war in that particular country, but the reason I bring up that quote is because I would like to move into an area I spoke about earlier, the fact that the government has shown no leadership when it comes to diplomatic pressures in this particular region and how we should be focusing in on that particular area before even the Minister of Defence starts wading into any military action.

When we look at the past regarding Canada's role, we were respected in the international community for many years for our role in peacekeeping, mediating, and in trying to bring people to the table who had never spoken to each other, or influencing radical dictators and people around them to basically put things into perspective and hopefully showing the example of Canada to the world as how many diverse cultures can live together. This is an area where we unfortunately have fallen behind the eight ball when it comes to leadership around the world.

I touched upon the fact that even our peacekeepers, our armed forces, have not been equipped to do their jobs effectively around the world. The government does not seem to show the leadership outside the UN. Even our influence in the UN is somewhat limited. We have not been brokers anywhere around the world any longer. We have joined various groups in the past but we have not led in any type of initiative.

The Aga Khan recently visited Canada. The Aga Khan is the spiritual leader for the Ismaili Muslims and a world leader when it comes to bringing stability and a lot of goodwill around the world. He spoke about Canada's traditional role in peacekeeping, but also exporting something we have done so well, and that is creating one of the most successful pluralistic societies around the world. We can do that because we respect diversity. We respect differences and we build on those strengths. This is something, if we learn to export, the government could show some leadership and move this forward.

On the diplomatic front, before we even get to any military action, I ask the government and I challenge the Secretary of State for Central and Eastern Europe and Middle East, other than going on a junket next week to promote trade, to promote some of these ideas to promote peace. Members will find that the government has failed miserably.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in hearing this thoughtful young man's speech. He obviously had life experiences that have given him a great deal of insight into the topic we are dealing with here tonight. In his past life in Uganda he must have felt very frustrated with a leader who was so brutal.

Different adjectives have been used to describe Saddam Hussein. It is evident that he too is a bad man, much beyond the fact that he has caused us some inconvenience as was mentioned by one of the Liberal members last night.

I have heard it mentioned that even members of his own family left the country. A couple of Saddam Hussein's daughters left with their husbands and children. Saddam Hussein wanted them back. He said he missed his grandchildren. He said to come back and all would be forgiven. Within a couple of days he had the fathers of his grandchildren executed. That is the kind of man we are dealing with.

How does one turn events such as these around without immobilizing the person and replacing the head of that government?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his thoughtful question.

I know it is difficult to share some of the experiences that people go through on a daily basis in some of these corrupt regimes that are willing to impose personal harm on their own people. This astounds me. I can speak to my family's experience, not completely and directly from my own experience as I was young when we left.

My family's experience was that they lost everything through the process of coming to Canada. The only saving grace was that we came to a country that welcomed us with open arms and gave us an opportunity to make a new start. Everything was lost in Uganda. I have been back to Uganda and everything has been devastated. The country has never recuperated from the constant civil war.

There needs to be a proactive approach. This is what my colleague was driving at. We cannot idly sit by, especially in the case of Iraq, where one has constant human rights violations.

I will reiterate the point I made when I began my speech. Someone who is not only inflicting harm on their own, but is willing to inflict harm on others within the region of the Middle East and even potentially here on our own continent is a threat we must take seriously and that is something that needs particular action.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the comments of the two Alliance members debating among themselves on this point. This illustrates the point I will make on consistency. The member did suggest that there was inconsistency in the Liberal position.

If the member had been here during the last two nights for the whole time he would have seen, as I have seen, that we have been entirely consistent. Members of the Liberal Party and many members of his party have insisted that there must be peace. They have said that everything we do should be through peaceful means and then we will work multilaterally.

We want to work through international law. We have not precluded military action. Many members on this side have said this time and time again. However, the debate seems to be on the hon. member's side. He began asking why we were suggesting military action, when member after member of the official opposition demanded to know from members of all the other parties throughout this debate whether they would take military action?

Inconsistency is not on this side of the House.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to do my best to answer the question. I am not clear what the member was asking.

Following the debate as I have and as many Canadians have over last night and tonight, we are concerned about what is happening in Iraq and we want to resolve the problem.

I will take the opportunity, if the member says the debate is going over well on the other side, to ask where the leadership was? The government does nothing but portray anyone who says we need to support our allies or even work with countries such as the United States as being pro-American.

If anything, the government has shown poor anti-American sentiments. If it were proactive, I would argue, it would have had a more positive effect on foreign policy in the United States than any other country because of our proximity and relation to the United States.

It is because the government has been so absent on foreign affairs relations, and especially its relations with the United States, that now maybe if the member has something to complain about he should be pointing the finger at himself.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to engage in this important debate.

It seems to me that the starting point of any debate should be, what is the available evidence and does that evidence disclose a threat to our own peace and security? If the evidence discloses that there is no appreciable threat to our peace and security, then why would we engage in hostilities? If, however, the evidence does disclose a risk, we may or may not wish to enter into hostilities based upon the analysis of the evidence of the risk.

I made a point of reading Prime Minister Blair's document. It is well argued and an intelligent and cogent document, but I must admit that it was somewhat muddy. The material in it was open to all kinds of interpretations, not necessarily the interpretation that the Prime Minister would like to put upon it.

That is, I am afraid, what we are dealing with in the public domain. Namely, we are left with speculation, hearsay, gossip and conjecture which, frankly, no rational jurist would admit, let alone consider as evidence in any kind of low level criminal case. There is an enormous difference between what we would consider to be evidence and what is intelligence.

Not only was the material put forward somewhat dubious--I want to correct myself in that I do not want to criticize Prime Minister Blair's material as dubious--but the media material was somewhat dubious. Our difficulty is that virtually none of our intelligence is self-generated. Regrettably, we end up relying on Americans and sometimes the British for our information. While they are fine people and helpful to us, I would be somewhat skeptical, however, that it does not go through an American or British filter. That filter may or may not coincide with our own.

The first point I want to make is that intelligence is not evidence. Evidence, such as it is, is not independently verifiable and that is the nature of the beast. It is source driven and somewhat filtered by those who create it. Necessarily, in the public domain the evidence is somewhat limited. Based upon the foregoing, we are then invited to go to war by the Bush administration.

There is not a person in the House of Commons who has any serious understanding of the intelligence or evidence, as one may call it, other than those like myself who have read it second or third hand in the media fed by certain sources. It does not sound like an overly rational reason for going to engage in hostilities.

My second point concerns the war on terrorism or the so-called war on terrorism. It appears to have no limits. Even allowing that the western world and the U.S. in particular had every right to strike back at al-Qaeda, surely Canadians have the right to know why the original war on terrorism must now spread to Iraq. The results to date have been somewhat less than outstanding.

So far only about 8 out of the 25 al-Qaeda people have been captured or killed. There is no evidence or intelligence that either bin Laden or Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri has either been killed or captured. In fact there is some evidence that al-Zawahiri was allowed to escape through either the bungling or corruption of our Afghani surrogates. There is no evidence that they are hiding out in Iraq. Rather, the evidence points to Pakistan and Indonesia and some lawless points between Iran and Afghanistan.

Not having done the job in Afghanistan, President Bush wants to further destabilize the region by chasing down weapons of mass destruction in another country while leaving conditions for breeding terror untouched in Afghanistan. We appear to be awfully good at bombing people from five miles up, but not really interested in doing the heavy lifting required to take Afghanistan out of the Dark Ages and point it toward democracy and the rule of law. It would be interesting to compare the costs of waging war with the costs of waging peace.

Every time we in the west invade a country we get sucked into the rhetoric of free the peace loving people of Afghanistan, of Iraq or whatever. Five years later we are still not out of Bosnia or Kosovo. It is utter hypocritical nonsense. We spend billions making war in Afghanistan and spend virtually nothing on what is needed to get Afghanistan going in the direction of peace, stability and prosperity.

Point number two is that not having done the job in Afghanistan we now propose invading another country while convincing ourselves of our own generosity.

The third point is that invading Iraq is counterproductive to the so-called war on terrorism. Going around the region making enemies of those very countries that we may need as allies in order to prosecute the war against al-Qaeda and terrorist entities is just plain dumb.

So far Pakistan has been an ally. That is based, frankly, on a number of huge incentives to Musharraf and his government. There has been some cooperation, but invading Iraq will be likely seen as an attack on Islam. Hussein will play that card for all it is worth and Musharraf will have to deal with an enormous constituency which sympathizes with the al-Qaeda and which will inevitably put pressure on him.

Never mind that this group confuses Islam and Islamism, a particularly nasty and fascist form of Islam, what truly is worrisome is that while the U.S. is on its little venture in Iraq, Pakistan could be destabilized and the al-Qaeda, or versions thereof, could actually seize weapons of mass destruction. Never mind the pathetic efforts of Mr. Hussein to try to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, as set out in Mr. Blair's report, rather, we should be really worried that there is access to a country that actually has built and can deliver weapons of mass destruction.

It is frequently said that the U.S. is the only remaining superpower. However even the only remaining superpower cannot bomb everyone and everything.

Saddam is crazy but removing him from power only opens up all kinds of other problems. The Kurds will feel more aggressive against Turkey and Iran. The Shiite Muslims in the south of Iraq will want to assert themselves against the Sunni majority. The House of Saud, another nasty and corrupt regime, will have certain elements of its society emboldened. Iran may see this incursion as an opportunity to join forces with its Shia brethren.

Even the world's only remaining superpower does not have the resources to cope with all the forces that would be unleashed by a successful invasion, a successful regime change and a successful winding up of weapons of mass destruction. Success will be very difficult to measure and will be a long time coming, even if it is a short war.

As the Chinese proverb goes, “Be careful for what you wish for because you might get it”.

In some ways the worst thing that could happen is a successful invasion. Not only do we unleash the unknown but we also create an environment for some ironical results, such as creation of new al-Qaeda cells in areas in which we cannot pay attention.

Finally, I want to comment upon the back and forth of UN resolutions. This strikes me as a giant smokescreen. It is good that the U.S. seeks a multilateral UN-driven approach. I would like to think that Canada had something to do with that. However let us be candid here. Hussein has no interest in UN resolutions and will only agree or disagree as it suits him.

Similarly, the U.S. has very little interest in UN resolutions and if Iraq shows any willingness to comply then the U.S. will simply up the ante.

The U.S. wants a regime change, pure and simple, and it wants it by any means. Apparently it is not overly fussy about what means it might use. It leaves countries like Canada in a strange and difficult position. I hope the U.S. will reconsider its recent comments about assassination as a means of regime change.

Iraq has been an unstable, complex country for a long time. The evidence does not support an invasion, the consequences, both short and long term, are unknowable and the results may actually expand the war on terrorism rather than narrow it.

It is always a good idea in sports to keep one's eye on the ball; the same is true in war.

The issue is terrorism and its ability to project itself into the west. Canada should not participate even if the U.S. tortures the United Nations into sanctioning an invasion.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's presentation and found it to be actually quite shocking.

First, he refuses to acknowledge that weapons of mass destruction in fact are being produced in Iraq. He said that the intelligence produced was not evidence. He is a lawyer so I forgive him for his thinking.

What evidence are we waiting for? The only real evidence, if inspectors are not allowed in, would be the use of one of these weapons of mass destruction against either Hussein's own people, a neighbouring country or us. That is the only real evidence if the hon. member wants to wait until evidence is produced.

The intelligence from the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom has indicated that weapons of mass destruction are there and that Hussein is actively trying to increase that stockpile. The member said, yes, but that intelligence is filtered through the government's eye.

What about the CSIS document that was put out in January or February which stated that Saddam Hussein was actively trying to produce an atomic weapon and to deliver that atomic weapon?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am charmed by the hon. member's blind faith in intelligence. In talking to those who actually produce intelligence documents and reading material that is intelligence documents, much of which is frequently taken off the Internet, there is a lot less veracity to it than meets the eye. My point in raising it was that what is in the public domain is not evidence that would convict someone of a petty theft. It is something well below that. Having said that, it does not mean that the material that is generated is not useful intelligence.

The point I want to make with the hon. member is that he needs to look at the Blair document, the CSIS document and the material in the public domain with a very skeptical eye because the consequence is that we end up going to war on the basis of sometimes dubious material.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of a rather different sort.

I know that in the last number of weeks various individuals in positions of influence and power in our country have indicated that terrorism around the world has been created or caused by western wealth. Would the hon. member opposite be of the view that western wealth is to blame for Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons program?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can make a connection between this dot and that dot and then get all the way out to that dot. However, there are conditions.

There is a growing discrepancy between the wealth in the west and various other areas of the world. It creates conditions in and of themselves which lead to irrational actions and to conditions where people will respond to irrational rhetoric.

The distinction I made was between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a fine religion that has been around for many years but when conditions are left to fester and fester then there is an appeal to Islamism among people which is just not warranted.

As I said, I do not think I can connect all those dots but, at the same time, I do not think that we in the west should be contributing to the creation of conditions of great difficulty for many people.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on the following motion:

That this House take note of the international situation concerning Iraq.

Indeed, this is an important and tragic situation in which Canada must play its role as well as possible. Let us first try to put the problem in context.

There are serious doubts about the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons in Iraq. There are also questions as to whether a dictator might be able and willing to use these weapons of mass destruction.

The reality is that there are also other factors which must be taken into consideration. First of all, there is the oil situation in this region; this is very important. Some people, including the Americans, may be very interested in taking control of what is produced in this region.

There is also a very powerful lobby of arms producers, which is there on the eve of the American elections to exert influence in order to be able to sell a product. These elements are all part of the reality of the situation.

In this country, there was a war in the early 1990s, because Iraq had invaded Kuwait. There was a reaction from the international community. Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, but nobody went so far as to topple the government of Saddam Hussein.

The Americans themselves supplied arms to Saddam Hussein's government. In fact, they probably also supplied raw materials for the production of biological weapons.

Our challenge is to ensure that there is a peaceful solution to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction and these biological weapons, if they exist, so that they cannot be activated. A peaceful solution to the current situation must be found. If our final objective is to topple Saddam Hussein, that is not the same objective as ensuring peace. We have a responsibility in this regard.

Last night, we heard what I think was the most unfortunate statement in many months and years. It was perhaps terrorism's greatest victory when the U.S. president's spokesman said that he was prepared to go as far as selective assassination to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I think, unfortunately, that this is a victory for terrorism.

Those who want to see problems resolved through violence are winning the battle. They are even winning it in a country which considers itself the most democratic in the world and which is, at the same time, the most powerful economic and military force in the world.

It is not our responsibility, as a friend to the United States, to always say exactly what they say. As friends, whether referring to people or countries, we do not always try to parrot them, but to help them by making suggestions that may be of interest. In the present case, I think that we need to provide for the greatest number of opportunities to find diplomatic solutions to the current situation.

This is not just about Iraq. We are trying to define a new framework for international action. On the one hand, there is the international community and the United Nations, who want to come up with diplomatic solutions, peaceful solutions based on a legal framework. On the other hand, there are currently people in government in the U.S. who think that a hawkish solution can solve every issue, which is unfortunate. They figured that the situation in Afghanistan could be solved by war, but nothing has yet been solved.

They also believe that the “might is right” rule will solve all of the problems on the planet, but this in not true. In the medium and long term, issues are not settled in this way.

In the end, there are thousands of human lives at stake. If there is a war and a massive military action in Iraq, it will be men and women and children, Iraqis, Americans, and even Canadians and Quebeckers who will pay the price for this terrible decision.

Before resorting to this type of solution, we should try to solve the underlying problem. Is Iraq producing weapons of massive destruction and lethal biological weapons that could threaten the balance of the planet, that could be used against the United States, the western world and the entire planet, or not? Do these weapons exist or not?

We have a draft of a diplomatic solution on the table that is of considerable interest. There is an agreement between Iraq and the United Nations to allow inspections to resume. I believe we should exhaust that possibility before opting to intervene in some other way.

I am disappointed, very disappointed even. Yesterday evening, a debate took place in this House, and a number of members of all parties spoke, particularly members of the Liberal majority. They told us that peace is important, that peaceful solutions are important, that they had to be given precedence. At the same time as this was being said, the Prime Minister of Canada saw fit to state that supporting the Americans' call for a new resolution was a short term solution, this without having any idea of the content of that resolution, yet being well aware that this approach was in some way fueling the conflict.

If the decision is made to put aside the agreement with Iraq on allowing the inspectors in, and to await a new and more stringent UN resolution, days, weeks and even months may go by before the international community adopts any firm position. This could pave the way for all manners of actions that would later be regretted.

I have a hard time understanding Canada's position today. It appears to belong only to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The rest of the Liberal members did not seem to be very much on side with it. They seemed more in favour of the necessity of doing our utmost to seek a diplomatic solution, of indeed sending inspectors on Iraqi soil in order to verify whether such weapons are in fact there and whether actions are called for.

A number of experts, including Hans Blix who heads the UN inspection team, refuse to delay the return of the inspectors. I think the message they are delivering is a clear one. The international community hopes to see the solution involve diplomatic avenues and to make as much use of these as possible. In the end, after an evaluation, if the United Nations is of the opinion that Iraq ought indeed to carry out the destruction of certain weapons, there are mechanisms already in place for this. Also, this would be the time to revisit the situation and this would be the time to set deadlines. We are, however, nowhere near that point yet.

As for the Americans, we are still at the stage where, regardless of what is proposed, it will never be enough to prevent them from taking action. This is very dangerous, because it tends to spread a might is right attitude on our planet. The world's most powerful nation, from an economic and military point of view, will call the shots. The United States will become both judge and jury.

We do not want this type of decision making process. This is not the world we want in the future and this is not the type of solution we want in the short term for Iraq. There are many other situations in the world that might warrant the same type of short and middle term action.

What right does a nation have to act as a judge of what is happening on our planet? I believe some important messages should be conveyed to the U.S. government.

This should be done by a government like the Government of Canada, a friendly government that also has a long-standing reputation for advocating diplomatic solutions to problems.

Some have argued that, in the past, there were situations where this was not the appropriate solution. However, it does not mean that, because it did not work once or twice, we should not continue to work to find peaceful solutions in the future.

This evening, as we are addressing all Canadians, let us not forget that military missions will be carried out by Canadians and Quebeckers in this conflict. For this reason, it is clear that the House of Commons has to vote on this, as it will on the Kyoto protocol. If it is important for the future of our environment, it is all the more important in the short term that we vote on commitments made by the Canadian government with regard to a conflict about which the public has reservations.

I urge the government to be very cautious in expressing what I would call its spontaneous support. Yesterday, when he was accepting an award, the Prime Minister felt that he had to reach out to the Americans. The photo shown in the newspapers spoke volumes. Mr. Kissinger has not always been blameless. There were actions that led to things such as selective assassinations.

We absolutely must make a firm stand and tell the Americans that the inspectors have to be allowed to do a full assessment. This is the solution for the future and the one we must convince the U.S. government and the international community to go for. Our voices must be heard, loud and clear, on this issue.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his remarks. However I would also like to remind my colleague of an earlier day too and an earlier resolution or promise that was waived and had great hope and high expectations from the people of the world, and certainly the people of Europe too. We all know that Prime Minister Chamberlain waved aloft this final agreement, one of many signed documents and pieces of paper that he had received at Hitler at the time.

I suppose I would ask my colleague this. Is this not comparable to this day? Is this is not one of the reasons why the United States and England, with their superior intelligence to back it up and substantiate it, have watched Saddam set aside 15 United Nations resolutions? What makes the 16th one work?

Would it not be prudent good sense and rational thought to say, yes, let us watch this final UN resolution as it transpires on through, but let us carry on with the process of plan B because the likelihood of that resolution coming to successful fruition is very slim indeed? Would he not think it would be prudent for them to carry on with their ideas and carry on--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the example of Mr. Chamberlain was before the United Nations was created, after World War II. In fact, since then, we have developed means of communication between peoples and nations, and we must develop them for the future as well. It seems to me that we are far from having exhausted all available diplomatic means.

As for the superior intelligence of the Americans and the British, given what went on with al-Qaeda, it is my opinion that these two countries have failed miserably, despite the billions of dollars spent; and they did not succeed in preventing these attacks. In my view, they are no more credible when it comes to the intelligence they might have, particularly since Mr. Blair's document, which was supposed to provide us with clear evidence, was viewed as unsatisfactory by governments worldwide, with the obvious exception of the United States, which is using it to back its case. However, for the rest of the planet, there has been nothing to say that we have the evidence and that we can act on it.

We must not be naive; that is obvious. It is also obvious that we must be prepared to take action if necessary. However, before attacking and then checking whether we were right, we would do better to check whether we are right first and attack later if necessary, if the Iraqi leaders do not change their tune.

When we have weighed the actual gains against the losses in human life, I hope that the scales will provide us with an answer. Otherwise, history will hold us responsible for a very bad decision, a very bad recommendation, especially if we do not send this message clearly to the U.S. government.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that this debate is taking place in an atmosphere of uncertainty. The question that comes to mind, while listening to the various interventions and while reading about developments in the newspapers and media, is: Will the U.S. administration abide by the policy directions emanating from the United Nations Security Council? That is a question that is unanswerable at this time.

Parallel to that question is whether American public opinion will manage to influence the administration in Washington or will President Bush manage to draw American public opinion to his side and attack Iraq in the new year, even if inspectors, who are expected to be in Iraq as of the middle of this month, give a reassuring report.

From the mail that I have received, it is quite evident that Canadians do not want to go to war and do not want our troops sent to Iraq. Canadians believe that the United Nations is the institution that can be entrusted for peacekeeping and prefer to have the Iraq question resolved by the Security Council.

Canadians feel the war in Afghanistan has not been completed and there is a war in Palestine. These two situations do not justify the opening of a third front in Iraq where the outcome of that intervention may be quite unclear at this stage. How will American forces be able to withdraw safely and leave behind an improved and new Iraq is a very legitimate question to be posed at this time.

The case that has been made for the war against Iraq has been presented by President Bush along four points.

The first point is that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. That is true. We would all rejoice if Iraq became a democracy. Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator in the world or in the Middle East. It is not acceptable therefore for one country to use military force to remove a dictator from power in another country.

Second, it is said that Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator. This is also true. However many of Saddam Hussein's abuses occurred at a time when western governments were supporting and supplying him in his war against Iran.

Third, President Bush says that for many years Iraq has flouted many United Nations resolutions. That is also true. However Iraq is not alone. Many other resolutions have been ignored by other countries for even longer periods.

We are then left with the fourth part of this case and that is the allegation that Saddam Hussein has continued to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons contrary to United Nations resolutions and has refused to allow effective inspections by United Nations representatives, again over a period of many years. One can reply to that by saying that military action to enforce United Nations resolutions can be authorized only by the United Nations Security Council.

It is not for one country to take military action alone or with the support of its allies. The decision cannot and must not be taken by one man, President Bush or anyone else, on the basis that he is not satisfied with Saddam Hussein's response to the United Nations resolutions or the findings of the United Nations inspectors.

In his speech at the United Nations, President Bush said that the situation is an important test for the United Nations. That was quite an important recognition. He is right in saying that. However it is not only a question of whether the United Nations can control Iraq but it is also a question of whether the United Nations can control the United States of America.

Last night our Minister of Foreign Affairs made the point for Canada very well when he said that the appropriate forum for discussion and the authorization of an action was the United Nations Security Council. The Prime Minister himself conveyed this message in Detroit when he met President Bush. He indicated clearly the preference of the Canadian people.

The other point the Minister of Foreign Affairs made last night was that the objective for us, and I think the global community that is interested in this very difficult matter, is to rid the Iraqi regime of weapons of mass destruction. There are those who claim that regime change is the only means to this end and if Iraq refuses to cooperate, they may turn out to be right. However our responsibility to Canadians, to the world community and to the future of the international rule of law is to be certain that we have exhausted all other options and that we so conduct ourselves in this crisis that the international order on which Canada so much depends emerges strengthened and reinvigorated.

It seems to me this is a very sound approach to which most Canadians would subscribe, except for those who prefer an isolationist type of policy just in North America regardless of what the rest of the global community is saying.

I am also very anxious to put on the record, as the member for Oakville did last night, the fact that the former senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and ex-marine, Mr. Scott Ritter, stated repeatedly in giving evidence before a commission that as of December 1998 Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed and possessed no meaningful weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency certified also that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear weapons program.

It seems to me now that in two weeks a visit by the inspectors to Iraq will bring out additional information. It may confirm what Scott Ritter has testified. It may give us different information. It seems to me that we have to bide our time and make sure that we are on the right path in dealing with this extremely delicate and potentially dangerous situation.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said first of all that people do not want to go to war and do not want to have Canadian military intervention. That is a motherhood statement. Of course people do not want to go to war and do not want Canadian military intervention or any military intervention. I think that goes without saying. Second, he said that people would prefer a peaceful resolution through a UN resolution. Of course people would prefer that. Who on earth would not? These are givens.

The member went on to say that Iraq is not the only dictatorship and Saddam Hussein is not the only person who ignores UN resolutions. He went through that argument. That is true, but what the member refuses to acknowledge is that Iraq is the only country known to have chemical and biological weapons and is very close to producing nuclear weapons. It has a delivery system, the scud missiles left over from the gulf war of which 10 to 20 are missing.

Also, Saddam Hussein has threatened to use them against the United States and its ally, Canada. Not only has he threatened to use them but he has proven that he is very willing to do so because he has done so in the past. He used them against his own people. He used them against the Kurds. He invaded Kuwait when he said he would. When he has threatened to do something in the past, he has followed through with it. What makes the member think he will not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its ally, Canada, if he could?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the questions raised by the member for Lakeland are probably the essence of this debate.

So far the weapons have not been used. Evidently there must be a reason. Either it is restraint, they do not exist or they may be in the process of being manufactured. We do not know. This is why the international community has decided to send in inspectors to find out rather than to judge a priori without knowledge.

What surprises me is that the member for Lakeland in his intervention refused to mention or to acknowledge at least the existence of Scott Ritter, the former senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq and his testimony to the effect that no meaningful weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq until now. He is an American citizen and he is making this declaration so there are conflicting views in this respect.

For a government to be responsible to its population at home and abroad it should be very careful before reaching conclusions and it should wait until all the facts are in. This is why the inspection as of the middle of this month in Iraq is such a welcome development. It would not have been possible had it not been for the initiative of the United Nations.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our foreign affairs minister, whom I respect a great deal, has said that he would support Canada's acceptance and participation in a military intervention with the United States if all diplomatic initiatives had been exhausted because Iraq would pose an imminent threat to regional stability.

Would my friend on the other side apply that same reasoning to Canada supporting an active, multinational intervention in Zimbabwe, where six million people will die in the next six months as a direct result of Robert Mugabe's actions? What about in the Congo, where two million people have died? What about in Angola, where people are dying right now as a result of a famine, or in Liberia where Charles Taylor chops off the limbs of children just to terrorize the population? Would the hon. member support an act of multinational intervention in those countries where the magnitude of suffering is far greater?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I did not say what the hon. member attributes to me.

The position that the Government of Canada has taken and with which I concur is that we would be moving into a military phase only if and when the Security Council arrived at the conclusion that this would be the only and inevitable action to be taken. If that is what the hon. member means by the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts, then that is a correct interpretation.

It seems that the hon. member is mixing apples and oranges by referring to the situation in Zimbabwe because that is a completely different set of circumstances where famine exists. It is not an issue of weaponry nor of an attack on neighbouring countries. That is a humanitarian condition which would require--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to invade Iraq or not to invade Iraq. That is the question we are dealing with today. It is a very delicate situation. Saddam Hussein is evil, pure and simple, beginning and end but is that grounds for invasion at this point in time? That is what we are grappling with today.

It would be prudent for us to look at objectives. What are our objectives and those of Saddam Hussein? Our objectives are twofold: stability in the Middle East and the war against terrorism. It is not at this point in time a regime change. According to the UN resolutions that we support, it is the identification and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein's objectives are a little different. He wants to be the dominant player in the Persian Gulf. By all intelligence accounts, he was not involved in the attacks of September 11. In fact his goals are somewhat different from those of the terrorists. Their goals would be an attack against corrupt Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia. It is also an objective for them to change modern Islamic states into ones that are more fundamental. It is a war between Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic moderation.

Let us assume for a moment that Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction, both chemical and biological weapons. To date all intelligence, including the very eloquent British analysis, states that he does not have nuclear weapons at this time. There are certainly indications that he has been pursuing this through uranium tubing he has been trying to get in Africa. I might add there is a connection with Robert Mugabe and Mugabe's actions in the Congo where there are vast stores of uranium. Saddam Hussein is evil but he is not stupid.

Why does Saddam Hussein want weapons of mass destruction? To be the big bully in the Middle East, to scare off potential attacks by the United States, to inflict penalties and punishment against people within his own country, as he has done with the Kurds in northern Iraq, and also for larger aggressive interventions in the region which he demonstrated in Kuwait.

We may need to remove him from power, absolutely. The question is do we need to do it tomorrow? I would argue that we have some time. We have to exhaust all diplomatic possibilities before we look at the military option because we have to think of the consequences.

An attack on Iraq would do a number of things. It would jeopardize our primary objective which is the war on terrorism. If there was an attack on Iraq we could be sure Saddam Hussein would use his weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, against our troops and those of our allies.

He would also fire them off against Israel because Israel is doing intelligence operations in Iraq right now according to Jane's monthly reports. He would also attack nations that comply with the United States and us. Israel of course would respond in kind, probably with nuclear weapons, setting off an armageddon in the Middle East with massive numbers of casualties.

Also, invading Iraq would open up a third front in a very unstable region. Afghanistan is in turmoil and the situation between Palestine and Israel is also very unstable.

We have to look at other options. We have to look at some of the political solutions that need to be applied in conjunction with pushing Saddam Hussein to adopt the ultimate resolution which is a no notice, no holds barred weapons inspection anyplace, anywhere, anytime and give him a temporal end point for all this to happen, not now, but soon. The reason I say this is that we have to adopt a number of other initiatives at the same time.

First, and I say this particularly to our American friends down south, we have to be seen as a fair player in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We have to push for a Palestinian Authority that is democratic, that is not corrupt, and will work for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people need a free and secure state. Israel needs a free and secure state. Their security must be assured.

Jerusalem is a city for all people. Not only is it important to Jews and Muslims but it is also important to Christians. Israeli settlements have to get out of the West Bank.

Second, the United States and its allies cannot be seen to be blindly supporting Saudi Arabia. In fact it is Saudi Arabia that is the number one threat to Middle East security. It is ruled by the House of Ibn Saud. There are 5,000 princes. They have been draining the public coffers in an undemocratic way and they have been leaving their fellow countrymen in a state of poverty. The number of people becoming restless is growing and their poverty is enlarging, creating a fertile ground for a cataclysmic event along the lines of what we saw in Iran. Saudi Arabia is the major threat to regional security in the Middle East at this time.

America must be seen to be engaging in not only political but economic emancipation in Saudi Arabia as well as in other countries, and it must get and curry favour with other Arab nations to pursue this because if it does not there will be massive regional instability in the region. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will pay a heavy penalty.

We also have to pursue a line in the sand for Saddam Hussein and his regime and engage the Arab states to do the same. The Arab states have a vested interest in supporting us to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. As my colleagues mentioned, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people in Kurdistan. He fired off rockets against Riyadh, he has invaded Kuwait and the list goes on.

If we do pursue a military option down the road, which may be entirely possible and feasible, those are the preconditions. Those other actions must be addressed. We must address the Palestinian-Israeli situation. We must be seen to be a fair player in Saudi Arabia. We cannot blindly support Saudi Arabia for the oil that is there. We have to look at political and economic emancipation in that country and work with other Arab nations to that end. We must engage Arab countries to do that.

If we do go into Iraq we have to understand that it will be for the long haul. We cannot simply go in, invade and leave as we usually do, because if we do we will be leaving a power vacuum that will enable that country to descend into a perilous state. We usually go in, engage and leave without following up with the democratic institutional building blocks that have to be put in place. We are seeing that now in Afghanistan, where failure to actually engage in the political and economic development of the country is fostering the warlords, the natural state of affairs in Afghanistan. If we do not continue to engage actively in political and economic emancipation in Afghanistan, we will see the warlords fight it out and Afghanistan will go back to being the backwater that it has been for decades. It too will be a failed state along the lines of Somalia.

In the end, if we were to go into Iraq it would set an interesting precedent for a number of other profound tragedies that exist in our world today. I mentioned to my hon. friend from Davenport that in Zimbabwe six million people, the same number of people who died in the Holocaust, will potentially die in the next six months from a famine politically engineered by Robert Mugabe, who is using food as a weapon to kill half his population. The people who did not and do not support him will be killed by their leader depriving them of food. Will we intervene to help those people?

Are we going to intervene in the Congo, where two million people have died in the last two years and no one has said anything? Will we intervene in Liberia, where a man by the name of Charles Taylor, with impunity, supports regional instability in the area and thugs such as Foday Sanko, who has been involved with the chopping off of the limbs of innocent men, women and children, not to kill them but to terrorize them. Charles Taylor is a criminal like Robert Mugabe is a criminal like Mobutu Sese Seko was a criminal. Are we going to intervene?

My time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that our country engages the Americans to take a larger, broader look at regional stability, not only in the Middle East but in other countries. We have an exciting opportunity to use this. The military is one option which we may have to use and we will support it if necessary after we exhaust all diplomatic possibilities.

A firm line in the sand has to be drawn with Saddam Hussein. We must be firm in our resolve to keep it that way in the interests of security, not only for us and the United States but also for the security of all people in the Middle East, especially the Iraqi people.